Excellent interview and discussion! I am especially moved by your powerful statement: “If we take the least dependent person as our legal norm of a person, is everything else all about catching people up to that level of non-dependence, or is it about accommodating them as equal citizens where they are.”
What is behind our seemingly universal human desire to avoid dependence? Is it a fear of not being accepted or being deemed less worthy (less human)? Or maybe that we just don’t trust that others will be there if we are too much of a burden. Sadly, there is ample evidence of truth behind both of these fears.
In America particularly, a lot of the stories we tell are about individual achievement and sufficiency. So we have fewer narratives about being needy and that being ok (and normal for everyone to varying degrees).
I think it doesn't take much looking to see that we treat vulnerable people (the poor, the elderly, the ill) frequently with contempt or shame and so people's fear of falling into that category is pretty reasonable!
I like how you made an effort to keep bringing the conversation back to how we in our present lives can intentionally encounter those in need, especially for people like me--childless, in my 20s, and in an environment where I rarely have to encounter someone in profound physical need. That's definitely something I reflect on.
I find myself having arguments with friends of mine who are very dedicated to the idea of an expansive welfare state, but who also basically believe that private charities shouldn't exist and that they shouldn't have to do anything personal to help those in need. In their minds, they want to pay higher taxes and in exchange be absolved of any responsibility towards, say, helping the homeless. And I've got to admit that I don't have a response that feels wholly satisfying--I usually respond by advocating for skepticism that concentrating that amount of power and responsibility in one entity is really a good idea at all. But there's an implicit argument on their part that goes something like this: to be a good citizen, all I need to do is pay my taxes and vote for the best candidates. I'm curious how other readers would respond to this definition of the citizen, and how best to advocate for a different model.
I'm also reminded, in a way, of our left-leaning politicians' particularly American way of trying to make the public believe that we can have a European-style welfare state without a European-style VAT. An example is Biden's promise that everything in the BBB Act be paid for without tax increases on those making under $400,000. What's left unsaid is that most of the big-ticket programs in the act are only funded partially by the feds, funded only for the first few years, or scheduled to phase in at the end of the budget period. In reality, keeping these programs permanently will require all of us to pay higher taxes, and if they are worth it, we must acknowledge that it's okay for all of us to have a little bit less so that we can pay for them. Just as we can't reasonably expect the government to be the only resource in caring for the poor, we also can't expect the ultrarich to be the only source of our safety net. In both cases, everyone has to do the work of caring for each other with our resources.
My go to question to better understand (or test!) someone's philosophy is, "So, what does that imply I should be doing differently in the next two weeks, in my life right now?"
I am highly skeptical of private charities (and their incentives and motivations) and do think it's governments job to end homelessness, for instance. But I also completely agree with you that 'good citizenship' is far more than paying taxes and voting a particular way.
I basically believe every good program is implemented locally, with local input. That means being a good citizen is an active one - actively learning how programs function, actively providing input (and seeking it), and, through action, creating a community that cares for one another. That said, activism is a double edge sword! Many programs go awry, or aren't implemented at all, because of NIMBYism, nepotism, and loud 'respected' voices. I happen to think the solution is more activism, not less, but there is well founded criticism of that approach.
As long as we have rich people (and even people who just have a little surplus and want to use it appropriately) we'll have private charity. I think it is and should be part of how we live—stewardship of what we have is a key virtue. There are things government does well to establish a floor (and I'm glad to pay the taxes that go to roads, schools, etc.) but it's also good to give personally, making a deliberate choice about how what we have been given to distribute should be handed on.
I'm highly skeptical of professional private charities (and private foundations), because I think any entity that wants to sustain itself in the 'business of charity' will have skewed incentives.
I am all for individual redistribution of wealth, but even then I am wary of 'charity' per se. Charity too often implies superiority. I direct my giving to member oriented organizations and advocacy groups, most of which are working to raise the floor.
I'd love a whole Monday post on your thoughts on charity and effective altruism!
It won't be Monday, but I'm on deadline this week with a feature on the gift economy vs the market economy for Comment that will touch on some but not all of these themes! So when that comes out, we can do a bigger discussion here. :)
"Melania simply converted her enormous wealth into enormous influence, like how matter doesn’t just go poof, it converts into energy. The denuded rich poured their wealth into supporting specific monasteries, which meant supporting specific theological positions, or building specific shrines, thus boosting the profile of specific saints. Unlike people who became literal monks, they shed their wealth on their own terms. And so what was intended as a stripping of wealth became a spectacular display of power.
I buy that and it’s hard to avoid. The slow-and-steady way allows your gifts to disappear in the mass of other normal-sized gifts. You don’t have that much more influence than the average person. You can’t stand out. And you can’t think you’re good; you can’t think you’re done. You have always the daily reminder of your sinfulness, in the pressure to give alms. I have many grateful, difficult memories of being in the middle of some bout with one of my various sordid sins and being asked for money or seeing someone in need whom I could help: It feels like being allowed, like being given the undeserved chance to serve someone."
That makes sense, though if I tried to distill what it means to be a good citizen, I'm not satisfied with the answer that everyone should be an activist. If I tried to put it into words, maybe I'd say something like--everyone should be doing *something* real that they can point to that improves the lives of others in their local community. Maybe it's activism, maybe it's some kind of volunteer work, maybe it's something else. But the common thread through all of them is that you, personally, are showing up and doing this work. You can't pay someone to do it for you.
Not to disagree with you, but to add relevant info, my husband did a year of volunteering between undergrad and graduate school, and he always tells people, "Never underestimate the value of your money to a nonprofit." Sometimes people fail to donate money to a group because they feel it is less valuable than their time, but the fact is, most nonprofits desperately need money and sometimes can't use a ton of volunteers.
Absolutely true. "Free" volunteers can cost a lot of staff time in supervision and training. And most food banks would rather have your money than your miscellaneous cans!
Excellent interview and discussion! I am especially moved by your powerful statement: “If we take the least dependent person as our legal norm of a person, is everything else all about catching people up to that level of non-dependence, or is it about accommodating them as equal citizens where they are.”
What is behind our seemingly universal human desire to avoid dependence? Is it a fear of not being accepted or being deemed less worthy (less human)? Or maybe that we just don’t trust that others will be there if we are too much of a burden. Sadly, there is ample evidence of truth behind both of these fears.
In America particularly, a lot of the stories we tell are about individual achievement and sufficiency. So we have fewer narratives about being needy and that being ok (and normal for everyone to varying degrees).
I think it doesn't take much looking to see that we treat vulnerable people (the poor, the elderly, the ill) frequently with contempt or shame and so people's fear of falling into that category is pretty reasonable!
I like how you made an effort to keep bringing the conversation back to how we in our present lives can intentionally encounter those in need, especially for people like me--childless, in my 20s, and in an environment where I rarely have to encounter someone in profound physical need. That's definitely something I reflect on.
I find myself having arguments with friends of mine who are very dedicated to the idea of an expansive welfare state, but who also basically believe that private charities shouldn't exist and that they shouldn't have to do anything personal to help those in need. In their minds, they want to pay higher taxes and in exchange be absolved of any responsibility towards, say, helping the homeless. And I've got to admit that I don't have a response that feels wholly satisfying--I usually respond by advocating for skepticism that concentrating that amount of power and responsibility in one entity is really a good idea at all. But there's an implicit argument on their part that goes something like this: to be a good citizen, all I need to do is pay my taxes and vote for the best candidates. I'm curious how other readers would respond to this definition of the citizen, and how best to advocate for a different model.
I'm also reminded, in a way, of our left-leaning politicians' particularly American way of trying to make the public believe that we can have a European-style welfare state without a European-style VAT. An example is Biden's promise that everything in the BBB Act be paid for without tax increases on those making under $400,000. What's left unsaid is that most of the big-ticket programs in the act are only funded partially by the feds, funded only for the first few years, or scheduled to phase in at the end of the budget period. In reality, keeping these programs permanently will require all of us to pay higher taxes, and if they are worth it, we must acknowledge that it's okay for all of us to have a little bit less so that we can pay for them. Just as we can't reasonably expect the government to be the only resource in caring for the poor, we also can't expect the ultrarich to be the only source of our safety net. In both cases, everyone has to do the work of caring for each other with our resources.
My go to question to better understand (or test!) someone's philosophy is, "So, what does that imply I should be doing differently in the next two weeks, in my life right now?"
I am highly skeptical of private charities (and their incentives and motivations) and do think it's governments job to end homelessness, for instance. But I also completely agree with you that 'good citizenship' is far more than paying taxes and voting a particular way.
I basically believe every good program is implemented locally, with local input. That means being a good citizen is an active one - actively learning how programs function, actively providing input (and seeking it), and, through action, creating a community that cares for one another. That said, activism is a double edge sword! Many programs go awry, or aren't implemented at all, because of NIMBYism, nepotism, and loud 'respected' voices. I happen to think the solution is more activism, not less, but there is well founded criticism of that approach.
As long as we have rich people (and even people who just have a little surplus and want to use it appropriately) we'll have private charity. I think it is and should be part of how we live—stewardship of what we have is a key virtue. There are things government does well to establish a floor (and I'm glad to pay the taxes that go to roads, schools, etc.) but it's also good to give personally, making a deliberate choice about how what we have been given to distribute should be handed on.
I'm highly skeptical of professional private charities (and private foundations), because I think any entity that wants to sustain itself in the 'business of charity' will have skewed incentives.
I am all for individual redistribution of wealth, but even then I am wary of 'charity' per se. Charity too often implies superiority. I direct my giving to member oriented organizations and advocacy groups, most of which are working to raise the floor.
I'd love a whole Monday post on your thoughts on charity and effective altruism!
It won't be Monday, but I'm on deadline this week with a feature on the gift economy vs the market economy for Comment that will touch on some but not all of these themes! So when that comes out, we can do a bigger discussion here. :)
Eve Tushnet's latest is pretty interesting on private charity: https://evetushnet.substack.com/p/coins-and-dice
"Melania simply converted her enormous wealth into enormous influence, like how matter doesn’t just go poof, it converts into energy. The denuded rich poured their wealth into supporting specific monasteries, which meant supporting specific theological positions, or building specific shrines, thus boosting the profile of specific saints. Unlike people who became literal monks, they shed their wealth on their own terms. And so what was intended as a stripping of wealth became a spectacular display of power.
I buy that and it’s hard to avoid. The slow-and-steady way allows your gifts to disappear in the mass of other normal-sized gifts. You don’t have that much more influence than the average person. You can’t stand out. And you can’t think you’re good; you can’t think you’re done. You have always the daily reminder of your sinfulness, in the pressure to give alms. I have many grateful, difficult memories of being in the middle of some bout with one of my various sordid sins and being asked for money or seeing someone in need whom I could help: It feels like being allowed, like being given the undeserved chance to serve someone."
Oooooooh!!! Yay!
That makes sense, though if I tried to distill what it means to be a good citizen, I'm not satisfied with the answer that everyone should be an activist. If I tried to put it into words, maybe I'd say something like--everyone should be doing *something* real that they can point to that improves the lives of others in their local community. Maybe it's activism, maybe it's some kind of volunteer work, maybe it's something else. But the common thread through all of them is that you, personally, are showing up and doing this work. You can't pay someone to do it for you.
Not to disagree with you, but to add relevant info, my husband did a year of volunteering between undergrad and graduate school, and he always tells people, "Never underestimate the value of your money to a nonprofit." Sometimes people fail to donate money to a group because they feel it is less valuable than their time, but the fact is, most nonprofits desperately need money and sometimes can't use a ton of volunteers.
Absolutely true. "Free" volunteers can cost a lot of staff time in supervision and training. And most food banks would rather have your money than your miscellaneous cans!