There are some fascinating internet thought leaders us who talk about generosity. That is one of the places that the term generosity seems to pop up on a regular basis. The first I found was Kevin Kelly, whom I may write about another time. Another is Don Searls, who is senior editor of the Linux Journal (Linux is a computer operating system), and among other things, a fellow at Harvard and research fellow at UC Santa Barbara, both within the realm of the internet and society.

Mr. Searls comments on an article in the New York Times Review of Books by Freeman Dyson about global warming and the environment. I will not quote from the original article extensively; you should click on the link and read it yourself if you are interested. But here is a brief segment that Searls also posts on his blog:

There is a worldwide secular religion which we may call environmentalism, holding that we are stewards of the earth, that despoiling the planet with waste products of our luxurious living is a sin, and that the path of righteousness is to live as frugally as possible. The ethics of environmentalism are being taught to children in kindergartens, schools, and colleges all over the world.

I really like what Searls says in his commentary. After a more extensive quote of Dyson’s article, he quotes from Kevin Kelly, who takes the idea of environmentalism and talks about how to calculate the cost/benefit/risk to the future planet of our environment preserving actions today – to generate motivation for longer-term thinking. Then Searls writes:

After reading this, I wonder whether caring and generosity come into play here. Because those are not reckoned with the logic of exchange and transaction employed by most economic arguments. What we do for love tends not to involve exchange. The purest forms of love are what we do without expectation or desire for payback. This is the kind of love we give our spouses, our children, our good friends.

and later:

Urgings to extend selfless love to the world — to extend one’s relationship beyond the scope of the familiar and the desired — have fallen on deaf ears for the duration. Though not entirely, or we wouldn’t have religion. It’s there in the “compassion and mercy” of Karuna, the “universal love” of Mohism, the “giving without expecting to take” (via Rabbi Dressler) of Judaism. And, as Freeman points out, in environmentalism.

Most of the time we think of generosity as a human quality represented by actions towards other people – especially people we are not close to. Although I find this unusual thinking, many people seem to think that giving to people you love or are responsible for cannot be generosity but must be duty. What Searls bring forward is the idea that we can be generous to our entire planet by being environmentally caring – loving beyond just to people we are in relationship with, to man or other sentient beings, but to the whole Earth ecosystem. That is certainly what many people may be doing when they work tirelessly and donate their financial resources to the many organizations that address the environment, conservancy, alternate fuel sources, etc.

What strikes me as well, and is contained just below the surface of Kelly’s wish for a cold formula to calculate environmentalism, is that in working to fight degradation of the environment, we are also benefitting people in many generations to come. We will never know these people of the future, and there may be no evidence left to give them knowledge of me (and most of us). Yet out of generosity, while we are here many of us want to make a difference in the way we treat our environment. If all of the generations currently living continue to despoil the environment, it will make little difference to our lives (that is unless natural disasters can be definitively linked to environmental damage). Yet, we are being generous to the people who will inherit this beautiful planet. This of course brings to mind the well known traditional Native Americans tenant that the present generation is obligated to contribute to the well-being of future generations, citing especially the well-being of the seventh generation. How could the reverencing of Earth and future generations not be worship?

These days most Americans, and many people in the world, are thinking about economic systems and theories because our US economy is in crisis. This posting will not comment on the $700 billion suggested bailout of the financial services industry by the Treasury Department. It is more about people who are at the poorest end of the economic system.

As I have been reading and thinking about financial generosity, how our charitable systems work, and how overprivileged people like me can help with world problems, I have become more and more concerned about people living in poverty and our systems that keep them there (or at least do not allow them to move out of poverty). Some very intelligent people I know suggested that I look up 2 people who try to combat poverty by affecting economic systems: C.K. Prahalad and Amartya Sen.

Amartya Sen

Amartya Sen is an Indian economist who won the Nobel Prize for Economics in 1998. As a boy he witnessed the Bengal Famine in 1943, where 3 million people died. Through economic analysis, he later showed that there was an adequate food supply in Bengal at the time. People starved because of a number of social and economic factors, such as declining wages, unemployment, rising food prices, and poor food-distribution systems. His theories argue that governments should be measured against the concrete capabilities of their citizens rather than just their financial wealth.

Sen’s arguments have been extremely influential with economic reform organizations. One of these is that social reforms, improvements in education, and improved public health must preceded economic growth.  He also believes that political systems affect famines; that functioning democracies prevent them because their leaders must be responsive to the demands of their citizens. So Sen is a believer in not just providing crisis support to the poor but finding ways to build their capabilities, and he believes in political freedom as a way to improve the opportunities for the poorest people.

Although by this point, Sen’s work has been influential for some time, it bolsters my belief that we Americans cannot fight poverty just by sending check to pay for food in a crisis. We must offer our support to change systems that affect the poor, so that they can improve their situations and be less vulnerable to famine, health crises, and political strife. I also appreciate that Amartya Sen shows through his work that self-interest, and an economic model built on self-interest, will not produce as much economic growth as will improvements to social support systems and political freedom.

C.K. Prahalad

C.K Prahalad is a more contemporary and engaged business theorist. He has worked for major US corporations as a consultant and is a professor of business strategy at the University of Michigan. He was recommended to me because of his book, The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid: Eradicating Poverty through Profits. This book shows how the poorest people in the world (more than 4 billion people living on less than $2 per day) can participate in our consumer systems if the products marketed to them are created with their needs in mind. Through economic engagement those people can have more choices and opportunities, can become entrepreneurs, and will have improved self-esteem.  The strength of his argument is that companies can start to see people living in poverty as a huge untapped market for sales, so will start to find ways of providing goods and services to them.

"The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid" by CK Prahalad and Stuart L. Hart, strategy+business, issue26, first quarter 2002

What both of these men share is the idea that engagement and activity at the lowest economic levels is the way to create social transformation, to fight and wipe out global poverty. They also share the view of people living in poverty as drivers in economic growth, but from very different approaches. It would be interesting to have them both in a room to discuss whether eradication of poverty is best achieved through political and social systems change or through the consumerization of poor people. They might very well agree, although Prahalad’s approach is more geared toward understanding poor populations and using them as a marketing opportunity group and Sen’s is geared toward empowering them with education and public health.

I realize we have a global consumer based society, so perhaps consumerism is unavoidable except in isolated pockets like intentionally non-consumerist communities and the communities of the very poor. But, as someone whose lifestyle puts him at the top of the economic pyramid, I am aware of the problems, I would even say ills, of a life based on consumerism. Do we really want the most disadvantage people on earth to adopt our stressful, luxury-seeking, seldom satisfied, and unhealthy ways of living? I am sure it would be far preferable to the present circumstances of poor people but it certainly seems like it is out of the frying pan and into the fire. Can’t we all just learn a new way of being, together rich and poor? Can’t we engage with each other and not with marketing messages, products, and customers?

Just as we must try to help keep developing countries from creating the kind of pollution we have produced (and still do!) in our trajectory toward affluence, can’t we help them also avoid the negative consequences of consumer culture? Can’t we learn from each other about how to live together interdependently without fueling the consumerism that is despoiling our planet?

This is the end of the Ramadan month for Muslims. During Ramadan, Muslims fast from dawn to sunset every day and the offer more daily prayers than usual. Ramadan takes place during the lunar month of the Islamic calendar in which the Qur’an (Islamic holy book) was revealed to the Prophet Muhammad. On the western calendar, Ramadan lasts from September 2nd to 30th in North America this year.

Zakat is the third of five pillars of Islam (along with prayer, belief in God and the Prophet Muhammad, fasting in Ramadan, and pilgrimage to Mecca). According to the Zakat Foundation of America, there are two types of zakat: the zakat on self (zakat al-fitr), which is traditionally paid at the end of the Ramadan fast and is mandatory for every Muslim, no matter their individual circumstance. The amount of this zakat must be enough to feed a poor or needy person. For this year, it is listed as $8 in the US. The second type of zakat is the obligatory zakat on wealth (zakat ul-mal) which is formulated by elaborate rules but is generally calculated at 2.5 percent of wealth of certain categories.

Two things strike me about the zakat on self immediately, one is that the gift is specifically given to the poor and needy for food. I like that it is so specifically directed, in a defined and manageable amount, to people who need it. That it buys them food, instead of the multiple other ways that the needy might be assisted, connects beautifully to the fast that all Muslims practice during Ramadan (exempted are the elderly, pregnant women, nursing women, children, etc.). The other thing I appreciate is how this giving is tied to intense religious practice, a period of both fasting and prayer, and a time of celebration (after sundown). And growing out of this practice, where daily hunger is voluntarily experienced by Muslims, food is given to the needy.

Here one’s personal religious practice is tied to the practice of other Muslims. Giving also becomes community service and a connection is made between oneself and people who are underprivileged. And finally one’s own reflecting and worshiping God leads to giving.

The title for this entry is taken directly from the Global Goodness blog. That is the blog associated with GlobalGiving.com.  GlobalGiving is an online marketplace where you can make donations for charitable projects all over the world and then get regular reports on their progress.  The post was written by Dennis Whittle, the co-founder of Global Giving, and is principally about Gene Steuerle, whose wife was killed in the plane that crashed into the Pentagon.

Mr. Steuerle responded to the outpouring of support for families who had lost loved ones on 9/11 by setting up a fund through GlobalGiving, along with other bereaved families. They want to create peaceful collaboration and opportunity as antidotes to terrorism, focused on where it had bred leading up to 9/11. Now The Safer, More Compassionate World Fund has projects in Afghanistan and Pakistan to provide education, training, and health care access so those people can have better opportunities and are less inclined to turn to the support of Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

What is so moving about this effort is the reaction of Mr. Steuerle and others cruelly harmed on 9/11. Instead of working toward retribution and violent punishment, which would serve to escalate the alienation between those communities and the US, they took action to reach out to them with care and support. Aside from the reasonable assumption that bettering their life circumstances and their ability to improve themselves would make them less likely to become radicalized, this is an amazing act of loving kindness.

It is probable that Mr. Steuerle will never recover from his loss. Yet his grief has not stopped him from being generous at a level beyond all expected bounds – and to people associated with the perpetrators of that loss. He is an example to us all.

Prayer is a wonderful example of generosity in giving and receiving. This is a truly selfless act, outside of the possibility of reciprocation, and freely giving more than is necessary or expected (definition of generosity, Compact Oxford English Dictionary, 3rd Ed., 2005). Prayer is part of all of the major religious traditions. Even people who do not consider themselves religious pray. As a matter of fact, a 2005 survey Rasmussen Reports found that 47% of Americans pray daily or nearly every day and only 18% say they rarely or never pray.  That is generosity being exercised by a huge population in America (imagine the whole world).

Often prayer, whether is in the form of chanting, reciting traditional prayers, prayers created in the moment, or silent meditation, includes an element of being present in the moment. This conscious stopping of daily activities to pray helps the person praying to be aware of internal experiences and to be enact whatever faith she or he has. This is related to being present with other people, is the most basic and one of the most profound forms of generosity. This is what theologian Brita Gill-Austern calls a ministry of presence.

No matter what your situation, knowing that someone is praying for you is a sweet awareness. This transcends religious differences and even disbelief. It is such a benign and sincere activity, no one could object to it being practiced or practiced specifically for them.

Lois Mitchell in her blog Live Simply, Give Generously, Practice Hospitality…Act Justly brings up the concept of a vow of generosity. This relates generosity to another concept associated with religion, the vow. She writes about how many Christians give something up for the 40 days of Lent and decides to take a vow of generosity for 40 days instead. She talks about how initially she was hesitant and reluctant in acting on her intent, but as she went along it became more natural and spontaneous for her.

The connection between these two; prayer as a generous act and vowing to act generously as a spiritual practice, are lovely together. It is as if prayer breaks free of whatever context that normally contains it and, in the endeavor to be generous every day, functions all day and in every situation. Your day becomes one constant prayer of generosity.

What do you think about taking a vow of generosity? Forty days sounds ambitious but possibly enough to create the type of change Lois Mitchell experienced. Consider it…

Pam Houston is the author of two collections of linked short stories, Cowboys Are My Weakness, which became a bestseller and was the winner of the 1993 Western States Book Award, and Waltzing the Cat. Her stories appear in Best American Short Stories (1990) and in Best American Short Stories of the Century. She was interviewed by Patti Thorn, books editor for the Rocky Mountain News, about writing and her life. It appeared yesterday in the online version of the Rocky Mountain News. Here is a brief excerpt:

Thorn: You once wrote that ‘creating a successful life might be as simple as determining which moments are the most valuable and seeing how many of those I can string together in a line.’ It’s such a simple yet profound thought. Have you come to any conclusions about what those sorts of moments are for you?

Houston: Yeah, for me it’s about being fully present to whatever is happening. It’s moments like cooking dinner for my friends, having them all sitting around a table telling stories for several hours. It’s hiking up the mountain behind my house with my dog. It’s reading a poem that I love to three or four of my closest friends. Hopefully there’s some generosity of something in there. Generosity of spirit, generosity of time, or self, money, whatever.

Here a woman, who found literary and commercial success as a young writer, talks about what is valuable to her. In her earlier quote (in the question), she equates a successful life with successive moments of value. One assumes that she means of personal value; neither value in gathering or exercising power, nor in the commercial activities of seeking money or spending it. In her answer, Houston defines this value herself as being fully present to the moment — in the sense that is often equated with Asian religious traditions such as Buddhism and Zen. At the end of her answer, she connects these moments of presence to generosity – giving her spirit, time, self, or money.

This is a lovely equation for me:
Successful life = string of most valuable moments (being present in the moment + being generous with all one has).

Ms. Houston’s work is often autobiographical, so these moments also fuel her writing, so their value may not be so surprising. However, she presents the value in the moments coming first, being primary, and does not speak of them as fodder for her writing projects.

At the center of this equation is what is most valuable to us. For many people, that may be the difficult element to discover when applying this earthy wisdom. If moments such as the ones Houston describes are the most valuable, they are surely not costly. They revolve around daily life and not something exotic or out of reach. They involve one’s community and one’s current living place. They speak to appreciation of nature and the sharing of art. How different this is from other versions of a successful life that involve notariety, lots of money, luxurious abodes, and people serving us. Yet, Houston comes down to serving other people as the central theme to her valuable moments. It seems that is the string that holds her line together. It sounds much easier to be generous when both success and generosity are defined in the context of our present time, circumstances, surroundings, and community.

So many people are concerned about their children – helping them to be thoughtful about media messages and their influence, particularly commercial messages, and giving them sound values about money and its use. There are some wonderful books out about the topic, including Raising Charitable Children by Carol Weisman and A Kids Guide to Giving by Freddi Zeiler to name a few. Like many other children’s resources (saved for later postings!), modeling generosity and teaching charitable giving through engaging in generous behaviors are effective techniques for this.

Yesterday in the online version of the Denton Record-Chronicle, a Texas newspaper, posted a story of a family who effectively taught their son about entrepreneurship and charitable giving as well. Rosa Peregoy was evidently being pressured by her 10-year-old Trey, to allow him to open a lemonade stand near their home. After a first day of unexpected financial success, Trey’s parents talked to him about raising money for a charitable cause. He decided to donate money to buy school supplies for kids who could not afford them (a cost usually assumed personally by the teachers of those classes). Although he initially wanted to give a percentage of the profit for school supplies, but that proved confusing, so his parents offered to match whatever he earned and donate the total to the local PTA.

Trey Peregoy, pictured in the green shirt

You can see by this story already that his parents were encouraging and supporting Trey’s ideas, guiding his thinking about the role and use of his resources, and joining him with their own generosity. It was clearly not a chore from Trey, nor did it seem to spoil his original hopes for the stand. Rosa Peregoy said, “I wanted him to see the importance of working; I wanted him to not just think of himself, but someone else.”

As the stand stayed open, over five summer weekends, it became more popular and more people came to donate rather than just buy lemonade. Midway through the summer, neighbors started to bring food items to sell and help by volunteering at the stand. In this way, Trey learned about how generous other people are – neighbors and strangers – and that being generous attracts the generosity of others, especially if it is for a good cause.

In the end, the stand earned $262.50 so with his parents ‘match’, Trey donated over $500 to the local PTA. It also earned him recognition with an honoring at an upcoming PTA meeting and an article in the local paper. But I think what might prove to be more valuable is a young boy who learned some valuable lessons early in life about commerce, charity, community organizing, living out his ideas, and the goodness of people if you give them the opportunity. This is a great example for any parent to follow.

You can see the whole of Britney Tabor’s article here.

I find it wonderful that Suze Orman is talking to people about charitable giving as part of her personal finance advice movement. I say movement because she is the Oprah Winfrey of this type of advice in the mainstream, especially for women. Her message is of empowerment through smart handling of your resources.

In her book, Women & Money: Owning the Power to Control Your Destiny (Spiegel & Grau, 2007) she says:

In giving there is a power, an understanding that you are just the vessel that wealth or energy flows through. You allow money to come in through your hands and out through your heart. To be empowered to give, to be moved to give straight from the heart, is a feeling that all the money in the world could never buy.

I love this image of a vessel; it reminds me of the great book by Lynne Twist, The Soul of Money, where she uses the image of water to describe money and how it flows with generosity. And I do think Ms. Orman is right that there is a feeling created when being generous that is lovely and outside of the sensations experienced in normal commercial transactions.

In the book, she also says:

Understand that true generosity is as much about the one who gives as it is about the one who receives. If an act of generosity benefits the receiver but saps the giver, then it is not true generosity.

I like the connection she makes between the giver and the recipient. However I find something missing in her commentary, which goes well beyond just advice and into the spiritual realm. That missing piece is about generosity as a bridge between the person giving and the person receiving. One can feel in her writing the divide, I would almost say wall, between those who have and those who do not have.

One on the great benefits I feel in generosity is that it creates an opportunity for a relationship between the givers and the recipients. Giving can build solidarity with people who have needs and help raise them up. In this way, a community of care can be established around a set of needs that both the givers and the recipients (and social service agencies involved) cooperatively care about and want to change. In focusing so much on the giver and the giving, I think Ms. Orman is missing the potentials in that dynamic, which can bring even greater benefit to the givers while breaking down barriers that separate them from the beneficiaries of their generosity.

Have a look at her video on generosity here:

Today I am thinking about all of the people in the Caribbean and Gulf Coast region recovering from Hurricane Gustav. At least for the mainland US, the storm ended up weaker than many had predicted and hit land away from any major metropolitan areas. It did kill 77 people in Haiti, 8 in the Dominican Republic, and at least 11 in Jamaica. There must be hundreds who are still suffering, missing, or are without basic services in those areas.

In that type of natural disaster, many people are left with nothing but grief and post-traumatic stress. And for those people, receiving whatever is given to them may be the only way that they will survive. Jeff Nickles survived a F5 tornado (this is the highest level on the scale) in Oklahoma in 1999 and wrote about it on the blog My Super-Charged Life. He gives 7 lessons he learned as a result of the experience. They are:

1. Expect the unexpected.
2. Take cover when the storm is coming.
3. Get through the shock and awe.
4. Rebuild with what you have left.
5. Accept the kindness of others.
6. Believe that sunny days will come again.
7. What doesn’t kill you, only makes you stronger.

I am most interested in the fifth lesson: Accept the kindness of others. About it he writes:

Before the tornado, I had never been in the situation as an adult where I was totally dependent on others. Thankfully, there were plenty of good people around me to help. For whatever reason, it is sometimes difficult to accept the kindness of others. I don’t know if it has to do with pride or ego or what, but there can be some resistance. We didn’t really have a choice. We walked out of our neighborhood that night with basically only the clothes on our backs. We left everything else behind. Through this experience, I learned how to accept the generosity of other people.

I cannot stress enough the importance of this life lesson. I am a very self-sufficient person, but sometimes life throws things at you that you cannot get through alone. There is no shame in letting others help you. It blesses them and it blesses you too. It isn’t always comfortable, but it is certainly helpful. I cannot express the gratitude in my heart for those that helped us. From the UPS man that gave us something cold to drink to the American Red Cross to the friends that let us stay in their home, I am extremely thankful to them all. Thinking of their generosity and empathy toward our situation still makes me emotional. Don’t resist the generosity of others. You need it.

As with the other lessons, Mr. Nickles seems to generalize his lesson so that it applies beyond just surviving a tornado. The pieces that I find most universal in his fifth lesson are that most people consider independence part of being an adult and have difficulty being supported by others. Ego, pride, and shame are possible barriers to being receptive. He also recognizes that in the transaction, both the givers and the receivers gain something; he calls it blessing. He closes by showing how open-heartedness of people can be is moving and extols people to receive the generosity of others. His declarative closing statement, “you need it” must apply not only to those who have survived a natural catastrophe, but all of us.

I was introduced to Hannah’s Lunchbox by a friend of a friend, someone who had worked with the Salwen family. You may have already heard of Hannah’s Lunchbox, because I understand it was featured on CNN and the Today Show, and has been very popular on YouTube.

Briefly, Hannah Salwen was so upset by homeless people begging on the street in Atlanta, where the family lives, that they decided to greatly alter their lifestyle so that they could financially benefit others. Hannah’s younger brother Joseph, a 7th grader at the time, created a video to tell about the project, which generated the media attention. As an aside, the video won a contest for Joseph put on by Coldwell Banker.

The family decided to sell their highly valued ($1.8 Mil.) house and give half of the sale price charitably, while moving to a much smaller home. They will use the money to fund The Hunger Project and try to make a difference with basic needs in Africa. At this point, I do not think the house has sold, nevertheless, the family is clearly so changed by their own boldness that I cannot see them rescinding their intention.

Here are the things I really admire about their efforts:

• They took a concern and channeled it into a positive action
• They focused on how they wanted to help and researched organizations to find one that works in a way that matches their beliefs
• They were willing to make a significant change in their own lives to benefit others
• Since home is more than a dwelling and has strong emotional connections, this seems to be even greater than just a financial gift
• They combined their financial giving with a service trip to participate in ground-level work
• The parents were willing to be inspired by their children and taught them about generosity through leadership
• Through engagement with the issues of hunger, they educated themselves about the challenges and subtleties of those issues
• They have demonstrated that we can all give more than we think, without threatening our own safety and comfort

Although their exposure through various media has brought with it repsonses that are positive and also responses that are cynical and critical (you can see some of them on YouTube), I am greateful for their efforts. I hope their example will lead other people to this type of generosity. Watch the video by visiting their website.