The Necessary Futility of Charity
Ya Basta Media | 18.01.2011 13:36 | Globalisation
If you want to become a contributor or have an article to publish on an alternative collective blog, please get in touch. yabastamedia@gmail.com
http://yabastamedia.wordpress.com/2011/01/18/the-necessary-futility-of-charity/
Charity work is essential to modern day society, in pretty much every part of the world. Helping people in miserable situations when they are struggling to help themselves is often a life saver, and charitable giving undeniably supports millions of people in the world.
However, despite the dominant view of charity, which sees it as almost automatically ‘good’ because of its nature, looking at it from another angle we can see that perhaps the existence of charity actually stifles people’s ability to bring about the changes necessary to live in a just world.
Lets take an example of charities working in Africa like Comic Relief. While of course it is better that a child has some medicine or a mosquito net instead of not having them and it is better that a village has clean water/a school/ a clinic instead of not having these things, by simply providing them for these communities can this really be described as a ‘good’ thing? After all, those people will now continue to live in poverty but with new mosquito nets to sleep under, or a clinic nearby.
Isn’t it strange that rather than trying to focus on the root cause of what is causing poverty, charities seem intent on merely analysing and treating the symptoms?
As Zizek points out in the video below, surely the proper focus should be on reconstructing society so that poverty and its associated range of miseries cannot exist, rather than covering up our consciences and the symptoms with measures which do not seek to eradicate poverty?
It is clear that the mainstream focus of international development is not to see the end of poverty, the World Bank’s loans are packaged as ‘Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers’ (PRSPs). They are only designed to reduce, not eradicate poverty.
So why is this the case? I would like to put forward the argument that charity in its current existence is merely an accomplice to the system of exploitation that leaves people in the impoverished situations in which they find themselves. In fact it is a legitimisation of that system of exploitation.
Neoliberalism relies on large scale poverty in order to profit from it, think of the cheap labour used to manufacture swathes of consumer goods across the world. Think of the workers on plantations and down mines, working for next to nothing to produce the natural resources from which these goods are made and from which the rich multi-national companies profit.
In order to break free from poverty, people need to break free from the system which results in the rich’s domination over the poor, on national and global levels and this can’t be achieved with the idea of charity as we know it. We need to change a system which forces people to rely on the ‘market’ for their livelihood, rather than patch up the misery that system causes with simple handouts.
Charity work is essential to modern day society, in pretty much every part of the world. Helping people in miserable situations when they are struggling to help themselves is often a life saver, and charitable giving undeniably supports millions of people in the world.
However, despite the dominant view of charity, which sees it as almost automatically ‘good’ because of its nature, looking at it from another angle we can see that perhaps the existence of charity actually stifles people’s ability to bring about the changes necessary to live in a just world.
Lets take an example of charities working in Africa like Comic Relief. While of course it is better that a child has some medicine or a mosquito net instead of not having them and it is better that a village has clean water/a school/ a clinic instead of not having these things, by simply providing them for these communities can this really be described as a ‘good’ thing? After all, those people will now continue to live in poverty but with new mosquito nets to sleep under, or a clinic nearby.
Isn’t it strange that rather than trying to focus on the root cause of what is causing poverty, charities seem intent on merely analysing and treating the symptoms?
As Zizek points out in the video below, surely the proper focus should be on reconstructing society so that poverty and its associated range of miseries cannot exist, rather than covering up our consciences and the symptoms with measures which do not seek to eradicate poverty?
It is clear that the mainstream focus of international development is not to see the end of poverty, the World Bank’s loans are packaged as ‘Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers’ (PRSPs). They are only designed to reduce, not eradicate poverty.
So why is this the case? I would like to put forward the argument that charity in its current existence is merely an accomplice to the system of exploitation that leaves people in the impoverished situations in which they find themselves. In fact it is a legitimisation of that system of exploitation.
Neoliberalism relies on large scale poverty in order to profit from it, think of the cheap labour used to manufacture swathes of consumer goods across the world. Think of the workers on plantations and down mines, working for next to nothing to produce the natural resources from which these goods are made and from which the rich multi-national companies profit.
In order to break free from poverty, people need to break free from the system which results in the rich’s domination over the poor, on national and global levels and this can’t be achieved with the idea of charity as we know it. We need to change a system which forces people to rely on the ‘market’ for their livelihood, rather than patch up the misery that system causes with simple handouts.
Ya Basta Media
e-mail:
yabastamedia@gmail.com
Homepage:
http://yabastamedia.wordpress.com
Comments
Hide the following 3 comments
Good, bad and ugly points
18.01.2011 19:23
First, a couple of corrections and clarifications (the bad points).
1. Comic relief are a charity, but they do not do work - they fund other charities to do it. So, from a bit of a pedantic point of view this: "charities working in Africa like Comic Relief" would be more accurate if it read "charities working in Africa such as Action Aid, Voluntary Services Overseas, Oxfam GB and others - who are often funded by other charities like Comic Relief." I admit this is a bit of a technical point, and the general point that the author was raising is still valid.
2. The World Bank is not a charity at all, and its actions should not be presented in a critique of charity work.
Some good points
The role of charities, which are almost exclusively neoliberal in their approach, should be challenged. The author does this well by raising the fundamental question of are they just treating the symptoms or are they addressing the root causes of poverty. Or, perhaps more accurately:
1. What is their balance between addressing the root causes and symptoms of poverty?
2. What do they understand by the root causes that they claim to address? Are these really the root causes.
Some ugly points
I want to extend the authors argument. I know several people in the charity sector who flat out reject the neoliberal model. They know that it will not eradicate poverty (in fact it is one of the root causes of poverty) - it only treats some of the symptoms (which is a good thing, but not enough). But charities can only spend money on what people give them money to do. Fundraising departments in charities do not want their charity to be seen as too 'radical' since donations would reduce (some people challenge this view, but it does seem reasonable to me that donors who have made money out of the neoliberal system will be hesitant to support work that will bring down the system).
In my experience, the reason that many people give to charity do so as a commercial exchange. They give money because it makes them feel better about the fact that they are 'advantaged' when so many others are 'disadvantaged.' However, the last thing they really want to do is not to be advantaged.
So, it is not just that charities do not address the root causes, it's that wider society in rich countries (the donors), are not willing to make the changes to their own comforts and benefits that they get from the system.
An international development charity work
Giving it away
18.01.2011 23:07
I have not given to charities for several years due to the above issues, and being basically skint.
I have recently stumbled into a better paid job, and felt it would be nice to share my newfound wealth.
I have been loaning money to a micro finance organisation, as that cuts through a lot of the charity bullshit. However I am basically supporting capitalism overseas which I am not entirely comfortable with.
It is a shame there are not more grassroots organisations I can make a direct payment too.
This was one I felt quite comfortable supporting
http://permaculture.org.au/2011/01/18/heading-to-haiti-with-a-permaculture-vision-and-a-plan-update/
conficted middle class tosser
Big but
19.01.2011 09:59
There is a compelling argument for a careful eradication and replacement of charity, and none for boycott/non-participation. You don't just let people suffer and die just because the political environment isn't how it should be or how you would like it.
But if your principles really are so lofty then you are probably too pious and egotistical to useful to anyone else anyway.
Meanwhile people who really care about the reality of class struggle and not some pie in the sky version will carry on supporting people.
He does a lot of work for charidee