The superego, as Zizek has said, bombards the ego with impossible demands. To which demands the ego responds with a shrug. Life goes on, guilty conscience or no. So Philanthropy, like the conscience, bombards her loving spouse, Capitalism, with impossible demands for kindness, justice, fairness, and good will towards all. But should her husband give all he has to the poor and follow Jesus, Philanthropy would divorce him and marry some other rich Pharisee, to serve as his Social Conscience.
C.f., "The Moral Dimension of Philanthropy in an Era of Scarcity," by H. Peter Karoff.
C.f, "Will Women Fund Their own Revolution," by Helen LaKelly Hunt.
Philanthropy sits in the Parlor discussing justice. Her husband and her husband's fraternity brother sit in the counting house, discussing the real money, not just the pin money given to Philanthropy, along with her shoe budget, dress budget, and budget for cut flowers.
The women of wealth and the children of wealth are ardent for giving, whole hog, unstinting.
C.f, Bolder Giving
But knowledge is power, and the power that comes with mastering the money, the power that comes from sitting at the planning table, is denied these women and children. Ignorance is bliss. Knowledge is guilty. Best that the two conversations, that of wealth planning and that of philanthropy remain as separate as weekday is from sabbath, or conscience from superego.
If a vision of justice were awakened, would it not be best to keep it in the dark? If my daughter were to give away all I gave her or half of every dollar, I would love her dearly and give her nothing, or little enough. We who have knowledge and power must protect the innocent from themselves. For this we have estate planning, trusts, guardians, and the budget the wife and child get for philanthropy. How sweet they look!
C.f., Inspired Legacies, by Tracy Gary.
When inspired, Philanthropy may yet knock on the door of the counting house and take her rightful place at the head of the table, responsible not just for giving, but for maintaining the family wealth and the hegemony that goes with it. Or?
Phil, at times I am so sad, reading your posts. This time, for example. I am my mother. And my grandmother. Shut out, angry, although they did not fully appreciate where their anger came from. What more could they want, when all has been provided for?
And at the same time I am hopeful, because you have written this. And that's sunlight. Which, after all, is hope.
Posted by: Christine Egger | June 01, 2009 at 10:45 PM
My word, how gratifying to read your comment! The truths in that post were driven into me by strong women who would not let me get away with evasion. Now, the sadness I have is that the doors are open a crack and the strong women still sometimes hesitate to take their proper place of leadership. In the process of going from marginal to central we are changed. Giving up the privileges of being marginalized is actually very difficult. I have experienced that has a blogger. Blogging against is easier than blogging for. In any case, thank you for commenting. This was a difficult post for me because I did not work through my own inner conflict between gratitude and impatience. "Step up," I want to say to these strong women. "Can't you see how sterile is the conversation about money and giving without you? Don't let the giving conversation be marginal. Join the planning table." Then I realize that as per usual I am hectoring them and that my impatience is self defeating.
Posted by: Phil Cubeta | June 02, 2009 at 10:03 AM