Philanthropists — rich or poor — enjoy giving money away

What is the psychology of philanthropy? I'm wondering why some wealthy people give a lot of money away to good causes but other wealthy people don't. And do you think a wealthy American has an obligation to give to American charities instead of global charities? -- L.A., Kansas City, Kan.

If you find yourself in any position of adult leadership with high school-age youths, then you've probably been to a carwash fundraiser. When I was an Episcopal priest, youth ministry was a specialty of mine, great days that included kids and hoses and buckets and sponges and towels in church parking lots, trying to raise money for some mission, recreation or special event. The kids would stand on the street and holler and wave at passing cars. On a bright blue Saturday morning, we always had more customers than we could handle.

Your question recalls to me the candid observations of those youths.

First, the kids taught me early on that we would make more money if the price of the carwash was a "donation" as opposed to some fixed dollar amount.

Second -- and this blew my mind -- the kids tended to have the same at-large observation about our clientele: They received the most generous donations from drivers of middle-class cars or even clunkers, while their frequent experience with Cadillac drivers was relatively lower donations coupled with a higher incidence of criticisms and complaints.

Now, of course, this was no scientific sample, let alone a carefully controlled social experiment. But still, the kids' experience stuck with me. At the very least, I was and am willing to conclude that neither affluence nor poverty is any measure of generosity of spirit. Folks with modest means or even desperate means can be naturally philanthropic. Folks with more money than God can be stingy, even paranoid about their riches. And, of course, there are selfish poor people and rich people whose greatest joy is giving their money away.

Money is neither a moral good nor a moral evil. The New Testament does not say that money is evil, nor, strictly speaking, that the love of money is evil. It says, "The love of money is the root of all evil" (emphasis mine). Do I think having money is more seductive than not having money? It's tempting, but when I consider the matter deeply, it seems to me that both affluence and poverty are, in their own way, seductive. While I cannot deny that Judeo-Christian theological tradition has God siding dramatically with the poor -- "It is easier to get a camel through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get to heaven -- still, that is more about the use and abuse of power and less about any inherent problem with money.

Philanthropy is a Greek compound: Philos equals "loving," and anthropos equals "humanity" or "being human." Philanthropy is a private initiative aimed at individual or public good, founded in principle on both a love for humanity and the belief that philanthropy makes us more human.

From a psychological view, I would say that adults given to philanthropic values and practice -- whether those adults are rich or poor -- often are adults who, as children, were reared in a worldview of abundance, psycho-emotionally speaking. That is, even if those adults came from poverty, they lived in a median experience that there was more than enough love to go around. Their psycho-emotional needs were consistently met.

As adults, then, they tend to see the universe tipped toward benevolence. They have a felt sense that there will always be enough. Even more than enough. These adults become filthy rich ... in things such as trust, hope, benevolence, empathy, gratitude, humility, etc., regardless of how much money they have. Sharing resources out of abundance is as natural for these folks as breathing.

A true philanthropist becomes greedy for the decadent fun of giving it away.

I can't mount a significant argument that American philanthropy should rightly and only focus on American charities. What's normal is that a given philanthropist donates to people and causes with nexus to the giver's passions, redemptions, sufferings and supreme values.

Which restates the point of the ancient Greeks: Philanthropy, as a way of life, is in some ways more important to the giver than the receiver. Yes, the receiver derives benefit, relief, sustenance, opportunity, healing and the like. But the giver has another chance to become more human.

Steven Kalas is a behavioral health consultant and counselor at Las Vegas Psychiatry and the author of "Human Matters: Wise and Witty Counsel on Relationships, Parenting, Grief and Doing the Right Thing" (Stephens Press). His columns also appear on Sundays in the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Contact him at 227-4165 or skalas@reviewjournal.com.