Apparently the Homeless Aren’t Big Into Opera
Yesterday’s NY Times featured a long front-page article about differing philosophies on the value and purpose of philanthropy. In a familiar refrain, the author pits the merits of private versus public giving:
The rich are giving more to charity than ever, but [they] are not the only ones footing the bill for such generosity. For every three dollars they give away, the federal government typically gives up a dollar or more in tax revenue, because of the charitable tax deduction and by not collecting estate taxes.
Investment guru Bill Gross puts it rather bluntly:
When millions of people are dying of AIDS and malaria in Africa, it is hard to justify the umpteenth society gala held for the benefit of a performing arts center or an art museum. A $30 million gift to a concert hall is not philanthropy, it is a Napoleonic coronation.
For those of us tasked with raising funds for the arts, this is an argument we’ve heard before. A friend of mine who is the Executive Director of a respected non-profit legal aid organization once described artists (not without sympathy) as the “voluntary poor”. Although no artist likes to hear it, we have to admit that he’s essentially correct.
But this argument misses the point. It assumes that the sole purpose of philanthropy is to relieve the immediate suffering of those in our society who have been screwed by fate. Certainly that’s a valuable goal, and I happily contribute to groups like Habitat for Humanity and Doctors Without Borders who pursue just such ends.
Philanthropy, however, can also be a tool for investing in our society’s potential. Giving to support the arts or education or esoteric research projects or public policy think tanks doesn’t put food on anyone’s table or a roof over anyone’s head today. But by making an investment in our collective future, it enhances our ability to thrive as a society in the long-term.
Yes, the government forgoes tax revenues when it gives a donor a tax break on his contribution. And yes, many of those contributions undoubtedly offer dubious benefits to society. But I’m confident that, in the aggregate, the distributed decision making of millions of charitable givers will achieve more positive ends, and more diverse benefits, than could possibly be accomplished by a handful of decision makers in Washington.
Tags: class warfare, philanthropy
Login
Why should we have to defend the idea of raising money for the arts? Because there are people are dying in another part of the world? Should we wait until that stops so that we can feel better about celebrating and supporting the amazing creativity and talent of our society? This creativity which makes life more fantastic, touches our souls, gives us reason to think, to question, to dream? Why should we have to feel guilty about raising money for that? Art is life - we are supporting life by supporting art.
Here here, to this article and the comment above. Also, I was thinking about Paolo Friere’s revolutionary book: Pedagogy of the Oppressed, where he talks about “false charity.” He contends that social change and freedom for the oppressed cannot come from the rich or their “charitable organizations”. These are intrinsic with the oppressive power structures which rule the world and ultimately they need to keep their charity cases “dependent”on them to justify their existence. True social change must come from the oppressed themselves, and it usually means knocking the oppressors down a notch (not a clean pretty thing). So, in that light, it seems like philanthropic giving to AIDS victims in Africa is only a bandaid on a huge gaping wound, and it gives a false sense of hope which doesn’t do anyone good. So why not “celebrate life” and invest in the “potential” of society by supporting the arts as remarked above. This is at least a more proactive approach to making the world a better place, and the artists will help mobilize the oppressed to really get empowered…
@janna53
Saying that “philanthropic giving to AIDS victims in Africa is only a bandaid on a huge gaping wound” is overstating the case, IMO. Some of the projects of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, for example, have been enormously effective at saving lives, which in turn improves economies and cultural vitality and all the rest (i.e. long term benefits). It’s not just the “white man’s burden” stuff that Friere is talking about. What I object to is the notion that as long as there are people suffering, that charity is ONLY legitimate when it is directly targeted at alleviating that suffering. There’s room (and need) for both approaches.