Millions of dollars were raised via text messaging for Haiti this past week. A victory, surely? Maybe not. I believe that one or more of the following logics are at play when we give money to some big, over-advertised foreign charity:
1. “Good” people give money to charities. I want to show myself I am a good person.
2. “Bad” people don’t give money to charities. I want to reassure myself I am not a bad person.
3. My friend/enemy/mom/co-worker/favorite celebrity/priest gave money. I should too.
4. I want to be able to truthfully tell others that I gave money.
5. I feel guilty about having money/comfort [and still complaining about my life]. I will feel less guilty if I give money to some “good” cause.
6. I don’t actually want to help other people. It’s too hard. Texting 50 dollars is easy.
7. When I give money to charities at home, I can see that they aren’t making a huge difference. This charity is so abstract and corporate it will seem more like a happy success when we give money.
8. I believe that only rich white countries can ultimately make a difference in the world. That’s why I like being an American. I feel powerful when I make a difference.
9. Thinking about how bad things are in poor, damaged, foreign countries makes me feel good because I can remember that my life isn’t that bad. If I give money to this charity I can think about this to my hearts content without feeling guilty.
10. Thinking about how bad things are in poor, damaged, foreign countries makes me feel good because I feel reassured when things are “evil” in the old-fashioned religious, Hitler, slavery sense. It’s easier to think about, and I don’t have to think hard about what to do…it’s obvious.
We humans like simplicity, easy answers, feeling good. We have to somehow make taking responsibility for ourselves and avoiding easy solutions into the paths that feel “good,” that give us pleasure [but not easy happiness or pride or empty mind]. If we don’t, we’ll keep on being as foolish in the world as we are towards Haiti.
3 comments:
On the other hand:
1)People actually are as you described above.
2)Good on the charities for exploiting that. Even if it only means inefficiently giving one meal to one person without helping them in any real, lasting way.
3)This kind of thinking always strikes me of wild optimism. It presupposes that an alternative world might actually be better.
That's true, Justin. A single meal can be a good thing (and maybe the only thing) that we humans can accomplish despite our faults [although you can't really separate the psychologies of "charity organizations" from those of "ordinary people"--those organizations are controlled by creatures like us:)].
And it is totally utopian to imagine that we could be less selfish and materialistic in this world of ours.
And maybe the alternative I envisioned [where humans take pleasure from being smart] isn't possible.
BUT...I think what I object to most of all is simpler: the lack of discussion.
I look on the websites and read about charity "victories" and how great it is that some blonde stars are selling their sweaty red-carpet-gowns for suffering children...and I notice that some details of the story are missing. Not to mention the critique. One, twitter-length, side of the story is never enough. [Note to self: that's as true on this left-toppling blog as it is anywhere else.]
Maybe we'll never learn to think... but can't we can at least talk and disagree?
As a minor point of dissension, I would disagree that the psychology of a group trying to wield individuals to a purpose can't be distinguished from the the psychology of the individual (er) tools.
And as a more fundamental point.
Can we (humanity) discuss these important matters? Of course we can. Here we are. Doing that.
Do you mean to ask whether it can be done on a broad scale? Whether Fox news and CNN and groups of people standing around water coolers (do they do that?) will cast aside their usual topics, stray from comfortable grounds and debate the matters that we might deem (and here I resist using the inverted commas) important.
Jesus, can you imagine if they did? What would come of it?
Post a Comment