“What about public service?” you ask…

When it comes to the discourse of charity, philanthropy and ‘doing good’ most people don’t consider working for the government, in a ‘public service’ role as being particularly altruistic. But consider this :  Most public servants ( whether working for federal government, state or even a nonprofit) make much less salary than a comparably educated person, at a ‘for-profit’ firm. I have met some of the smartest, best educated people working for the government; with the motivation to ‘serve.’ While this may sound hunkie-dory for the capitalists amongst us, I would like to believe that there is such a thing as a public service motivation and it is important to sustain this motivation, to ensure there is a solid, working bureaucracy and a society that honors such traits.May be it is our evolutionary disposition to value those who sacrifice something for us, or  a social norm to value those who do good.

Regardless, this trait is something to be considered when evaluating how one spends one’s life, and is often a criterion for selecting leaders in the public sphere. Particularly, in a society where time is money, and in some cases more important than money; giving of one’s self, to others; in the form of time; efforts and psychic attention and energy is a valuable commodity.

Volunteer hours are also quantified by nonprofits, just so you know. Most nonprofits report them in their annual reports.

As a group of people, Americans need to be reminded now, more than ever – given the election cycle – that such a ‘service’ motive is indeed important, to serve common good. Not just the ability to make money and throw it away.

More Charity, less Philanthropy?

Do we need more ‘Charity’ (unorganized, personal giving) and less of ‘philanthropy’ (organized, scientific philanthropy)? While scholarship in the last 25 years of so indicates that there is a growing trend towards philanthropy, we are witnessing new arguments that what we need is really more ‘charity’. Bureaucratized and ‘scientific’ ways of giving don’t really work. Don’t believe me? Look at Give Directly, one of the leading proponents of charity. They do claim, however, to be doing ‘scientific’ philanthropy, but in reality, it is direct one-to-one giving, and per one definition, would count as ‘charity.’

Their argument is simple: give the poor money directly, unconditionally and they will figure out how to use it. To the best of their knowledge. There is some wisdom in that. This is not traditional charity or caritas, which focused on ‘character development.’ The assumption in this model of thinking of the individual was that the poor were poor because they were lazy, drunks or just stupid. This is the traditional Christian view of caritas, practiced in the settler colonies in the founding days of America or any traditional society. But there are other ways to imagine how the poor live and work. Poverty is a complex topic, and I will not attempt to analyze it here. But let’s just say that the poor have a bad reputation. Most poor people I know – and have dealt with – are decent, hardworking people. Many of them have not had opportunities to advance, in some cases, they have been dealt with heavy financial blows that keep them poor and in some cases, they are victims of structural issues. So, how does on help the poor, overcome their poverty? There are several possibilities – one is to fund ‘strucutral’ changes in the system and the other is to fund the individual directly.

When it comes to immediate impact and results that can manifest themselves, there is nothing faster than individual giving. While there are limitations (and many assumptions) on how this works, it is a model that seems to have attracted a lot of attention, especially given the criticism of large international NGOs that spend a lot of money, on overheads. As Paul Niehaus, President of GiveDirectly argues in this paper, the donors usually are concerned with ‘warm glow’ or don’t really care about learning what happened after the donations were made. The cost of such learning is high, he argues. “The well-intentioned benefactor has a limited desire to learn. He always prefers to avoid ex-post feedback as this constrains his beliefs.”  This means that the intermediaries – i.e., NGOs create a ‘need’ for the service and attract donations. This is not a case of misleading donors, but one of asymmetric information and also a different theory of change. GiveDirectly offers one model of giving that is direct, (seemingly) impactful and something worth a try. My mom did this for many decades and it seems to have worked – at least in the case of many of my cousins, who have better jobs, education, thanks to my mother’s ‘giving’ directly.

Insiders and Outsiders

In a recent exchange about the Israel-Palestine issue with a friend,  he informed me that as an ‘outsider’ to an issue, I couldn’t fully appreciate it. As someone who has academically studied this issue, I do have strong convictions. As a fellow human being, I have sympathies. Finally, as an intellectual, I believe that I have (an informed) opinion of the topic.

On a similar note, as a Non-resident Indian, I am an outsider in India and the U.S., where this in-betweenness can create not only legal challenges – not being able to vote – for instance, but also put one in a strange situation, where speaking ‘on behalf’ of a particular idea or conception is suspect, simply because of one’s positionality.paper-people

This line of reasoning of insider-outsider can lead one on many slippery slopes.  For instance: Can I, as an Indian born Muslim really ‘understand’ Arab-American issues? Or for that matter, can I truly appreciate what a right-wing Hindu nationalist feels about India?  Finally, can I ever know what it is to be an ‘American’ or ‘Mexican’? Does belonging to a group give special access to knowledge or insights?

As Robert Merton points out in his classic essay Insiders and Outsiders, Merton points out that an extreme manifestation of the ‘insider’ doctrine can lead to arguments such as: only Blacks can understand Blacks and only women can understand women. He calls this extreme manifestation as the ‘credentialism of ascribed status.’ This, he contrasts with the credentialism of acquired status, on which meritocracy is based. In essence, this means that our brahminical attitudes are not well-founded and extreme ‘insiderism’ – the belief that you must be one to truly understand one – is fundamentally flawed. I tend to agree.

In today’s world, we are all insiders and outsiders, to some extent. The notion of a ‘community’ is changing so rapidly that academics may have to throw out many of the old stodgy definitions of ‘place-based’ community and the like. What is the ‘community’ of internet users, what about a refugee? What is his or her community? What about diaspora communities?

With an Indian background, lineage going back to the Middle East (from my mother’s side) and Afghanistan (from my dad’s side) I realize I am an ‘insider’ and ‘outsider’ in more ways than one. I am currently in the U.S. and married to a Mexican-American woman. Though my Spanish leaves much to be desired, I believe our kids will inherit a far more complex lineage than mine and my wife’s. This is not to throw up my arms and say ‘We are all one’ or something similarly banal, but to actually carefully examine what all of this means. Does it mean that I have greater ‘authenticity’ when speaking of Mexican-American issues or those of the Middle East?

 The other extreme manifestation of this idea is to claim to know ‘everything’ about the other groups or individuals, by virtue of educational or other qualifications. While having indepth scholarly or professional expertise about other communities or groups may give us a lot of depth and gravitas, it does not fully give us an appreciation of what it means to live as the others do. Which is another way to say that there are limits to what we can ‘know’. Tacit knowledge cannot be gained by reading a book or just thinking about an issue.

One has to also live and experience a particular way of life, to truly appreciate it. In other words, we all need a measure of humility, before rushing to judgment about the ‘other’.