"Service First," Dr. Maslow, "If You Would Be so Kind"

Imagine a pyramid, after Maslow. Lower needs at the bottom, then social needs, then at the top not virtue, wisdom, duty, humility, or sacrifice to a higher power but of course this being America - Self Actualization.  Now, where does philanthropy fit? At the top, of course.  What the pyramid, as used in financial services training says to us, is that philanthropy is a luxury, to be engaged in after lower needs are met. You find philanthropy stories in magazines featuring the rich and famous. Interspersed with the stories of giving are those of getting, strutting at galas, and consuming. A Rolex watch, a Lear Jet, a Yacht, a Trophy Wife, a hug from a Hollywood Princess, and Philanthropy.  In these times, though, there is less money in that pyramid, and the base is broad. The base is broad because needs expand. What had been a luxury to a poorer person becomes a necessity when it has been tasted twice. So needs grow, not entirely by chance. Marketers, amidst the philanthropic stories, entice: The Rolex looks good. The Lear jet is better than the one we have. The Yatch is necessary too, given our standing in society. So, when money is tight, and the pryamid not as full at it might have been, or once was, philanthropy as the luxury of luxuries may have to be scaled back to make way for the baser "needs."

From that world of wealth I know a fugitive,  self-exiled, one who gave away her inheritance and makes a modest living promoting giving.  She writes me, speaking of how hard it is to raise money these days, and how hard it is for her to keep her own nonprofit going. She signs off as follows, as if speaking to herself, or to a parent in heaven: "Service first."

That is not what Maslow said. He said Self's Hungry Belly First, Then Self's Hunger for Sex, then Self's Hunger for Love, then Self's Hunger for Status, then Self Actualized. My friend is from an old school in which the Maslow picture would have been called, "Self Indulgent."

Comments

[Madmunk]

Toward the end of his life, Maslow eventually added transcendence to his hierarchy. There was indeed something beyond self-actualization. Make of that what you will.

(Incidentally, as a professor once told me, his adding transcendence completed Maslow's riff on what was mostly warmed-over Aristotle.)

[JJ Commoner]

One might argue that in a brave new world, one not as atomised nor competitive as (say) Maslow's westernized worldview (an assumption on my part) "service first" might be an useful way to avoid hungry belly ?

[Phil Cubeta]

Thanks, Madmonk. My question, though, really, is about the order of getting rich, then following Jesus, say, as opposed to getting religion right away. Do we not know people who go after transcendence, or virtue, prior to, or in lieu of, getting very comfortable in worldly terms? Those who wait until after they get wealthy may find that the "critical period" for mastering certain skills has passed. I know many a wise person who is broke and always was broke and never expected to be otherwise. They invested themselves in the higher concerns from 13 to the present, and what they have to show for it is motley.

[Sasha Dichter]

Great post. Using slightly different language I recently was asking whether philanthropy is a luxury good.

http://sashadichter.wordpress.com/2008/12/10/is-generosity-a-luxury-good/

My suspicion is that if we had all the data we would see smaller gifts impacted less than bigger ones in the current economy, if for no other reason than because (family) foundation assets, invested in the market, were likely more impacted in the short-term that people's take-home pay.

Do you know where to find this data?

[Phil Cubeta]

Sasha, thank you, very perceptive. I don't know where to find hard data on gifts from assets as opposed to gifts from income, or small versus large gifts. GivingUSA.org?