In Defence of Charity

There is, what seems to me, an odd statement made by some social justice folks.  The statement goes along the lines of, “We need justice and not charity.  Charity keeps people in poverty and a lot of people make a lot of money keeping people poor.  Charity exists to let the givers feel good about themselves and does not help the poor.  We need fundamental change.”  I disagree.

I’ve heard and read this statement from enough people that I expect it is widely held and not simply the opinion of a vocal minority.  I don’t think I’m setting up a straw man to easily knock down.  I’ve been invited to protests against food drives and food banks.  Protest is necessary, important, and crucial to democracy.  It rarely is nuanced though, and opposition to food banks should be.  I’ve also heard the criticism of non-profits that all they accomplish is letting the volunteers feel good about themselves.  Do people mean these critiques to stop volunteers from serving?  This is not a rhetorical question.     

“Disagree” is a binary word, so I want to clarify a bit.  The folks who make this statement are correct.  We do need justice.  I hate that justice is a goal.  Justice should be a reality.  I wish charity did not exist.  It is embarrassing that homelessness, hunger, and illiteracy exist in a country with as many financial, intellectual, and natural resources as Canada has.  (That is not to say that I’m comfortable with these problems existing in poorer countries.  It is to say that I don’t have much hope in my country’s motivation to help people on the other side of the world when we ignore folks down the street.)  That we treat drug addicts first as criminals instead of people who need help infuriates me.  That medicine costs so much and that people have to forgo dental and vision care despite the respected Canadian healthcare system is shocking. 

I am angry that Canada allows these situations to happen.

Unfortunately, though, Canada does.  That is why charity is needed and should not be scorned, dismissed, or belittled.  I want wholesale change.  I want justice.  I think justice is possible.  Seeing justice come about, however, has a couple of barriers.

We need democracy for social justice.  I am doubtful that justice is possible under any of the other contemporary methods of governance.  Democracy has the benefit of everyone having a say.  However, this benefit means that governments sometimes suck.  If injustice is present in a culture and we want structural change, we have the means of getting there.  We get to vote every few years and we get to irritate our councillors, MLAs, and MPs in the meantime.  These freedoms are fantastic.  We should be thankful for them and it bugs me when people don’t use them.  However, using these freedoms to change who is in power and to change the minds of people who are already in power takes time and effort.  We have an already-built road to justice.  The time and effort inherent with freedom mean that this road will take time to travel.

Let’s assume that democracy works absolutely.  (I can’t help but recall John Oliver’s joke that democracy is like a tambourine because not everyone should be trusted with it.)  Imagine.  Imagine that social justice advocates have changed the minds of some of the people already in power.  Imagine we even were able to put some people who want to see structural change in positions that make such change possible.  We now have the ear of someone in power and she or he does something that allows the fundamental change we want.  Again, time is an issue.  If we actually live in an unjust society that needs fundamental structural change, we cannot seriously expect that even the best possible representation can fix it overnight.  Even with the best representation, there will be opposition.  We are in a democracy after all, so justice prevents us from being able to shut people up.  (We can ignore them, but we can’t stop them from having their say.) 

What I am saying is that political representation and time are factors in realizing a socially just society.

I hope I don’t imply that people who make the statement of justice vs. charity don’t understand that the time investment involved to see justice will be great.  Some of the folks I have heard make this type of statement have been advocates for social justice since I was a child or before.  Their experience means that they know the effort needed better than I do.

I am saying that I have yet to get a satisfactory answer to the question “What about tomorrow?”  When I hear people talk about justice and charity as if the two are polar opposites, I am concerned that the time investment needed for justice is overlooked and that people will be left behind on the road to justice. 

I want to make an alternate proposal.  We need justice.  Until justice is realized, we are going to have to be charitable.  Therefore, I propose that charity and social justice advocacy should exist in parallel. 

Charity is not about me feeling good about myself.  I do not feel good that the only available option for forty-four men in Saint John was to use an out-of-the cold shelter.  As a society, we allow homelessness to happen and this necessitates charity until we stop letting it happen.  I do not feel good that kids at schools need to rely on community groups to give them something to eat on their lunch breaks.  If the only other alternative right now, however, is letting them go hungry for the afternoon classes, then what is our choice?  It pisses me off that food banks and lunch programs are so necessary.  I’m hesitant to question the people who operate such groups, however.  We as a society allow people to go hungry.

Charity does not exist in the place of justice.  If charity is used as a tool for self-gratification, it is not charity.  If charity is used to maintain the status quo, it is not charity.  Charity allows people to survive and thrive while the fight for justice continues.  When charity does this, it is not only a good thing.  It is a necessary tool for justice.