Congrats to Lenore Ealy on her new Philanthropic Enterprise Gang Blog. She shows great courage taking on the Happy Tutor in one of her initial posts. As a mild mannered honest broker, I can see merit on both sides, and will move out of the way as quickly as possible. This is not your Dick Minim style philanthropic conversation any more. It is all about wealth, power, and politics - one person promoting the ideology of Wealth Bondage, the other, subverting it. (But which is which you ask? Take AP English and report back.)
Post a comment
Your Information
(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)
Thank you for the link. I added a comment to her site. She points at an issue that has been engaging me lately as I interact with more and more extremely wealthy individuals, some of whom consider themselves to be philanthropists, and become increasingly familiar with how they live their day-to-day lives, including the incredible gap between the two identities. I think we must learn to separate the idea of virtue within the giver and that of virtue within the gift. They are the ones who deal with the balance of their karma. We just get to unwrap the gifts (and dodge the arrows).
Posted by: Indigo Ocean | August 17, 2005 at 08:23 PM
Fascinating, Indigo. Could you elaborate? Love your wisdom. I could use some if you have a chance to come back and share it.
Posted by: Phil | August 17, 2005 at 08:51 PM
Thank you for your kind words of invitation. I am trying to make more time to participate in the online community again. I've had an intensely busy past year, but I love the interaction of the blogosphere, and have missed that.
To elaborate a bit, I have had many people approach me with questions about the abusive behavior of some highly visible philanthropists in my circle of associates. They ask me to explain what to them is an incomprehensible inconsistency. But good deeds aren't always done by good people. Many times we have to walk the razor's edge in accepting assistance on behalf of those in need, even granting special priviledges and honors to people we know to be hostile, greedy, and generally just piss-bastards. Those we are accepting the funds for will probably never meet these "hard to love" benefactors. They just receive the services. And the benefactor gets the prestige of proximity to those who impress them, plus the ego boost of public acknowledgement as a person of good works and wealth. Everyone benefits, except those who look to closely and become disillusioned and cynical. The problem is with the original illusion that associates good deeds with virtuousness in the first place.
Posted by: Indigo Ocean | August 18, 2005 at 04:55 PM
Thanks for sharing that, IO. Those inconsistencies abound. I remember working with a donor who had an exaggerated view of the innate goodness of the poor--she had a kind of "noble savage" thing going on. You worry about those donors sustaining their giving after a hard fall.
Posted by: Phil A. | August 18, 2005 at 07:33 PM
IO, that is the wisest and most balanced account I have ever read of the paradox that good deeds are often done by not so good people for mixed motives with consequences that may not be all good or all bad.
Isaiah Berlin's favorite quotation wasfrom Kant, "From the crooked timber of humanity, nothing straight was ever made."
Posted by: phil cubeta | August 19, 2005 at 12:16 PM