Recently I have heard lots of arguments that seem to extend
the opportunity to be a philanthropist to all of us. One line is that
philanthropy is not just about giving money but is also giving your time and
skills. There are lots of great pro bono schemes out there like The Cranfield
Trust and Pro Bono Economics which are based on volunteering. (Suddenly, it seems
that the term philanthropy gets applied when volunteers are skilled
professionals and not ordinary people.)
The other common argument is that whenever
we give any sum of money to a good cause then we are not donors or givers but
philanthropists. I applaud the democratisation of giving which means through
donations or crowdfunding pledges, funds from lots of individuals get pooled to
have a greater impact. But I don’t think it is philanthropy when it is a group
act. Even less so is tax paying, which is also claimed as philanthropic. Tax
paying is a legal requirement, a duty, an act of distribution but as an
individual I have no control over how my money is spent beyond a vote.
So what
for me sets philanthropy apart is control – the ability of an individual to
choose what to support - and having enough money to have an impact. So I, like
most people, think of philanthropists as wealthy individuals whose money
changes things – think Bill Gates and malaria or Thomas Barnardo’s children’s
homes.
Perhaps calling us all philanthropists is to be welcomed as a way of
claiming for the ordinary person something that usually conveys status and
influence on the rich. But I don’t think philanthropists are the same as us.
When I use my individual choice to give a small donation to a cause no one
worries that I am wielding undemocratic power. There really is something
different when your donations are big, influential and high profile. But this
does raise the question – just how much money does it take to be a
philanthropist? And is it true that anyone can be one?
No comments:
Post a Comment