“Are the acts of charity sincere or selfish?” This is the current topic in my
English class, and I find it interesting as it relates to our current problems
in the community. We have been reading the Canterbury Tales, by Chaucer between
1387 and 1400s. These collections of stories were written with a sarcastic
twist to the 29 profiles that participate within the tales. Each character is
meant to tell two tales that ultimately show their true personality. One
character in particular that caught my attention was the Prioress (a nun that
is the head of the convent). She is modest, polite, and take measures to be
considered courtly. She cries over the death of mice, and is charitable in that
she feeds her dogs’ white bread. Despite her deliberate measures in being
charitable, her intensions are "misplaced." She feeds her dogs while there are
many people dying during that era. She seems to care more about being a fine lady
than doing any good; does that mean she’s superficial in her acts of kindness? Her
priorities are for greedy rather than compassionate reasons. I
find this similar to Dan Pallotta’s Ted Talk we watched this week on
non-profits called “The Way We Think about Charity is Dead Wrong.” Businesses and
corporations would rather donate about $100 thousand dollars than become the
CEO of a non-profit organization. People are also hesitant to donate to a non-profit organization because they believe that the money goes to the workers, and not the “cause.” Businesses have an image to keep, and their reasons for donating might be for
increased morale towards their business, or for public affairs. It is as if
they are doing the minimum acts of kindness, in many ways just as superficial as
the Prioress in the Canterbury Tales. The Prioress appears to be righteous in
her reasons, and equal in her actions, but is in reality maintaining an image, just like many
businesses and corporations do. This shows contrast in the acts of charity,
because charity is therefore not an act of sincerity, but rather an act of greed.
Observation:
I saw a magazine advertising Kim and Kanye’s baby; after looking at every page,
I noticed that there was absolutely nothing dedicated to Kim and Kanye, much less of their baby.
I enjoyed the connection you were able to make between the Canterbury Tales and the video we watched in class on Wednesday. It is interesting to see how charity and philanthropy are thought of so similarly in two different time periods.
ReplyDeleteI think it is easy for people to say that charity is selfish in that people often are philanthropic because it feels good to do good. However, not everyone makes the choice to give back and donate their time and/or money. I had a debate with a friend once over this very topic (he believed giving was selfish and I disagreed). Although, I suppose a better question could be, is being selfish always a bad thing? The word itself has a negative connotation, but I believe it can be a good thing. When I choose to give to a charity that I am passionate about because it gives me pleasure to do so, I am in fact being selfish...but I'm also doing a great thing.
ReplyDeleteAs the Canterbury Tales show us, much remains the same in our cultural morality although the world itself has changed quite a bit. Research is beginning to show that giving is one of the best things a person can do for themselves. The specific kind of well-being that comes from giving (as opposed to from getting) is particularly effective. That does bring in the question for me of how can social services allow our recipients to also be givers so that we can both equalize the relationship and make sure that they also have the rich experience of giving?
ReplyDelete