My father used to say, “You can spend a lot of time making money. The tough time comes when you have to give it away properly.” How to give something back, that’s the tough part in life:
Lee Iacocca
If you have read Fountainhead, you might remember Peter Keating, the ambitious but corrupt architect, asking his mentor,Guy Francon, if he felt contentment at the end of his career. Francon replies in the negative which leaves Keating disillusioned for Francon had everything that he aspired for- fame, money, power..but not contentment.
While Ayn Rand dealt with contentment from the perspective of how much a man really strives to do what he wants and not what people want of him, my view on contentment is more on how we have managed to influence the people around us, the people who need us- four billion of the six billion people on this earth who are deprived of the material comforts that you and me enjoy and take for granted.
I dont know where my discussion with a friend started but eventually we were talking about why it is necessary to build yourself first, professionally and personally, before you try and change the world. Who would listen to us if we stood up and started talking about women's rights, child abuse..blah blah.If Bill Gates makes even a statement on any social issue in passing, people all over the world start discussing it- in the papers, newsrooms, magazines..everywhere.
\
The gist being that you can have more influence on changing the world being a philanthropist than a social worker. Quite obviously, the two are different roles and cannot exist without the other. Philanthropists have the finances and vision while social workers have the passion and resources. However, philanthropy, has a power that social work does not have- Dictating the change. Money talks, even in the noblest of causes.
For example, name three prominent philantrhopists and you'd rattle of Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and Henry Ford.
Name three prominent social workers known all over the world...try going beyond Mother Teressa!
That's also to say that philanthropists get more publicity than social workers. But, I'd rather not dwell on the morality of it.
In the video on youtube, Severn Suzuki the 12 yr old girl "who silenced the world for five minutes", talks of a poor boy in her locality who said- "I want to be rich. Rich so that I can give a home and food to eat to all the poor kids in the world" He realised he would have to be rich to make that change.
People who build careers and strive to make money are often scoffed at.
Dont. For one reason, that it his choice and effort.
Second, at the end of the day, if either of you chooses to make the world a better place-you would be the one talking, he would be the one dictating.
10 comments:
good post ! agree to your views...
Hey! Nice One!! Like what you say.
True...especially the point about one not being able to exist without the other.
Perspective: If a man really strives to do what he wants, he does manage to influence people around him; they look up to him. The philanthropists you named, each served humanity in their manner in pursuit of excellence. Serving humanity does not mean charity. A social worker's method is different but he does his part in bringing the 'change'. And 'Money' should always be the means not the end.
Nice post! However....most of the times...people get so badly stuck in the race for building a career or making money that they hardly ever think of giving back. The three men you mentioned...are the ones who have reached the pinnacle of what they wanted to achieve... and maybe because they somehow managed to outrun everyone else in the rat race...that they remembered abt giving back. So though i do agree with you that building yourself as a person is important ... that should not be an excuse to not contribute regularly.
couldn't have said it better myself. Love the insight.
U ever heard of Maslow's hierarchy of needs? that one tells alot about our philanthropists, similar to what mayank points out.
@All-Thanks
@Abhas-Yup. Agree about money not being the end but the means.
On a different note, we understood that with Baja..while we needed "philanthropists"(read alumni :))..but they were only the means..we had to create the end.
@Monk-After finishing, I felt my post to be a tad lopsided to philanthropists.
Your opinion of philanthropy not being an excuse for contributing regularly completes the post. I loved your viewpoint.
@Akhilesh-Havent heard of Maslow but will google him up.
@Akhilesh- Looked up Maslow's pyramid on hierarchy of needs.
I couldnt directly relate it to philanthropy so asked as a colleague who has done his MBA in marketing to explain it.
Had a wonderful discussion.
His model is applicable to the average man whose needs change with time, or rather increase with time. Till he reaches "self actualization"(Level 5). Where he has achieved everything and wants to give back for the first time without expecting anything in return-philanthropy. In essence, the culmination of a man's life is in reaching that stage. Usually, he reaches there by the time he is 50 or 60.
A social worker, on the other hand, having acquired his "physiological" needs (Level 1), skips directly to self actualization (Level 5). They realise, much before the common man, that it is the ultimate purpose.
It has balanced my perspective about philanthropists vis a vis social workers.
@manyu - exactly..
again cant find anything else to say except kudos to your MBA colleague.
Philantrophy is an ongoing course of action, you just keep getting substantial from your end and have a societal high.
for today is the money that we talk, admissions are more of a benevolence in form of donations today.
wts moving away frm shore is the morality, givers are alwys there to gt the guilt out but one's who fall prey to it( rather a wrong wrd) but the one's who party over it can take a better way to evolutionise this manure( often unutilised).
Post a Comment