In a recent conversation, the subject of volunteerism came up. Specifically, the discussion veered toward whatever happened to the “top of mind” consideration of spending two years in the Peace Corps or 10 months in Vista.
You know. Public service – upon completing college. Something other than me, me, me.
I recall a friend moving to a small community in Washington State 30+ years ago, after graduation. As a Vista volunteer, she was putting her back, her brains, and her beliefs on the line, “doing good.”
From there, she went on to a career in public health.
And the Peace Corps?
I admit my recollection is dusty, but I seem to recall one other young woman who went to Central America. While I traveled in Europe and also the U.S.S.R., with one brief stint in my twenties at U.N.E.S.C.O., those overseas experiences (and others) changed me irrevocably – my perception of the world, my appreciation of how much we take for granted in the US, and the fundamental similarities in human desires when you get down to it.
We want to care for our families. We want to feel good about our lives. We want respect.
Volunteerism in Local and Global Communities
It’s hardly a secret that I’m a believer in volunteerism, in giving back any way we can, especially when we have skills that will help our communities.
But where are the discussions today of local, national, and global programs that offer viable alternatives to traditional money-making for college graduates? Am I simply unaware that the word is getting out? That our young men and women are still being recruited and encouraged to experience a few years of eye-opening, life-changing work that will make them more thoughtful and engaged citizens?
These are questions I’m asking myself; I have no answers.
Dignity in Design: Architectural Humanitarianism
This morning’s reading led me to an article on designing “for good,” if you’ll allow me that odd expression.
“Dignifying Design,” which appears in the New York Times, speaks to humanitarianism in the creation of housing or public spaces. The primary subject of the article is a 60,000-square foot health center built in Northern Rwanda, and the involvement of a 20-something architectural student in the project.
I had never explicitly thought about humanitarian design, and as the parent of an architectural student, I find myself wondering if this sort of venture is something my son would ever consider. I also ask myself if his prestigious program encourages their students to participate in humanitarian projects.
I’m going to ask.
Naturally, he’ll have loans to repay (in the tens of thousands) – a constraint that is much on the minds of students, parents, and political pundits alike. Yet I can’t help considering all the ways in which graduating college students were encouraged to continue broadening their horizons, once upon a time, before the Greed is Good wave of the 1980s.
The Psychology of Doing Good (Consumer Behavior)
I find myself curious about the notion of “doing good.” We could make assumptions regarding individual psychological makeup, combined with life experience, but in poking around I found the following.
A 2010 article in Psychology Today addresses the paradox of doing good, namely that when people feel they’ve done a good deed, they believe that their virtuous behavior entitles them to a little vice extracted elsewhere.
A variety of experiments (in consumer behavior) were used to observe this effect, and while I’m not one to put faith in Study A to extrapolate for purpose B, this does get me thinking about human nature in a sharper light.
In the article, cognitive scientist, Dr. Art Markman, writes:
Actually performing a virtuous act, though, makes you feel as though your mental account of virtue is turning a profit. This surplus of virtue can be spent immediately on a vice.
My own version might be “I was disciplined on my diet yesterday so I can be a little self-indulgent today!” Or, “I just donated $100 to a nonprofit, so I can treat myself to this pair of shoes (I do not need).”
Psychology of Doing Good (in an Unethical Society)
In this more recent column, a 2012 article also in Psychology Today, “The Difficulty of Doing Good,” Dr. Raj Raghunathan addresses the societal influences that incline us toward unethical behavior – and away from simple honesty, much less acts of altruism.
He writes:
Understanding why people engage in unethical behaviors has always been of interest to humans, which is why the fight between “good” and “evil” is a central theme in many books and movies. In recent years, however, ethics has also become an important topic… virtually every top business school offers a course on “Ethics” or “Corporate Social Responsibility.” The hope is that exposure to these courses will make students—our future business leaders—think twice before engaging in unethical behaviors.
Dr. Raghunathan goes on to discuss why people cheat, self-image, and how we rationalize “small transgressions” that collectively inflict major damage on society. He elaborates on the rule of “The One With the Most Toys Wins,” suggesting instead a “go for joy” approach that doesn’t dispense with the need for a thriving economy, but balances “stuff” with intrinsic fulfillment.
National Service
In exploring further, I was digging for statistics on national service, specifically the Peace Corps, Vista (Volunteers in Service to America), and other programs of that sort.
My sense is that we’ve lost our cultural commitment to doing better about doing good, certainly as compared to 30 or 40 years ago. I wanted to see if my impression was correct.
So I Googled “number of Peace Corps volunteers in 2012 versus 1972.” I got nowhere, so I Googled “number of Peace Corps volunteers in 2012,” and did arrive at some “Peace Corps Fast Facts.” It doesn’t take reading about the Peace Corps on Wiki to realize that the violent state of the world comes into play when considering any sort of foreign service.
Still, I’ll leave you with these tidbits to conclude what you will:
- The current number of Peace Corps volunteers and trainees in 2012 is 9,095
- 61% are female; the median age is 28; 93% are single; 76 countries are served
- There have been 210,000+ Peace Corps volunteers and trainees since its founding by President John F. Kennedy in 1961, with 139 countries served.
Considering an American population of approximately 250 million adults* (18 or over), why does less than 10,000 volunteers seem like such a minuscule number to me? Were I to locate Vista (or other domestic) national service numbers, would they be as small or seem as insignificant?
And doing the math, that current Peace Corps statistic represents .00003638 of our adult population.
Domestic Programs (National Government Service)
Looking at national service that takes place in the U.S., here’s what I find:
According to the Corporation for National and Community Service,
62.8 million adults serving almost 8.1 billion hours through organizations in 2010, according to research released by the Corporation for National and Community Service.
Frankly, I am astounded at these figures. They seem surprisingly high.
Who is counted? Are our young men and women among them, and if so, what percentage? Does this include high school seniors who, like my future architect son, gave a little weekend time to Habitat for Humanity – hammering, hauling, or roofing?
I also tried to get a good statistic on Vista volunteers and AmeriCorps in general – frankly, the distinctions among programs are confusing.
I wish I could sit here all day and search the Internet to answer those questions (I can’t); though I did find our various national public service programs on the government’s National and Community Service site.
Personally, I wasn’t aware of the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act of 2009, which
reauthorizes and expands national service programs administered by the Corporation for National and Community Service by amending the National and Community Service Act of 1990 (NCSA) and the Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973 (DVSA)….
[focusing on]… service on key national issues; by expanding opportunities to serve; by building the capacity of individuals, nonprofits, and communities; and by encouraging innovative approaches to solving problems.
Our Next Generations
Do we talk about volunteerism or government service in light of “doing good?” Do we talk about it at all? Do we talk about it – but not enough? Do we position the future advantages in light of a millennial zeitgeist that is (of necessity) so bottom line-oriented?
- Do we offer serious alternatives to graduating college seniors in the areas of global or national public service, or for that matter – to graduating high school seniors?
- Are we losing opportunities to put young minds at work in ways that will enrich our society as a whole, and them, individually?
- What about programs like Teach for America that encourage new teachers to work in low-income areas? Or, as some articles claim, is this a means to bring in less qualified (and less costly) staff replacing higher paid and more experienced teachers? Is this public service at work or greed – or a mixed bag, like any other human endeavor?
As for humanitarian design? As for humanitarian anything?
Pragmatic Altruism?
I admit, in my own life there have been years when all efforts were focused on just getting through the day – making ends meet for myself and my children. It’s the perpetual work to live or live to work dilemma, and working to live sure isn’t a single, stable 9-to-5 job for most of us.
This doesn’t preclude helping a friend or stranger when possible, or being a responsible member of the community. Yet the desire to give back, to make a difference, to “do good” is vital to some of us, and evolves in others over time. I’d like to think we could foster more of it in our children or grandchildren – ideally by example, but at least by awareness.
But then, I’m an avowed “do-gooder,” and having been helped when least expected, I try to pay it forward. Still, that hardly seems enough in a troubled nation that professes to live by Love Thy Neighbor, etcetera etcetera, while ignoring those very same principles in practice.
Altruism does good for others, but is also inherently self-interested. Give back? You feel great. I’m astounded that more people don’t consider this a win-win, actively advocating for personal behaviors and whatever initiatives they can – in a culture of commitment to doing good.
*2010 Census data puts this figure at approximately 234 million; other gross estimates use 250 million.
You May Also Enjoy
Interesting to ponder the difference between “doing well” and “doing good.” There is too much emphasis on the former, I believe. It is sad that programs like the Peace Corp have fallen out of favor. A healthy dose of ’60s-style activism would benefit all of us.
So your impression, Helene, is similar to mine? That this sort of service that is a win-win in so many ways has fallen out of favor?
Why would people be exerting themselves in doing good? I mean, it seems so obvious that everyone should do good just because good is good, that the first question is hardly considered worthy asking. But it is!
In my view there is nothing less natural than “doing good” and assuming that some inherent nature of humans should push them to do so is nothing less, for me, than a pure Judeo Christian myth.
Years ago I read a book of Henri Laborit (famous French biologist specialized it “behavioral biology”) and it was like an illumination for me. The book made me understand what had no sense without the light it gives on humans’ behaviors. It is titled “L’éloge de la fuite” (The praise of fleeing?). In it, Laborit states that humans are sharing the same biology than their whole animal kin (humans belonging to animal kingdom) and that absolutely no act is ever made for free. All human acts mainly responding to this double constraint: seeking pleasure and avoiding pain. Even if sometimes the reward of an action is the simple esteem of oneself or a delayed one, like gaining heaven for a believer.
In structured societies some acts can be falsely linked to goodness while they are just responding to what Laborit calls the “principle of reality” (laws, submission to dominants, fear of punishment etc …) which counterbalance the simple “principle of pleasure” that would push you to take what you want or to grope this sexy female standing near you in the bus.
For me, some moments in history which can be long lasting as the 4 years of WWII in Europe, or very short like the big power shut down in N.Y (how many rapes?) show how very fragile can be this notion of inborn goodness in humans. In the 40s some apparently normal French people (and surely not missing a single Sunday service at church) coldly sent their Jewish neighbours to death, just because they didn’t like them and that a new order was offering that possibility to harm them. It gives cold in the back and yet, for me, it’s nearer to the human reality than the “Love Thy Neighbor” judeo christian myth.
We don’t need those myths which so patently failed so far. As I see it, the only moral code that we would really need is this absolutely basic and common sense one: “Don’t do to others what you don’t want to be done to yourself.”
Cynicism or pragmatism, François?
If I might respond to F. Roland? Christians do not believe that it is inherent in man to do good – just the opposite – they believe that the heart of man is evil. That is why man must be instructed to “Love Thy Neighbor.” The rest of that command is “Love your neighbor as you love yourself.” It recognizes man’s selfishness. But this is not a theological or doctrinal discussion. However, it does make the point that it is not in our nature to volunteer or do good for others. So jumping from there –
Is it any wonder that as our society has become so “me” oriented, focusing more on the individual than the community, that volunteerism has seemingly lost ground. Maybe that is why Hillary Clinton emphasized the idea of the village, because we have lost unity as communities.
I actually had to take an Ethics class as a general education requirement in college. It wasn’t just for Business majors. Everyone had to take the class.
As for the Peace Corp and other volunteer organizations – I wonder if they use to do more recruiting. I know someone who tried to apply to the Peace Corp years ago. It was pretty tough to get accepted. A Peace Corp volunteer was murdered last year, giving the organization a black eye.
My son used to volunteer during the summers in impoverished communities here in the U.S. and in Eastern European countries doing building projects. Sometimes it was repairing homes for people; sometimes it was building community centers; whatever was needed. My daughter also volunteered in Ireland, working with poor children. It was an eye-opening experience for both of them, to witness how other people live, and how much we take what we have for granted.
Interesting article!
No really nothing cynical the way I see it. And I wouldn’t call that pragmatism but realism.
By what sort of miracle humanity would escape the fundamental rules of the animal kingdom which it’s a biological part of? Of course culture and living in highly staggered societies make the whole process more complex, but the same principles pertain.
In any group of humans of whatever size and whatever nature, you’ll always find dominants and dominated in the end. And the dominants will be the ones having much better access (when not exclusive) to all the gratifying things and beings on the territory.
Just looking around, are we seeing anything else, somewhere? Time to have a second reading of “Lord of the flies”, maybe? 🙂
I agree with Robin in that the village concept is a good place to start. Helping our neighbors. Being aware of needs close to our doorsteps. I knew a man who used to ask God, in his prayers (and I only know this because one of his children told me) at the dinner table, to help them (them being their family) to be aware of people around them who need help. What a great outlook to instill in that family. I heard JKRowling in an interview recently say that she and her husband felt their parenting would have been a failure if they didn’t raise children who gave something back during their lifetime, children who grew up to be adults who were contributing citizens of the world. I have a DIL from Chile who says most countries ask that one member of each family serve a year or two in the military. There’s a whole other realm of service not mentioned here. Peace Corps – I have a good friend who has served in that organization and it’s been life altering for her. We have a daughter who is majoring in “women’s studies,” albeit at a private university here in the states, but she went to Nicaragua this last summer as part of her studies and it SO opened her eyes to unimaginable situations women find themselves in. I think it takes an ex-pat to appreciate so many, many advantages here in the States. Or at least stepping outside our borders. Well, for that matter, we could step outside our neighborhoods (metaphorically and geographically) to see conditions we wouldn’t believe.
Little response to Robin :
I read the Bible of course, and I know about “original sin” etc … and by the way this idea that humans should be inherently evil, doesn’t makes more sense than thinking that it’s inherently good as was thinking J.J Rousseau (French philosopher) with his myth of the “good savage.” Humans are what nature made them. Who would think of declaring evil the lion killing the babies lions in a pack that he just conquered? (that’s what they do!). He kills them because he doesn’t have the time to breed the descendants of another lion. It’s not bad, its not good. That’s what nature made him.
And it really escape me why on their side all acts of humans should be split in good and bad?
What was more interesting for me to point out, in fact, is this human myth that we are so capable of doing things not for ourselves but for the pure and unique well being of others. Maybe that’s why parents are repeating that on and on, to their children: “I did that for your own good, … I forbade that for your own good, etc …” Maybe it’s because they have so hard time to convince themselves that it’s really so? 🙂