What is probably more puzzling is that the idea of not giving money to help the afflicted is more offensive than the fact that those who are offended have assumed that money is the solution the the problem. Giving money does not address the first principle of charity which is the direct investment of labor for the sake of the afflicted.
The most expensive commodity in the world is labor. It costs more to pay for the work people do than any other expense, at least in theory. The most efficient way to increase profits is by cutting labor costs and cutting the number of full time employees one retains in order to increase the margin between credits and debits. If a company can export labor to cut costs, not only does it usually give low paying jobs to poor people in another often foreign location, but it also cuts costs for the corporation. Cost cutting is then transferred into a new account of exploitation. The World Bank will actually loan money to poor countries which allows them to invest in corporations to create industries and "jobs."
So what does it mean to get a paycheck for labor performed? A paycheck is a note that symbolizes the transfer of labor into a government issued note. It is a way of telling the employee that this is what their labor is worth to the employer and nothing more. When we selflessly donate these funds received through this transaction to a charity, we are simply converting our labor into dollars, thereby transferring our labor to another entity for some other purpose. We transfer our labor through the media of money.
The problem is that in transferring the value of our labor from one place to another we are contributing to a larger problem. This problem is the need for charity labor itself. If labor is the most expensive and thus the most valuable commodity for any organization, the amount that we give in dollars is only there to support someone else's labor to meet a certain outcome such as helping the poor. Our tax dollars go to various welfare programs, section 8 housing, medicaid, etc. in the same kind of transaction. As with any transaction, as the commodity exchanges through each hand, it's value degrades over time. It does so with various administration costs to support someone else's labor, management, fundraising itself, etc. Thus, the labor that you produced for one employer actually begins to lose value as it transfers into government notes that then transfers to other places like charities.
In developed nations like the United States, we have long assumed that if we donate to charity that the value of our labor in dollars will then be transferred elsewhere for a "good purpose." This makes us feel good and look good. To be sure, giving money does have its place especially when one cannot directly work for a specific charity. However, it is not the most effective way of lifting the afflicted out of their state of degradation. Thus the single most effective way to donate to a "cause" is by investing in charity not with dollars, but with labor itself.
For Simone Weil, affliction is not just a physical or psychological state of depression, anxiety, oppression, etc. It is the state when one's ability to receive what is good has been so crushed largely by social forces, that one ceases to have the spark of humanity itself left in him or her. It is absolute alienation and degradation of the human self so that the person is worth nothing more than a pebble. It is not possible for the afflicted to raise their self up out of their condition. Rather, it is human obligation to one's neighbor that makes recreation of the afflicted possible. It requires humanity to reach deep into the void of affliction to give the good to the afflicted. This requires that humanity be willing to sacrifice itself for the sake of the other even as Christ sacrifices himself to reveal the Kingdom of God for humankind.
The exchange of labor through money may be an indirect means that may recreate the humanity of the afflicted. But it does not resolve the first principle here. The first principle of the afflicted is a loss of human connectedness. It is the utter failure of others to love their neighbor. Love cannot be transferred through government bank notes. Love requires the direct intervention of people to give the good to those who are unable to receive it. In this way human obligation bridges the void between the afflicted and God. While giving money to the afflicted may have its place, it does not absolve us from love which requires the direct investment of our labor for the sake of the afflicted. While the protest of "This is too unrealistic and I don't have time" seems reasonable, it does not divest humanity that direct investment of labor for the sake of the afflicted is precisely what Christ commands us all to do.
Related posts:
I really liked where your post ended up, but it seems too much to me that you are saying the purpose for rehabilitating someone is to make the "productive" again. Maybe I misunderstood your point, but you spent all that time talking about how we need to make sure we are not using the "value" of our dollar. I think that misses the central point of the value people put in people regardless of their economic worth. What do you think?
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Drew Tatusko and Drew Tatusko. Drew Tatusko said: new post: stop giving money for the afflicted – http://bit.ly/10lSBZ #fb [...]
Good post, Drew!
This underscores the reaction that many — if not most — have to the "charity" of others, that of resentment. If I throw money at your problem, that shows you that I perceive your suffering is of less value than my time and effort. On the other hand, if I truly value your well-being, I will invest my time and effort to better your situation — money be damned. It's called "time preference," and it drives all market/value transactions; if your suffering isn't worth my time to me, I may throw money at it, but I will spend my time elsewhere (kind of like my decision whether to mow my lawn myself, or hire someone to do it for me).
A parallel can be seen in our schools. We've been collectively throwing tax dollars at them for decades now, with disastrously decreasing returns. Personal investment in individuals — with time spent tutoring and/or mentoring — would have had significantly better results all along, but Americans (and probably people in genral) have bought into the mindset that "someone more suited" (usually a government organ) could do a better job. This mindset robs us of our connectedness and our humanity.
Good post, Drew!
This underscores the reaction that many — if not most — have to the "charity" of others, that of resentment. If I throw money at your problem, that shows you that I perceive your suffering is of less value than my time and effort. On the other hand, if I truly value your well-being, I will invest my time and effort to better your situation — money be damned. It's called "time preference," and it drives all market/value transactions; if your suffering isn't worth my time to me, I may throw money at it, but I will spend my time elsewhere (kind of like my decision whether to mow my lawn myself, or hire someone to do it for me).
A parallel can be seen in our schools. We've been collectively throwing tax dollars at them for decades now, with disastrously decreasing returns. Personal investment in individuals — with time spent tutoring and/or mentoring — would have had significantly better results all along, but Americans (and probably people in genral) have bought into the mindset that "someone more suited" (usually a government organ) could do a better job. This mindset robs us of our connectedness and our humanity.