In a world of endless ulterior motives, hidden agendas, strategic alliances, viral messages, popularity contests and marketing exploits to further the agendas of mammoth multinationals, the art of giving is an art no more – it’s a conscious, rational, well thought out decision to part with a certain possession that will either somehow conceal some form of exploitation or establish a platform for individuals or organizations to prime themselves for greater profitability or impact.
In principle, and especially to appeal to as large an audience as possible, one must refrain from citing religious references and alienating those without a specific belief. But when it comes to any discussion on giving, I am instantly reminded of the merits of quiet philanthropy, something almost all religions and even scholars on charity unite on.
The third verse of the sixth chapter in the Bible states, ‘But when you do merciful deeds, don’t let your left hand know what your right hand does’. Similarly, Surah Baqarah in the Quran states, ‘If you disclose your Sadaqaat (almsgiving), it is well; but if you conceal them and give them to the poor, that is better for you’. Other major religions like Judaism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Hinduism, all encourage giving, however, stressing on quiet giving in varying degrees.
But not all givers are trying to show off. Arthur C. Brooks, a renowned American social scientist who has thoroughly investigated why people give, discusses (in his book, ‘The culture of charity’) how religion, skepticism about the government’s ability to effectively do its job, work and strong families are the best indicators to understand patterns of giving in people. This is an important book for us to read and for scholars on charity to build on because it provides a mechanism to really understand the ‘why’ behind giving; an understanding that Brooks thinks will lead to greater introspection and ultimately more giving.
Very briefly, some of the most intriguing findings Brooks shares in his work are as follows: religious conservatives and liberals across the US give just as much but because the conservatives are greater in number, the conservatives look good – either way, the positive correlation between religious fervor and giving is undeniable; secondly, the more strongly people think and feel the government should do more to redistribute income, the less they give, which indicates how these people do not see equitable income distribution as their own responsibility; thirdly, the working poor and middle class actually part with a greater proportion of their income compared to any other income group; fourthly, giving is often misconstrued as a selfless act, especially since physiologically, helping others releases endorphins that are incredibly effective in making people happy, so much so that clinical psychologists routinely prescribe volunteering as therapy for depressive patients.
So different people give for different reasons. A student seeking higher education in a top university may be driven by the desire to augment his or her profile through social work, more so than the desire to actually change lives. Similarly, an established and wealthy entrepreneur may benefit from a tax break that is contingent on a certain amount of giving. Or something even more commonly seen, a large business conglomerate may feel the need to pave its way into a new industry through projects that don’t necessarily make money but buys the necessary credibility to make inroads. None of the above are entirely selfless acts of giving, but regardless of motive – pure or not – the beneficiaries gain, so why bother about understanding motive?
Because not knowing the benefactor can be liberating. For example, an orphan who is perpetually indulged will always know which door to knock on – a scenario where benefactors actually cripple productivity. Moreover, not knowing the benefactor eliminates the potential for any emotion of owing recompense or a sense of loyalty to a certain group of people from germinating in the first place. A beneficiary is thus free to live without the burden of ‘favor’ – a burden that warrants deliberation in the social sector.