http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-wealth-reduces-compassion/
Our recent discussion in lecture featured Professor Talwalker's essay, "What Kind of Global Citizen is the Student Volunteer." One of the interesting studies she brings up is Piff et. al's work on prosociality. Lower class individuals demonstrate greater procial behavior and are more compassionate than upper class individuals. This plays directly against the common notion of charitable, lavish donors vs. poor families who are inherently selfish to maintain the little they have.
The above article elaborates more on Piff and Keltner's exact research. As you can see through the article, Piff and Keltner have run a multitude of experiments to show that the affluent form a disconnect with the poor and suffering since they themselves don't experience it on a daily basis. This inability to relate/connect affects their inclination to be charitable. What interests me is the implications of this study on the developmental aid industry and theory. Critics and theorists like Jeffrey Sachs call for nations to abide to their previous agreement to donating 1% of their total GDP. This, in Sachs' perspective, would transform the developing world, pushing them up the ladder of development. However, if this problem persists and nation still refuse to donate 1% of more of their GDP to charity, the individual donor contribution becomes much more vital. With this study in mind, and assuming it applies to most affluent people (since most have grown up in affluence all their lives), the concept that enough aid will flow to these nations is not practical. To extend this concept further, since politics and wealth have grown together in recent years so drastically, the reason why many developed nations are not donating their 1% share of their GDP to third world nations is because of this lack of compassion.
We can also extend this concept that the rich possess less compassion more thoroughly in the realm of politics. The individuals running for office these days are often people who live lavishly. More and more money has to be spent on campaigning, much of it out-of-pocket expenses. Politics correlate to wealth which correlate to power. In order to run for any political office these days, you must have a lot of money to first of all reach that level in which a party puts trust in you and while campaigning. Thus the rich are the only citizens with access to the power of the government, the institution that perhaps requires the most compassion out of all our nation's institutions since its job is to take care of its people to maintain a functional society. With people at the top with all this power lacking in compassion due to a disconnect with the poor he governs over, poverty inevitably results. Food stamps get cut and welfare for the poor become less a priority.
Of course, there are exceptions to the scenarios I described above, and they are extremist. This indication that the rich has less compassion than low-income families is not the only factor that influences the success of the aid industry or politics. But it could be a root cause for these issues. The problem is if they are inherent tendencies humans have in hierarchical political/economic systems. if they are, then they are terribly difficult to fix.
Although there is a growing lack of compassion, there are a group of philanthropist's out there who have been continuing to grow and donating away their fortunes to third world countries. The Giving Pledge is a group of philanthropists started by Warren Buffet to help entrepreneurs donate a percentage of their wealth to the cause of their choice. The interview can be seen here:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-giving-pledge-a-new-club-for-billionaires/
The actual list of billionaires that actually give back is astounding.
http://givingpledge.org
Although, we stereotype the rich as those who are less compassionate, it's nice to know exceptions to that rule. The recent young tech entrepreneurs have grown up around the efforts of Bill Gates and Warren Buffet and have been inspired to give back at an even earlier age. Mark Zuckerberg for instance already has his own foundation set up. More of the wealthier people in America who are not in the spotlight like these entrepreneurs should also follow suit and help those who need the money more.
I have read before that less affluent (mostly working to middle income) folks tend to give a higher percentage of their earnings to charity, etc. It's interesting to think that this may come from a fleeting sense of compassion along an income gradient.
ReplyDeleteI also wonder if like Surya suggests, we can attribute this mentality to groups or states. Are wealthier states more compassionate? I think that could be said at least for the US. We're meant to be the wealthiest country in the world, but we are also among the countries with the most inequality. Is this a result of our lack of compassion?
Also like Surya describes, today there is a disgusting connection between money and political power. I remember one of my professors saying last semester that you can't expect change to come from hegemonic countries. I wonder if this comes from this same trend. Are countries and people afraid of being emotionally or economically sympathetic because they don't want to change the system that has enabled them to prosper?
Of course there are exceptions, Bill and Melinda Gates for one, but even when I have read about their foundation, I find that it supports a neo-liberal model of development that I find fundamentally wrong.
Aside from all this, one thing that bothered me about the article is the way it discusses compassion. As if it is something that you have, and then goes away if you have money. I think that compassion is a skill and a characteristic that has to be learned. I think that part of privilege is not needing to be compassionate because you do not need to depend on people the way others without certain privileges do.
This article is an interesting way of "studying-up"--why are rich people more apathetic than poorer people. And maybe that's one of the questions we have to answer when examining inequality.