I
heard on the radio recently that the International Bullying
Prevention Association was holding its annual meeting in New Orleans.
That sounds like a good place to hold it. Stella Kowalski would
certainly approve, even if Stanley wouldn't be amused. New Orleans
must be the ideal place for the IBPA to meet.i
But
it set me thinking. When I searched for “Associations” in Yahoo!
I got a return of 243,000,000 results. Google had 246,000,000, but I
don't think the additional three million will make much of a
difference.ii
Both engines gave me too many results. And that sent me in two
different directions. First of all, there's altogether too much
information out there. Too many people are putting stuff on line for
the search engines to find. Which makes it all but useless to try to
study a subject exhaustively.
More
to the point, though, there are too many associations, and
organizations with special interests. Things have gotten out of
hand. When I was growing up there were a few major American
charities that pretty much covered all problems, while the English
were accused of being eccentrics – of having too many organizations
with weird agendas. Often they were interested in preserving some
form of animal life (though it never seemed that they were equally
committed to preserving humans). Now there are various American
conservation organizations that are devoted to more species than I
knew existed. In fact, since the internet and Facebook have
appeared, there has been a penchant for forming groups of all kinds.
I'm convinced that a large part of the impetus for such activity is
ego.iii
I suspect that the new organization man (or woman) is thinking: “I
know what's important, so just join my group, follow me, and I'll
lead the rest of you to the GOOD.”
One
of the most prominent manifestations of this effort is the formation
of foundations for research into all manner of diseases – some of
them virtually unknown to the public. It often appears to be a quest
for the immortality of a lost loved-one. For every disease there
appear to be several foundations named after people who suffered with
it or died from it.iv
(The same is true of laws, only those statutes seem to be named
after children who were victims of kidnaping, abuse or sexual
crimes.)
I
don't mean to suggest that any of these foundations is unworthy –
that its aims are anything less than virtuous, or that the problem
that it was established to battle isn't deserving of public aid and
attention. I'm cheered that there are so many who are eager to help
their fellows. But at a time when voluntarism is less than it has
been in the past, and when the state of the economy doesn't
contribute to generosity, the multiplicity of organizations that will
increase the burden on these resources may act in a way contrary to
our interests. Too often a new organization is created whose aims
parallel those of one or more bodies already in business.v
Either the new founders are unable to identify existing
organizations,vi
or would prefer to start their own – perhaps to obtain the
immortality of their loved one (or of themselves). In doing so,
however, there is duplication of administrative support structures as
well as a competition for resources and publicity. It's hard to
avoid the conclusion that if the same amount of money and effort were
devoted to fewer organizations, far more could be accomplished in
accomplishing the goals which they all proclaim.
Mae
West is famed for (among the other attractions) saying “Too much of
a good thing can be wonderful.”vii
I could be wrong, but somehow I don't think she was referring to
helping others. It's not up to me to decide which is the best
organization in a particular field, but before starting a new one, I
suspect that it would be beneficial to see what institutions already
exist that deal with the problem you'd like to address, and then to
use your resources to support one of them.
Unless,
of course, your goal is to immortalize your own name or that of a
friend or relative. It's a bully great way to do so
– in New Orleans or elsewhere.
Next
episode: “One Liners” – Humor and politics.
i Lest
anyone misunderstand the level of brotherly love in that city, it
should be noted that “The Big Easy's homicide rate (52 homicides
per 100,000 residents) is 10 times higher than the national average
and almost five times that of other cities of its size.” Douglas
McCollam in The Wall Street Journal, November 12-13, 2011.
ii I
probably won't read all the references.
iv It's
hard not to view the establishment of so many foundations – so
many philanthropic memorials – as overkill.
v In
fairness to the International Bullying
Prevention Association, at its founding in 2002, only a few such
organizations existed.
vii She
said many other delightful things, but I leave it to the reader to
find them.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I know you agree, but you can leave comments anyway.