The values of compassion and generosity are deeply rooted throughout history and major religions. From childhood, Christians are taught the parable of the good Samaritan and the importance of sacrifice for the sake of others. Hindus believe that fate is determined by their actions. Buddhists seek enlightenment through learning wisdom and compassion. Therefore, the basic concepts of charity and working within the community can be found in any culture across the globe (Schmidt, 1933).
Leiby (1984), author of the article “Charity Organization Reconsidered”, believes that the Charity Movement began in 1870-1900 in the major cities of England as well as the United States, following the Industrial Revolution. Leiby (1984), explains that the supporters of charity belonged to the business class, and they intended to relieve suffering and strengthen the community. In England, charities were distinguished as being either natural or artificial (Leiby, 1984). Natural helping was revered as it was spontaneous and informal, while artificial helping was thought to be corrupt because it was preplanned and involved designated giving. This rationale has continued to inspire many people to donate their time and money without giving a second thought. The charity movement is still alive as 90% of Americans say that it is important to be involved in an organization that they believe in (Lupton, Toxic Charity, 2011).
There are many positive aspects of charitable organizations as they remind people of our shared humanity and help us to practice compassion and empathy. Additionally, they can help us consider life from a different perspective. For example, participating in short term mission trips is a great way for people to experience other cultures and share their experiences with others. Similarly, according to Dees (2012), author of “A tale of two cultures”, engaging in charity can benefit both the “giver” and the “receiver”. Sacrificing money or material goods for the sake of someone else can give the “giver” a sense of purpose and accomplishment. Also, it is undeniable that charitable organizations provide immediate relief and create social relationships with foreign countries during times of crisis. After medical epidemics and natural disasters, organizations provide food, water, shelter, and medical relief. According to Corbett and Fikkert (2012), authors of When Helping Hurts, appropriate relief targets individuals who are not capable of helping themselves and incorporates working alongside them.
However, it is also important to consider some of the negative consequences that have resulted from charity. Most of the money that people give to charitable causes is donated without strategy and the consideration of future consequences (Dees, 2012). Lupton (2011) found that 85% of aid sent to African countries never reached its targeted areas. Also, sometimes donated money is not used wisely. For example, a college ministry sent students to Honduras during their Spring Break to help repaint an orphanage after Hurricane Mitch. But after the cost of the trip was calculated and half of the orphanage was painted, it was found that the money spent to send the mission team to Honduras would have been enough to hire two local painters, two full time teachers, and buy new uniforms for every student (Lupton, 2011).
Charity contributes to continuing the cycle of poverty by making people dependent. When things are done for people that they can do for themselves, they become disempowered (Lupton, 2011). A few years ago a mission team drilled a well into a rural Honduran village in order to provide them with access to clean water. However, when the well broke, the people of the village waited a full year for the mission team to return and fix the well. Meanwhile, they continued to use dirty river water.
Ironically charity can also distort the “giver’s” perspective of their action. Jacques Ellul a French philosopher said, “It (charity) affirms the superiority of the giver, who thus gains a point on the recipient, bind hims, demands gratitude, humiliates him and reduces him to a lower state than he had before” (Lupton, 2011). It is not the intention of the “giver” to make the “receiver” feel humiliated, yet it is inevitable. Therefore, it is important to work alongside those in need and not for them. In contrast, Corbett and Fikkert (2012) make the point that the “giver” is also harmed by creating a false sense of superiority for themselves. In other words most Americans think that they are doing the right thing by blindly donating their money to organizations, even though they are actually contributing to the poverty epidemic.
At SEED. we strive to look for systematic solutions that help alleviate social problems by implementing research and development and supporting the efforts of local community leaders. We believe that providing community leaders with the tools and resources that they need to create solutions for problems in their own communities is the best method for shifting social equilibrium. Not only will this in turn contribute to the sustainable alleviation of poverty but it will also help change the narrative of charitable giving to make sure that the only consequence is empowerment!