So, I have some mixed feelings about this. It’s an article about campaigns like Nothing But Nets that ask for donations of $10 to buy a mosquito net to guard an African child against malaria, and how they’ve captured the imaginations of young people in the States (I did some research into why the nets are so expensive - they’re also treated with insecticide).
The $10 mosquito net campaigns have caught on with younger folks because it’s a small amount that many of them can afford, that equates to a tangible result - one child gets a mosquito net - rather than that money sinking into a charity’s coffers to be used towards some more fuzzy end. So far, so awesome. A seven year-old (with the help of her mother and five year-old brother) has raised a total of $43,000, and it’s hard to quibble with that.
Still, you kind of have to wonder if it could really be that simple. It sounds a lot like those Buy A Village A Goat campaigns that were disputed in the current issue of This Magazine. Economist Chris Blattman also takes issue in his blog with the New York Times‘ use of phrases like “a hip way to show you care” and “making charity cool.”
But maybe this is unfounded cynicism. After all, “hip” and “cool” is frequently the language that gets used in descriptions of trends among young people (because obviously that’s the only motivator for doing anything if you’re under 20). Just because something can be couched in these terms doesn’t make it automatically frivolous and empty.
The usefulness of a mosquito net against malaria is certainly less questionable than the usefulness of a goat against poverty. And if you look beyond the magazine copy, tons of young people are raising thousands of dollars for charities. That’s nothing to sneeze at.
Digg
Facebook
del.icio.us
six comments
I just find all this one - 2 - one business disturbing because it seems so selfish.
Like really, no-ones going to do anything kind if they don't see results?? Social Justice isn't stain remover.
Realistically, I see initiatives like these as a way to challenge apathy, by making it obvious that small steps do have big impacts, but it does represent a new kind of pragmatic giving instead of the kind of generosity I was raised on, which is that people should be kind to others without needing proof ;)
Posted by Mir
June 3, 2008, 2:12 PM
Hey--what's with picking on the poor goats? They can't even type a defense with those little hooves of theirs. Goats have several great things going for them--they turn a sizable profit (worth a dozen bednets I bet) and produce milk for sale or drinking in the meantime. They turn grass and garbage into hard cash. What more can we ask?
Posted by Chris Blattman
June 3, 2008, 10:55 PM
MIR, I wish we could be kind and generous to everyone without getting screwed. But in this world, it's not smart to dish out our cash to just any group.
I just have to walk outside in Toronto and everyone wants my cash. Some in exchange for products, others to donate to a good cause. Yet others will donate to charity if I buy their product. Overwhelmed!!
To give to charity, folks really need to feel like the money is going straight to those who need it.
From the perspective of the charity, it takes a lot of work to stand out, be heard, convince people you are legitimate and respond to all of the criticism and suspicion.
Posted by Erin
June 4, 2008, 8:53 AM
I'm of the opinion that charity and justice will never be the same thing. As long as the giver holds the power to decide who is deserving and undeserving of charity, there will never be justice. While I do admire the hard work of many charities, most are unable to address the real aspects of power that create the problems they are attempting to solve.
Posted by piKe
June 4, 2008, 9:19 AM
Hey Erin and Pike,
To elaborate on my maybe starry-eyed point and to also address Pike's issue in a very particular way.
I was raised within the Judaic tradition, and while I do not agree with everything that Judaism offers by way of moral codes, there was one lesson I really appreciated.
The basic teaching was Tzedakah or charity and here is the wikipedia page outlining the 8 rules of giving (second subhead)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tzedakah
Basically, the desire to give after being asked and in order to see the results of your generosity is less important or less valid then working to change the material conditions of the oppressed on this earth as Pike pointed out.
The thing that disturbs me about the 121 model of giving is that it takes a goal of world-changing and ties it to self-interest, so I think ultimately it will fail. It may work for now, but it doesn't change the giver or the recipients fundamental relationships to their wealth or their power.
So in that sense I agree with Pike. Is it worthwhile to do 121 projects anyway because it's the best scheme we've got going now? We'll know later when there is a thriving micro-economy of freehold goat herders with mosquito nets and low-power laptops in the Global South :)
Posted by Mir
June 4, 2008, 10:22 AM
"I'm of the opinion that charity and justice will never be the same thing." I totally agree with that.
I also believe that it's hard for the public to accept when charities are run like businesses and that it's important for the donating public to understand why administrative costs (within reason) are so important to organizations. Some of the most effective and successful charities I've worked for are those that treated their employees with respect by offering them benefits, a safe working environment and a fair wage (all things that cost money and lots of it) - while donors may scoff at the idea that their funds are going to someone's paycheque (or water cooler, or new computer), the reality is that happy, paid employees with the right tools are better at raising funds and making those funds have the most impact. So while the average donor really wants to think that every dollar they donate is going directly to a cause, really what they are doing is paying someone a paycheque to make that real change on their behalf. And as long as an organization is run transparently and effectively, there really shouldn't be anything wrong with that.
Again: charity and justice are two seperate concepts and should be treated as such. Any donor who believes otherwise is likely to get upset about anything less than one to one giving.
Posted by Stacey May
June 4, 2008, 11:39 AM
Leave a comment
This blog post is older than 90 days old. All comments submitted regarding this post will be automatically held for review by the editors before posting. Your comment will not appear on the site until it has been approved.
Our comment policy
Shameless prides itself on the diversity of opinions expressed by our writers, and we encourage and appreciate different points of view. Our intention at Shameless is to foster community and to maintain a safe and positive blogging environment; we do not consider it our duty to give a voice to anybody with an opinion.
Discussion on this site is moderated. We will delete comments that:
(We get to decide what's discriminatory, hateful, attacking, or inflammatory).
In some cases, we will cap off comments on a discussion when we feel they are spiralling out of control and fostering an unwelcoming space for bloggers and readers. Comments will be closed by the Web Editor, unless the post is by the Web Editor, in which case the Editor in Chief will close them.
If your comments repeatedly make the same point, they may be deleted. This also applies to comments made by multiple members of the same organization.
Your comments should be about the topic of the post, not its writer—although we certainly encourage praise for our writers, if you want to say something nice.