Altruism or Absolution?
https://www.macleans.ca/society/why-a-group-of-rich-millennials-are-giving-their-money-away/
Above is a link to an article that a friend recently shared on Facebook. This piece describes an initiative known as ‘Resource Movement’ founded by a group of young, affluent Canadians to publicize and redistribute the wealth that they have either inherited or independently accrued. I found this article interesting to read alongside the rest of this week’s articles, especially those by Halvorson and Beisel, as it offers some emic insights into the motivations which prompt individual givers to donate to begin with. In glancing at some of the profiles of those who were interviewed here, I found it interesting to note that the organizations which these individuals support are both explicitly political as well as more conventionally philanthropic in nature. One further nuance which is instilled in this model of giving is located in the fact that donors collaborate with representatives from the communities and ventures that they are giving to throughout the donation process, with the intent that this communication will successfully distribute monetary resources in ways which are most pertinent to the recipients.
With reference to this schema of charitable donation within the framework of the gift, one curious element at play here is that these gifts seem to be granted not only to aid others (with the implicit assumption of there being some sort of eventual return), but also to get rid of something in the first place, as many participants cite personal feelings of guilt as a key impetus in motivating their decisions to donate. In dispersing one’s wealth (and the ethical burden that accompanies it), capital enters into a moral economy as it both redresses particular social injustices and as it absolves the giver of their own shame. This all goes without saying that such donations also entail donors to the benefit of tax deductions. Carrier notes the paradox inhered within the gift when he identifies that the self-sufficiency which we desire to attain under capitalism is something made possible only through such exchanges which invariably obligate persons to one another. Indeed, I find it striking that a group of well-intentioned individuals hold that the most thorough way to reconfigure wealth disparity will take place merely by focusing on their own pools of wealth. One participant comments, “A small group of wealthy and class-privileged young people aren’t going to dream up a new version of the economy. We’re going to take leadership from other people.”
By what logics does it become possible for an individual to consider making a significant donation? How is this choice complicated by factors of wealth, power, and the dynamics of a prevailing ideological and moral landscape? While the purpose of these actions towards wealth distribution seek to undo various forms of disparity, it is possible that they may have the ironic and unintended effect of reinscribing the very powers that they seek to resist. By framing economic distribution within the rhetoric of acts of individual altruism made on the part of the wealthy (especially when these benefactors do not remain anonymous), the recipient invariably assumes an obligatory relationship the donor. This observation implores me to question: is a charitable donation ever truly free, or is it merely an attempt at absolution combined with a subtly coercive act of purchase power (Strathern, p. 402)?
Contributed by TyCary on 20/01/2020
