The value in words

To start off, lets turn the spotlight on to a very fundamental building-block – our jargons and terminology. How do words that we use so often affect us?

You may wonder why is there a need to dissect words that have been a part of the common and legal parlance for generations. I believe that it is important to evaluate their appropriateness since the words we choose to use communicate our beliefs and attitudes. They also tend to create the reality they describe.

Paulo Freire, the Brazilian educationalist, said, “Within a word we find two dimensions —reflection and action. If one is sacrificed even in part, the other immediately suffers. To speak a true word is to transform the world."

For example consider the difference between ‘sympathy’ and ‘empathy’; ‘handicapped’ and ‘differently-abled’; ‘prison’ and ‘correctional facility’; ‘vagrant’ and ‘homeless’; ‘donation’ and ‘investment’. Both the words reflect two subtly different views and approaches towards the same thing or person. One way to decide whether a word truly defines a thought is by the immediate images that flash into our and others mind upon hearing it. So what images flash about ‘charity’ and ‘charitable’? They are the first two words under the spotlight.

Good Heart of ‘Charity and ‘Charitable’

At a party once, someone we had just been introduced to asked me where I worked. To my surprise, my husband intercepted “She is with the good heart sector”. He proceeded to clarify to us “She is a fundraiser and is invariably always asking good hearted people to do-good by giving for her good cause.” And then he asked if our acquaintance was goodhearted, for I was sure to approach him sometime. With an uncertain laugh, the gentleman deflected further probing and remarked to me “you must definitely be a good hearted person to work for a charity – such a good and noble cause”.

My husband’s teasing comments were not completely wrong. The image of the social sector has been closely associated with strong human emotions, whether it be suffering, compassion or religious beliefs. This emotion-laden image has its roots in the origin of non-profit movement. Individual’s initiative to help those who were suffering and bereft was an outcome of a charitable heart or a progressive outlook and hence viewed as charity or social service. When these initiatives became more organized into institutions, they were accepted as an extension of the charity and social service ideals.

Inspite of significant changes in the nature, scope and functioning of non-profit organizations, this image continues to persist. Our terminology has also perpetuated the ‘good hearted’ angle. The terms ‘charity’ and ‘charitable’ are the most obvious examples. Last year, while complexities of governance and accountability were being hotly debated in Singapore, a question kept troubling me – Why is the social sector limiting itself to ‘charity’ and ‘charitable’? Are they actually the predominant form of giving and social action in Singapore?

I realise that there is no singular interpretation for ‘charity’ and ‘charitable’ and they are used as ‘elastic’ terms. Their definitions are expanded and adapted to suit situations and ideologies. To clarify this point, lets look at an established definition of the terms, their key connotations and how we are currently using them.

Dictionaries define ‘charity’ as the alleviation of suffering and deprivation through giving aid to the needy (people in emotional, economic or physical distress). Pity, benevolence, alms, altruism and generosity are words that are often associated with it. And those who give charity are ‘charitable’, it could be an individual or organization. Drawing from this interpretation, ‘charity’ is the transaction between a giver and a beneficiary, i.e. the poor, helpless, sick, starving or homeless receiving aid from a sympathetic giver.

Have you ever wondered at the phrase ‘I don’t need your charity’?

The lopsided power equation between the charitable and the beneficiary has a lot to do with it! Another key dimension of charity is its ability to provide immediate relief to the recipient. But normally its impact is short lived since once the charity stops, the problem resurfaces. Showing charity to a beggar, might provide him with a meal today but he will be back in the streets tomorrow, begging again.

So do you believe that organizations in Singapore (and other countries) are only doing ‘charitable’ work? Or are they also involved in preventive and developmental efforts? Are individuals and companies giving only ‘charity’? Or are they also supporting long-term causes like environment; setting up foundations to support research; employing the differently-abled because of their potential and not just because they feel sorry for them? Either none of these things are happening in Singapore or we have included them under the broad and elastic umbrella of ‘charity and ‘charitable’.

This brings us to the question of how relevant are ‘charity’ and ‘charitable’ approaches today? In other words, will giving charity solve social problems like poverty? Will a charitable approach be able to cure and prevent the spread of diseases like AIDS? Are ‘charity’ and ‘charitable’ the right words for what we are trying to achieve?

While evaluating this, please consider the following aspects:
1. The number of non-profit organizations has increased substantially and so has their economic contribution. According to the Johns Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project, collectively the civil society sector (non-profit organizations including religious congregations) of the 35 countries covered by the research represented a US$1.3 trillion industry with 21.8 million paid workers and 190 million volunteers. Do we recognize the potential of this emerging economic force?
2. The role of the non-profit organizations has expanded beyond the traditional social welfare delivery to specialized functions in social and economic development. Today, organizations are actively addressing issues ranging from natural disasters, diseases, poverty, illiteracy, women’s empowerment, clean toilets, environmental degradation, dwindling wildlife, preserving culture and preventing crime. Is it fair to simplify their advancements as charitable?
3. The technical nature of the work requires skilled professionals from varying disciplines with an ability to work in challenging conditions and deliver results. Good intentions and a good heart are no longer sufficient for successfully tackling the problems. Are charitable organizations equipped to compete with the corporate sector for high caliber professionals?
4. ‘Giving’ is no longer only about doing-good for others. Social problems are directly or indirectly impacting our lives. People’s participation has become crucial in curtailing and solving these problems that threaten the state of their health, safety, economic conditions, culture, infrastructure, children’s future and family well-being. Even companies cannot prosper in a dysfunctional environment and neither can they grow without strategically nurturing the capacities of communities from where their future employees and potential consumers will originate. Strategic ‘giving’ has resulted in innovative methods such as social entrepreneurship, socially responsible investment funds and social venture capital. Do these fall into the purview of charity?
5. Fundraisers have found that donors tend to support more when they have knowledge and personal interest in an issue. Emotional giving or charity is sporadic and in response to catalysts like heart wrenching pictures of an earthquake or a sick person. The moment is bound to pass. But a belief in the need for a particular cause leads to regular and long-term support. Should organizations then promote charity or encourage planned and strategic giving?

When the needs and giving patterns have evolved, why hasn’t our terminology also grown to include these changes? By saying we are doing charity, aren’t we sub-consciously limiting our options? When organizations call themselves charitable, aren’t they limiting their vision? Has the time come to replace the branding of the ‘good heart’ sector with recognition as ‘specialists delivering social results’? The law in most countries also endorses the terms ‘charity’ and ‘charitable’. But then these laws were drawn up many generations back. In UK, the current law is based on the preamble to the Charitable Uses Act 1601. Incremental changes have been made over time but most words remain the same.

I leave you to ponder these questions. My objective was to provoke you into critically examining the implications of these terms and decide if they needed to be replaced. If you are wondering what other terms that can be used……..it is a question that will need your comments, ideas and another spotlight.