By: Mark Richards, BBA 2019
This week we returned to the classroom, fresh off a few weeks of meeting as groups to research and discuss our issue areas of interest. We are continuing to craft our philosophy of philanthropy, and we have also begun considering some of the logistical processes that grantmaking entails.
In our discussion on Tuesday, we referred to Richard Gunderman’s book We Make a Life by What We Give, in which he describes four models of giving. The first, egoistic giving, is giving that is based in self-interest. This could involve, for example, a person who donates money to demonstrate his or her success. Despite causing change, this method is the least desirable of the four because of its selfish motive. The second model is compassionate giving, which seeks simply to meet immediate needs. This method, though quite accessible for many people because it does not require great wealth or expertise, carries risks. One risk is that a consistent flow of gifts will cause the recipient to become dependent on those gifts and apathetic toward his or her own progress and achievement. Gunderman’s third model is scientific giving, which was a historical response to compassionate giving that focused more on eliminating the root causes of needs rather than merely meeting the needs themselves. This model can be summarized by the maxim “Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime.” Scientific giving is markedly better than compassionate giving, but it unfortunately widens the gap between givers and receivers, because tackling the roots of an issue often requires much greater resources than the average individual can offer. This leaves many people to wonder if their comparatively small contributions could actually make a difference. The final model of giving is liberal giving. It aims to alleviate needs and eliminate their causes, but above all else it aims to make receivers into givers. These four models can each be effective, but Gunderman argues that this final model of liberal giving is the most ideal.
We have discussed principles similar to the ones behind liberal giving on several occasions in class, and those conversations have greatly informed my understanding of philanthropy. At the start of this class, I understood philanthropy as donating money in order to relieve needs or abate their causes. I didn’t realize that, more importantly than (and in tandem with) those goals, philanthropy should aim to create givers from receivers. A person’s joy in giving to and sharing with others ought to appear so attractive to the receiver that the receiver then strives to obtain that joy. Thus, as Gunderman puts it, philanthropy will make us into “people who concern ourselves more with what we can share with others than with what others can give to us” (29). I had never considered philanthropy in this way before. As we progress this semester, I intend to remind myself of this idea so that I regularly consider how I can inspire others to be better sharers through my philanthropy.