“As cold as charity…Charity begins at home…Running a charity is like managing a business…That charity represents competition.” Those are some of the stranger kinds of sayings or views of charity that I have come across. The way some people regard charity is that it is not positive at all—in fact maybe could be something like a swear word or something to be avoided like the plague!
Charity. A person feels that if he or she accepts it they will be tainted by it and loss of their very dignity.
Charity. It can often be seen as synonymous with loss of self-respect and dignity.
Charity. It might as well be the Midas touch of disrespect. For example, if you read the children's classic “The Railway Children” by Edith Nesbit {1905} you come across a telling incident where kind children collect presents for the station master. The station master refuses to accept them because to take them is to be tainted by “charity” and that is something which he hates. It represents an injury to his pride. The children don't see it that way. They state they are simply presents given from the heart.
It is not difficult to see why people are reluctant to accept charity. It can injure a person's dignity and feeling of independence. And the original meaning of charity appears to have become “detached from” the original meaning. What originally meant “loving respect,” in Latin, or caritas {i.e. to give and raise a person's respect is now seen as depriving a person of self respect} Charity is no longer seen by many as a virtue but a vice !
Why is this the case? One of the reasons is that the past intentions and aims have proven to be highly questionable. The history of charity or philanthropy does not reassure people.
I read a book about a faith healer and Orthodox priest who stated, “To me most of the charities given today seem to be more an expression of egotism than of good. We see a lot of people who appear to be charitable but who in reality do so in order to humiliate their fellow human beings and prove themselves and to others they are superior. Whatever charity one gives, one should do it secretly. Send an anonymous envelope to someone in need, put thirty pounds in it and write nothing else except 'with my love'. We must try to get rid of egotism completely! {The Magus of Strovolos: The Extraordinary World of a Spiritual Healer,” by Kyriacos C. Markides, p. 63}.
It reminds me of the situation when volunteers for helping the homeless were warned by an Orthodox priest in Moscow that "Helping the homeless should be the natural and normal thing to do. It should not be viewed as somethings special or extraordinary." His direct response made it clear he doubted the motives of the would-be volunteers.
It has to be acknowledged that charity can be a magnet for all kinds of people with different motives…
Some people do charity to boost their power, prestige or to 'play at being good.' My experience in Russia was that a charity to help the homeless might be done to boost the popularity of a political party or a front to avoid a business paying tax to the government.
Around 13 years ago a charity running a shelter for people asked if I could help raise funds for it. I responded, “Well we can provide you with volunteers such as teachers to help the homeless and refugees." He answered, “We don't need volunteers. We just need money!"
Who ever heard of a charity that does not need volunteers but only money? The conversation got worse. He started to make malicious accusations against one person involved in a charity without any real evidence. One word came up. He regarded his 'rival' as 'competition.' I suppose if you think running a charity is just like managing a business then you might conclude that other charities are 'rivals'.
But the notion of 'competitive charity' is just an absurd oxymoron. It is a vast departure from the original meaning of loving respect. The person he was competing against also viewed other charities as 'rivals'. The results of this 'competitive charity' can be rather absurd.
For instance, in the late 1990's and the turn of the 20th century a 'center of humanitarian aid' operating from an Orthodox church in Moscow set up a newspaper to help the homeless in Moscow. There already was such a newspaper being run by a charity in Saint Petersburg. We asked if the British paper “The Big Issue” would help sponsor us. They answered, "We can't sponsor you because this newspaper in Saint Petersburg objects." Why was this the case? They did not explain. But it was clear that they viewed us as 'competition.' But you would think that such an organization in Saint Petersburg would have welcomed and supported such an initiative.
I recently read a handbook that lists all the charities which help the homeless. The handbook is meant to help any volunteer who helps the homeless and the homeless themselves can approach addresses for help. It was a welcome initiative. But I was baffled by why one of the oldest and most prominent charities absent from this list is Nochlezhka. I wondered why this was the case. Was it because of it's secular character? Did they see Nochlezhka as a rival? Do those charities ever consider cooperating with each other and pooling on their shared experience ?
There is one reason why some homeless might shun the aid of charity. This is suggested by Elena Korostyshev and Leyla Gamidallaeva in an article published in 2020 titled “Homelessness in the Russian Federation: Region and Local Context.” They argue that most charities in Russia which are helping the homeless 'blame the victim' rather than view homelessness as being caused by complex historical, social and economic factors beyond the control of the homeless. Most charities 'reify' the homeless into 'ideal types'. They write that charities “have classified the typical homeless person as a statistical composure; a middle aged man { a mean of 46 with secondary education 44% and a Russian citizen 87% }.
This simplification of a homeless persons leads to a very common practice of reducing a social problem to a bundle of pathological faults in an individual. By blaming the victim, the state is absolved of responsibility. The professors argue that in historical terms, it was bold state intervention that had more of a decisive impact in dramatically cutting the level of homelessness in Russia than charities {which were banned anyway during the Soviet Union}.
I have my reservations about this view. Collecting statistics need not automatically lead to reifying people. It is how those statistics are used which is important…
We should be weary at jumping to hasty conclusions. But would any person like to accept help from someone who assumes, or thinks "You only have yourself to blame for the situation" is a reasonable or purposeful statement to make?
When you look at the history of charity schools in Britain, you can easily become cynical about the role of charity. Roy Porter writes that the role of those charities was to turn children into disciplined workers in the new factories of the Industrial Revolution. In the schools “Mechanical methods of instruction and repetitive drill were taken up, partly to stimulate workshop discipline and partly for the economy' {See page 166 , Roy Porter, English Society in the 18th Century, London and New York: Penguin Books, 1990}.
So what is to be done? There is a danger we can become cynical and avoid charities altogether. You might see self-interest and conceit when there is none at all. The corruption in some charities should not blind us to the good deeds going on all around us. If you only open your eyes you can see ordinary people doing extraordinary things in the streets. Just go for a walk in some cities and you can witness many people helping strangers without any ulterior motive or reason. They simply like helping people. This is what the late Australian Catholic priest Maguire who helped the homeless and poor for decades stated. Despite coming up against opposition to his efforts, he never allowed himself to become cynical or to give up.
I think that one of the most misunderstood German Philosophers, Nietzsche, had a some wise insights into charity. The Russian theologian Alexander Men stated that his philosophy represented “a combination of great genius and great stupidity.” In his work “Thus Spoke Zarathustra” Nietzsche states, “War and courage have done more great things than charity. Not your pity but your bravery has saved the unfortunate up to now.”
What did he mean by this? By war he does not mean a military conflict but the struggle to contain your negative emotions and refuse to play safe. And to genuinely help people you often risk coming up against the powers that be which defend injustice and poverty. By charity he means how it has been corrupted to depriving people of respect and dignity. He associates the word 'pity' not with genuine compassion where you treat another as an equal but look down on the person with contempt.
And Nietzsche has something to say about so called 'competition.' He writes, “You may have enemies whom you hate, but not enemies who you despise. You must be proud of your enemy; then the success of your enemy shall be your success too.” This is how we should view other charity groups. Their success is our success also! Nietzsche turns out to be one of the most generous proponents of charity...
Friedrich Nietzsche
.
Remember that Nietzsche is greatly opposed to the abuse and corruption of the word “charity.” He accuses charity as being too mean minded by not welcoming the success of other groups.
There is a poignant story that while Nietzsche was leaving his hotel in Turin in 1889 he saw a coachman whipping his horse. He rushed up to protect the horse and before the coachman's eyes put his arms around the horse's neck and broke into tears. This happened just before his breakdown into madness.
Some have concluded by this incident that it points to his madness. But I think, on the contrary, it is one of the sanest things he did! By doing this spontaneous deed, he was simply practicing his humanist philosophy.
So an interpretation of Nietzsche suggests to volunteers that we have to practice genuine generosity that wholly respects a person. We treat people as equals. We cooperate rather than compete with others. We don't expect praise, prestige or profits but on the contrary, more often condemnation.
.
.
Recommended reading:
1. Elena Korostyshev and Leyla Gamidallaeva, “Homelessness in the Russian Federation: Region and Local Context” in “The American Journal of Economics and Sociology,” April 16, 2020, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ajes.12323. The article explains the roles of the state and charities in improving the living situation of people who do not have a home.
2. Kyriacos C Markides, “The Magus of Strovolos: The Extraordinary World of a Spiritual Healer,” 2005. London: Arkana—Penguin Books. This book is a fascinating account of the experiences of a faith healer. His views on charity seem very down to earth and as an Orthodox priest this man holds a very open- minded view on atheists whom he does not deride, dismiss or condemn like other priests might.
3. Friedrich Nietzsche, “Thus Spoke Zarathustra,” translated by R.J.Hollingdale, 1969. London: Penguin Classics, Penguin Classics, 1969, The introduction to this work provides an alternative view of Nietzsche who is seen as expressing humanistic values which are not incompatible with Christianity. This is a far cry from the view of Nietzsche as expressing extreme right wing views or being an evil atheist. The philosopher is viewed as expressing some subtle, sophisticated, and complex ideas.
4. Roy Porter, “English Society in the 18th Century,” London and New York: Penguin Books, 1991. A well-researched history of Britain that is a pleasure to read and puts charity into a wider historical and social perspective.