Giving and Receiving

 

I enjoy giving charity. No. “Enjoy” isn't the right word. Nor is it a matter of noblesse oblige. There is something condescending about such an idea: that we “rich” people have an obligation to help the poor folk. It isn't like that though. I may not be rich but I do recognize some kind of obligation to help others even if I regret the need to do so. But more to the point, I view it as an obligation of everyone, irrespective of his resources. Those who can afford to do so should certainly give more than those less able, but the obligation belongs to us all. It is sad to note that no matter how poorly we are doing, there is always someone who is worse off than we. We are all responsible for others.

Whatever it is though – however it's defined – there is one thing that is essential to me. I am giving freely. At least, the compulsion to give is internal, not deriving from any external source. I give (or I work for a public organization – sometimes “sweat equity” is what is needed most) because I want to – because I feel the need to – not because someone else tells me I must.

But, unfortunately, that's the way it works nowadays. While the government makes allowance for voluntary contributions, and even “helps out” by making many of them tax-deductible, there is a system of allotments from government funds for food, housing, health, and all manner of other benefits for voters, non-voters, constituents and contributors.ⁱ And we have developed a mindset that considers such allotments as the right of the recipient. Because, according to “common knowledge,” we have created poverty – we have made the poor poor – it is our legal obligation to support them. Is charity a test of the giver or an entitlement of the recipient?

The latter is the view of many of our fellows, and certainly of the majority of those receiving aid. They are entitled to support. The government – that is, each of us – has a legal obligation to provide for their needs irrespective of the reason for those needs. So what was once a necessity for survival is now a right. And what was once freely given charity is now tax.ⁱⁱ We resent the forced giving, and the recipient resents us. There is neither willingness on the part of the giver, nor any feeling of gratitude by the recipient.

Perhaps, when giving true charity, seeking gratitude will be viewed as inappropriate and as condescension, but that is not its value. For some, though not all, the recognition that the assistance that they receive stems from good will, not obligation, may provide the impetus to work harder to avoid a future need for more. Certainly there are those who choose poverty as a way of life, and there are those who would not accept charity irrespective of how it is labeled, but they are the minority. We can only hope that those who accept aid will be inspired to find a way to avoid the need for it in the future.

But for those who view aid as an entitlement, there is little impetus to find another way. If what they receive comes by right, then no one can criticize them, and there is no reason to seek any other way of achieving their needs.ⁱⁱⁱ Why should they? After all, they are only getting what is due them.

It is better to give than to receive. Perhaps. It is certainly better to be able to give than to have to receive. So I'm grateful for the ability to help. “Grateful.” That's the word. It's one that can apply both to the giver and receiver. It's definitely better than “resentful.”

Next episode: “Politics As Usual” – You thought there was a difference?

i     It has nothing to do with charity, but contributors and organizations with good lobbyists get a large part of the available government money. Of course they defend their windfalls as investments in the improvement of life for those who need it most.

ii    Feelings of guilt drive the urge to give away tax money. Of course, it's usually someone else's money. And those giving it away are often looking for the votes of the recipients. Or if they're corporations, the politicians are looking for their contributions.

iii   Many people consider this view to be mean and an elitist one. They regard those who question the rationale of throwing money at problems as the real villains, and those who collect these “entitlements” as the victims of a repressive society. Oscar Lewis introduced the term “Culture of Poverty” in 1959 to depict a way of life in which poverty was assumed and accepted, and, in 1965, the term was popularized by Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Perhaps it is time to rethink our entire welfare and entitlement systems so that they will more successfully encourage an end to the “cycle of poverty.”