WHAT DO drinking and humanitarian relief efforts have in common? At first glance, it seems absurd that these terms would ever find themselves in the same sentence. But it has become increasingly common for University students to tie drinking and philanthropy together.
"Bar nights," a popular phenomenon at the University, are the common denominator here. Because of their ability to draw large crowds, bar nights have been widely used to promote social action. If a group can strike a deal with a bar, they are able to sell cups for a few dollars and privilege the buyers to cheaper drinks. And the money paid for the cups? It goes to charity.
But what does this mean for the notion of philanthropy for its own sake? Our value system is in for trouble if we continue to diminish the importance of personal sacrifice by providing material incentives to compel it.
Consequently, it's important that we analyze our motivations for performing philanthropic acts. Are we really cognizant of the fact that we're contributing to a good cause? Or is it simply a positive consequence of consuming cheaper beer? And if it serves a good purpose, do these questions even matter? On a small scale, perhaps they don't. It's all in good fun, so it seems, and there are clear benefits to raising money in this manner: namely, increasing participation. But considering that this behavior might be a reflection of a broader phenomenon in American consumer culture, it's something worth taking closer a look at.
The incentive structure is something that has long been a part of Americans' patterns of consumption. "Buy one, get one free" provides a common example. Ordinarily, this doesn't present a problem. Yet there are some situations, particularly where civic duty and incentives intersect, which can prove ethically troublesome. After all, fulfilling one's civic duty is about giving something back to society, not about getting a kickback for it.
The devastating impact of the tsunamis in southeast Asia brings a contemporary example of this to mind. Immediately, relief efforts were organized around the world to provide victims with food, clothing and other necessities of living. Most of the non-governmental funding has come from private donations, collected by humanitarian relief organizations such as the American Red Cross and Oxfam.
President Bush quickly scraped together a plan that will provide Americans with tax write-offs for private contributions to the relief effort. This leads me to wonder: how much difference did this tax incentive make in Americans' willingness to donate?
On Jan. 15, NBC affiliates aired a "Concert of Hope" telethon for tsunami victims, which successfully raised $18.3 million for relief. A number of celebrities stood by on phone lines to take donations. What struck me about the event was not the presence of these celebrities and musicians, which had a very positive effect on the relief effort. Instead, it was that Jay Leno, the telethon's host, began offering "free gifts," such as telephones signed by all of the celebrities in the room, to callers donating upwards of $3,000. This warps the proper sense of what it means to donate. At some point, this "free gift" simply becomes an object that someone buys, regardless of the positive consequences of his actions. In a few years, the buyer could turn this item back around in an auction, where he's sure to make back at least the $3,000 he "donated" it for.
In an e-mail response, professor of social psychology Brian Nosek, explained, "Providing additional incentive beyond 'philanthropy for its own sake' could create an overjustification effect for the reason for giving and lead givers to attribute their giving behavior to the personal reward, rather than the internal motive of providing help." Because "intrinsic motivation will lead to more persistence and commitment to a particular course of action than extrinsic motivation," such incentives serve only to perpetuate reward-seeking behavior.
Clearly this doesn't apply to everybody. Many have come together to try to help tsunami victims, donating time and money and never expecting anything in return. But I fear that this altruistic mentality is a dying one, as evidenced by the increasing presence of the incentive structure in the gift-giving relationship.
Even if the incentive structure does work, we could likely do without $3,000 celebrity-signed phones and cheap beer. Why not just donate the $15 spent in one "bar night" all to charity, instead of giving only the $5 that it costs for the cup? As civic-minded individuals, we should all recognize the virtue of personal sacrifice, and that it's more than okay to give without receiving anything in return.
Todd Rosenbaum's column appears Thursdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at trosenbaum@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Carla Williams deserves her seat at the table
By Editorial Board | 5 hours agoLooking beyond basketball and football reveals that Virginia Athletics is, in many ways, thriving.
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | 2 days agoInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
