Philanthropy as a sociocultural phenomenon

Philanthropy as a sociocultural phenomenon.

Assemgul Khamzina
1-year postgraduate of specialty «Philosophy, ethics and religious sciences»» Penza State University.
Lygina Marina Arkadyevna Candidate of philosophical sciences, chair professor «Social philosophy» (ethics, religion studies, philosophy ), associate professor Penza State University.

In Russian public consciousness the charity is usually understood as an upgraded and delivered to the flow distribution of wealth (primarily money and equipment as well as food and clothing). There is a need of an effort to see the charity in the free provision of services, the transfer of knowledge and skills. Disposing the benefactor to that charity can be a tool of influence on social practice is taken with deep suspicion, and public opinion can be against it. This raises the important question of what philanthropy is and how philanthropic organizations should be.

            Philanthropy (charity) - an activity by which private resources voluntarily shared by their owners in order to facilitate the needy (in the broad meaning of this word) people to solve social problems and improve the conditions of social life.
 Financial and material supplies, the ability and energy of people can be as private resources. Charity is often understood as an almsgiving. The motives and valuable foundations of charity and alms have much in common. But as a certain kind of social practice charity differs from the alms. Alms are individual and private actions: basically they are given indigents, even without an explicit request from them. It is aimed at reducing severe and urgent needs. Charity has an organized and mainly impersonal nature. Even in cases ensure the implementation of individual beginnings (projects) it refers to the socially significant goals. It is carried out according to plan according to specially developed programs. Contributions to universities, museums, hospitals, churches, environmental projects, as well in the funds, taking the rational distribution of funds, - all this philanthropy regardless of whether the aid is directed to the poor or to those who need help. Alms - the help in urgent need.
 The philanthropy is also shown in situations of a necessary emergency aid (starving, in distress, etc.). Large-scale national and international philanthropic actions on humanitarian assistance to the certain settlements or the whole areas and even nations who are in severe need because of natural disaster, military conflict or economic accident are constantly undertaken , especially in the last decades. However the experience shows that such help is effectively carried out by the state organizations or with assistance of government services (that means the need of the emergency mobilization of resources, involving of expensive vehicles, etc.). Moreover, every emergency or systematic help to indigents, apparently, has to be a subject of state or governmentally organized and subsidized charge because the philanthropy is voluntary. Emergency help or systematic help to people who are in great need have to be indispensable, otherwise, not depending on someone's good will.
Philanthropy, helping in essential needs, can also support people and organizations just in the desirable. According to this the philanthropy represents an additional factor of autonomy and freedom of people - individual persons and organized in communities.
        In the last decades (since 60th years) there was a steady idea of philanthropy as not only monetary and property donations, but also as gratuitous, i.e. "public", activity in the basic meaning of this word., proceeding from it, we can also consider philanthropy as a phenomenon of the social part of society. Such activity is also called "voluntary" though the foreign word "volunteer" accepted in Russian for other designation of things, here, maybe, more suitable.
         Also the activity in which personal interests are implemented besides public is philanthropic. It is activity which is undertaken only from personal interests, but by means of which also socially significant results are achieved. "Pride and vanity built more hospitals, than all virtues combined," - it deserves attention, not without sarcasm the remark of B. Mandeville just indicates a possibility of such paradoxical interface of individual and common interests which can confuse moral sense, but has to be nevertheless a subject of a reasonable attention of the legislator interested in inducing of philanthropy[1].
          Indifferent for the legislator, but essential in the context of social stratification and social mobility fact lays in that the philanthropy (in the countries with their long traditions) is a sign of the social status. This is not about the archaic stereotypes reflecting practice of charity and the help (in medieval society) when the help was from rich to poor, but in socially particular situation of the relations of adult and young people when the fact of blessing designated ( in later times established) position   included in situation of people. Presently elements of that practice remains in the removed kind within philanthropy of traditional elite (certainly, in the countries with stable traditions of philanthropy).
      Considering the things which are told about philanthropy, the assumption is how reasonable that activity in which the material and personal resources are endowed can be carried out not targeted, without the serious and responsible scheduling designed to provide its maximum efficiency? The answer is so obvious that the question can be considered as rhetorical. Philanthropic efforts can be and inefficient. But, at least, ideally, the philanthropy is always targeted, programmatically organized, systematic, oriented on positive practical result activity. It is also apparent that not only performing work of the organization is the subject to planning. Proceeding from the authorized tasks, it makes decisions, forms programs, develops or initiates projects. Through the definition of target tasks and priorities, programming and design the philanthropic organization in that measure in what its activity has a public response and social effect, carries out particular policy, approves the ideology or philosophy. The turn in public opinion is necessary for awareness of conspicuity of the fact that the organized philanthropy is the alms which are not raised in scales. It is one of the mechanisms providing stability of developed civil society.
         No matter how "philanthropic" are philanthropists, society is interested in particular restrictions of their activity which would guarantee its independence of private philanthropists. These restrictions are assumed already by the qualification of philanthropic fund defining its legal status as non-state, noncommercial, self-coping through trustees or directors of the organization which possesses gratuitously provided capital distributed in the form of grants (subsidies/grants) or prizes designed to promote the social, educational, charitable, and religious and other activity directed for the public good.
        This qualification sets restrictions as on commercial activity that, apparently, does not cause a controversy, and on political activity. It is possible to add to definition of philanthropic fund that it is the organization not only noncommercial and non-state, but also not setting before itself immediate political goals: the philanthropic organizations should not be "promotion cars", stimulators of activity, negative in relation to public status quo, whether it be direct actions of citizens and the civil organizations or lobbying in legislature of new laws, without speaking about support of political parties and movements.
     But these restrictions have to carry not only the prohibitive, but also stimulating character. Private funds if they really exist (and exist as quotients), can play a special role in society. Certainly, it is not realistic to expect that all social problems which at the state hands do not reach will be solved with their help. But by all means it is necessary to expect that funds fully and efficiently will be able to realize that special situation which they possess in society. Funds have no miracle compounding, but they have a unique opportunity for public institute to be independent of market mechanisms or pressure of voters thanks to what at the solution of the complex public problems can build long-term strategy and accumulate the considerable intellectual and professional resources for their competent and not tactical practical embodiment.
        The philanthropic organizations are non-state organizations. The last characterizes not only their legal status: they are open for society in many respects. Their activity can not be absolutely public. Another thing is that it is necessary discussion of what in activity of philanthropic funds or certain philanthropists is subject to public and state control and what rational criteria for assessment, as well as self-ratings of philanthropic activity can be.
          Funds have and dispose of huge financial resources, sometimes comparable to some articles of the state budget. Apparently, this circumstance is ambiguous: scales and possible social consequences raise a justified question of a ratio of funds as institute of civil society and state. This question concerns even not monitoring, and the power: who at such considerable scales of activity of funds in particular spheres of public life possesses a priority and, so, the power - to non-state funds or the state. At the same time there is a question and of the accountability of non-state funds to society. This question is urgent not only in poor societies, in which work (directly or through layers branches), rich foreign funds, sometimes capable to compete with the state in realization of the separate directions of social, scientific and educational or cultural policy.
 J. S. Mill paid attention to a problem of a ratio of the government social aid and private charity when the private philanthropy did not receive full-scale institutional development at the level of society in general. There are big differences between governmental aid and private charity . The main difference is that governmental aid has the state character, is oriented on interests of the state, sometimes tactical, and at the same time, often the interests of specific people   are not really taken into consideration. This is the undoubted advantage of the state help: it can be impersonal (can be perceived as heartless), but it is obligatory. It has to be indispensable therefore providing poor people, as Mill said; it should depend on the law, but not on the private charity.
           If to speak about an ancient charity, i.e. charity which Mill observed, he said that it has no opportunity for regularity and systematicity: there is a lot of it in one place, and it is not enough in another. But also the same thing can be told about the modern charity: it does not apply for inclusiveness though sometimes it is capable of it.
Mill imposed special requirements to the state concerning necessity of the help to poor people. His argument was specifically irresistible: "As the state has to support the poor criminal, so far he serves the sentence, and not to do the same to the poor who did not commit any crime means to reward for crimes". So the state has to help poor people. Another thing is that this, as well as any other help should be rational. Mill has the important formulation which can be possible to call "the pragmatic rule" of charity: "If the help is provided in such way that position of the person receiving it is not worse than position of the person doing without that and if it could be relied on this help in advance, then it is harmful; but if, being accessible to everyone, this help induces the person to do whenever possible without it, then it is useful in most cases "[2].
       As a matter of fact, for Mill it was the main regulatory restriction of philanthropy. And that concerns the help to poor people, as not indispensable, but only desirable, it can be conceded to private charity: unlike the state help it is able to afford to do distinction between separate cases of the real poverty in order to help someone, and do not help another. The help coming from private charity is selective, here it is important only that distributors of the help do not undertake functions of inquisitors and will be guided by rational motives, but not a whim.
          Now matter how Mill was acute, formulating "the pragmatic rule" of the help, he did not see an essential practical difference between the state help and private philanthropy. There is no need to pay attention to that the argument "from criminals" is not convincing but it is only witty and, certainly, it is moral: the state pays attention to criminals and surrounds them with an attention of penal institutions not initiatively, but forcedly, in response to the illegal actions made by them. Poor people and persons in need do not provoke like that an attention of the state, and they are not so dangerous as criminals.  As various experience shows, on a field of the state help, irrespective of the nature of the state system the largest abuses, and then the "governmental" state i.e. the less it is controlled by society, the larger scale is assumed by abuses.    
        We can also meet abuses   in of private charity foundations activity; however usually more strict control from the boards of trustees of funds, and also fiscal services of the state efficiently blocks such violations. Besides the private philanthropic funds do not depend on the state budget. They are more maneuverable and quick in assistance, in particular program, and as it has already told, are less subject to an environment.
It is difficult to overestimate a role of private charity in the western history of the XXth  century. The vigorous activity of philanthropic funds led to decrease in radicalism in the political struggle which was in a zenith in the 19th century. It could be simplification to represent business in such way that funds by financial injections managed to cajole political activists of national opposition and to bring down heat of political struggle. From the very beginning N. Rockefeller, D. Carnegie, then G. Ford's funds strove for scientific validity of their activity.
       These large production and financial tycoons used the best efforts that the organizational party of philanthropy was rationalized not less, than economic activity known for it. Actually there was organizational revolution in the process of charity foundations because of  which the new space of public practice where on basics of a decision making and assessment of their execution lies the examination of professionals , but not those who do common control or execute decisions.
         In the second half of last century there were considerable changes in   American philanthropic organizations activity caused by a revolution in views of philanthropy. Its mission contacts improvement of society: the abstract for someone "the neighbor's benefit" is filled with concrete sense of the benefit of fellow citizens, the benefits of society. The sense of philanthropy is seen in distribution of not  just consumer benefits, but tools with which people can reach (get) the consumer benefits. Such comprehension of a public mission of philanthropy assumed its reorganization as socially significant and targeted activity on the principles of scientific character, processibility, planning and monitoring results.
         Proceeding from the newest results of development of concrete ("positive") social sciences, organizers of philanthropy (they were mainly large private funds) tried to apply in this sphere the principles of social engineering assuming the formulation of problems in terms of objective fixed criteria, definition of the purposes which can be controlled and the careful choice of the tools providing achievement of real practical results. At the same time it was supposed that technologization of philanthropy is not substituted for mercifulness: the philanthropy is not revolutionary, and it should not destroy the existing order for the sake of a new order - life changes by forces of people, but not activists -philanthropists, philanthropists only initiate these changes.
        Because of  the diversity the funds in America in the first third of the XXth century began to carry out the  functions such as education, science and culture which  were traditionally executed by the state in Europe. Moreover, in the political terms broad development of philanthropic funds in America can be considered as democratic reaction to closeness for society of state machinery in which key roles belonged to courts and parties. Foundation of funds opened a new path - bypassing the state - to the power as the opportunity to have an influence on social processes.
          Most of all discussions of rather social significance of private philanthropy developed at the turn of the 70th. By this time both positive and negative tendencies of socially and social- politically focused philanthropy was fully shown.
Beginning from Carnegie and Ford philanthropic foundations used their immense power for development of health care, education and the arts. Broad civil movement for equal political and social rights in the US in 50-60-ies led to the fact that the activity of the largest foundations (Ford, Rockefeller, Carnegie), priorities, policies which had come to define left-liberal intellectuals, prevailed the idea of fundamental reform of society. But what it led to? Since the 60s the adepts of such stock policies have made the welfare of one of the essential human rights. This is in conjunction with the expansion of the state social assistance program  led to the fact that several generations of people in the United States grew accustomed to dependence and did not want social independence .
         Funds sought in every way to expand the size of financial compensation to the poor, the way they had, was a little different from the social policy of the state, and proclaimed the policy of creating a "welfare society" that only strengthened the social and class partitions. At the same time held by these funds raising and educational programs for ethnic and cultural minorities, looks quite advanced, actually contributed to the erosion of traditional values of minorities and exacerbate their inherent socio-economic and socio-psychological (eg, related to identification) problems. At some point, the funds - these powerful institutions of civil society - were in the role of political battering rams that could shatter from within the American system.
        Awareness of the harmfulness of such stock policies prompted a fresh look at the role of philanthropic foundations in society - in terms of not donors or recipients of philanthropic aid, mainly from the point of view of society. The most critical question was whether the sacrifice of spending and business donors themselves, or it should be the subject of public control. The next question concerned the standards of the choice between public and private interests in determining the allocation of philanthropic priorities. Furthermore, discussed the question about who eventually have to be accountable and who are accountable to the actual funds. Finally, who defines the priorities of philanthropic assistance, and what are the criteria of efficiency and usefulness of philanthropic programs.
         Apparently, there is a regular rethinking of the role of philanthropy in society in these years. By beginning to understand philanthropy and social activity, and as the content of philanthropic action covers not only monetary donations, but also donations of personal time, voluntary and gratuitous, professional or personal efforts, directed to the common good, the good of others.
         Philanthropy should be reasonable, of course, zealous and never wasteful. The largest US private charitable foundations do not accidentally carry the names of famous entrepreneurs and financiers - Rockefeller, Carnegie, Ford, and Soros. These are people who were able to apply their knowledge and talents to achieve success in economic activity. But their philanthropic activity was not as successful as their business activity, if they just generously shared with their profit, and not allocated funds using the same principles of rationality, which paid off in the acquisition of funds.
           However, this idea is as old as it the charity itself. We can find some interesting observations on this subject from Seneca, especially in one of his last treatises "On the happy life"[3].  Speaking about the sage, Seneca claimed that wealth does not humiliate the wise man, if it is acquired in an honest way and it does not humiliate anyone, including himself. Wealth in itself is not valuable to the sage, so he gladly would give away it. However, not indiscriminately, but based on certain principles, as it always is aware of both the costs and the revenues.
 Formulated position by Seneca is quite relevant as the most common criteria for philanthropic activities; they develop and refine a pragmatic rule of Mill.
          The generosity of the sage is universal: it is not important for him, whom he will help - he just creates weal for the public. But his generosity circumspect, he chooses the most deserving for this, bearing in mind that the benefactor should be good people or so, who can become good due to the help. Generosity should be relevant and appropriate, "because a bad gift belongs to the shameful loss." Sage presents it, i.e, it is not intended to get back. But he is trying not to lose.
         To some he gives out  because of compassion, to someone assists, as he/she deserves to be saved from ruin, as opposed to the other, who is obviously does not need help because it will not help; to someone he offers  help, and to someone he imposes it. Sage, presenting it does not expect reciprocity. But he treats the gift  as if it were a loan or contribution, wondering whether it would be possible to return the received; In other words, as far as those who help, can benefit obtained for the benefit of themselves and thus do not squander it.
        All these observations suggest that Seneca is very pragmatic concerning deeds, good deed for him - not a ritual, not just a habit, and, of course, not entertainment. The basis of blessings is humanity; it is inspired by the highest motives. But at the same time it is - the case; it must be handled efficiently, rationally, seeking to ensure that it was effective and successful.
           Seneca's observations are related primarily to the individual charity (they were spoken against individual philanthropy), but they fully retain their significance towards the organized charity, particularly as in our time people make charity individually only through alms, often the same, and usually - through intermediaries, obviously thinking (sometimes justifiably) that the mediators who have devoted themselves to charity, are organizations, foundations, and at this level of charitable activity is carried out effectively, "according to science."

List of References:

1. Mandeville B. The fable about the bees. М., 1974. P. 236.
2. Mill J. S. Fundamentals of political economy. B. III. M., 1981. P. 371.
3. Seneca. On the happy life, XXIII // Rome stoics: Seneca, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius. М., 1995. P. 187.