Wishing away Problems
When reading James Carrier’s Gifts in a World of Commodities, one might initially be surprised by the lack of mention of charitable organizations, especially given the prevalence of ‘philanthropy’ among the American ruling class. Given his description of the ‘perfect gift’ as given neither out of obligation, nor with the intent to oblige, but instead originating from the deep personal affection one feels for the recipient, however, the reason becomes clear: for the ‘perfect gift’ to be such an expression of affection, it has to overcome the predicament of the impersonal character that objects acquire as mass-produced commodities in industrial capitalism. As objects wholly unrelated to both giver and recipient, store-bought goods are primarily defined by their monetary and use-values. What constitutes the ideology of the ‘perfect gift’, then, is the insistence that what truly matters about it, is not its materiality, functional and expressed in dollars, but the social relations for which it is nothing but a carrier. The more perfect the negation of its commodity character, the more ‘perfect’ the gift, culminating in a celebration of the absolute uselessness of a gift as the truest expression of love. Taken such, it is clear why charity is not considered a ‘perfect gift’ by Carrier: intended to help those in need, the charity is defined by the economic assistance it can render them. Further, not only is its economic character central, it is equally devoid of personal relations, as can be seen already in the term ‘philanthropy’, love of humanity. The charity gives not to ‘someone’, but to ‘society’, or a particular disadvantaged class of it.Taking the example of the American ‘Make a Wish Foundation’, however, I want to discuss a way in which contemporary charities can present themselves as givers of ‘perfect gifts’.
The ‘Make-a-Wish’ grants ‘wishes’ to children that have been diagnosed with a critical illness. A child can be granted one such ‘wish’ that, in principal may be anything the foundation’s money or influence may allow. Most famously, these ‘wishes’ take the form of experiences, although they may also consist in the acquisition of material goods. What I wish to focus on first, is the enlisting of ‘celebrities’ for the foundation’s activities. Thus, in 2018, celebrity chef Gordon Ramsey ‘partnered’ with ‘Make a Wish’ to “confirm 24 wishes in 24 hours”. Particularly interesting is the case of Timothy, whose “dream is to put together an amazing computer”. Taken on its own, granting this ‘wish’ would be little more than the transfer of commodities, but the insertion of Ramsey into the picture gives the abstract foundation a body to hug. Serving as the manifestation of the various donors’ kindness, the ‘celebrity’ allows for the creation of a personalization of the abstract donor. Further: while the practice of referral by which the “eligible” children are selected and the individuality of the service the foundation provided to them already individualize the recipients more than is typical for charitable organizations, ‘celebrity partners’ grant the recipients themselves individuality in relation to the foundation, because they are greeted as persons by what is effectively (for the moment) the organization itself. Consequently, the individuation of both donor and recipient leads to the emergence of an, even if ephemeral, personal relationship between the two. Equally, the insertion of a ‘celebrity’, whom to meet is an event in itself, transforms even the most material of wishes into something more than just a donation of commodities.
Next to the enlistment of celebrities, however, the foundation’s internet presence features prominently the possibility to become a “corporate sponsor”. Far from appealing to potential sponsors’ kindness, however, they are tempted by the economic prospects to “Build Brand Loyalty”. This lure “dispenses with any reference to philanthropy or acts of giving, and makes no distinction between ethical practice and the self-interested pursuit of profit”. Positing a charitable donation as an investment into the corporation’s ‘public image’, the foundation thus presents sponsorship as a mutually beneficial corporate partnership. While the profit incentive is surely present in the celebrities’ ‘partnership’ with the foundation, since publishing their charitable engagement also helps bolster their public image, everything is done to prevent the impression of selfish desires in their case. Indeed, these different kinds of ‘partnerships’ thus present the two ways in which the problems of giving in industrial capitalism may be traversed: in the case of the celebrities, the gifts’ identity as commodity is denied through an insistence on the personal character of the relationship objectified in it; in the case of the ‘corporate sponsors’, the opposition between self-interest and giving is denied through an insistence on the principally moral character of economic pursuits.
Contributed by NiklasHartmann on 17/01/2022
One response to “Wishing away Problems”
I never heard of this charity, but it offers a fascinating example that, as you rightly point out, highlights two different ways in which gifting in contemporary capitalist societies might be conceptualised.
I have added a direct link to the charity’s website in the text. It is at: https://www.make-a-wish.org.uk/