The Future of the Tradition

His whole life was scented by the memory of those fruitful beliefs of which it was possible to sacrifice the letter without giving up the spirit. You have benefited from this inner struggle of your father: you were able to observe in him that wonderful hour of psychological development when one can still feel the moral sap of the old beliefs without being constrained by its chains upon science. Without realizing we owe whatever is left of our worth. We live by a shadow, sir, by the lingering scent of an empty perfume jar. After us, people will live by the shadow of a shadow; I fear sometimes that it may prove somewhat ephemeral. (Ernest Renan, giving the welcoming reply for the Academic française to M. Cherbuliez upon the latter's installation in that body in 1882, speaking of the new member's intellectual indebtedness to his father and his father's world.*)

*The quotation was first drawn to my attention in an interview with Will Durant for Newsday; my colleague John Marcus, professor of history at Hofstra University, tracked down the text and citation above.

Renan was speaking of the fading power of religion, especially among intellectuals, in the Europe of his day. The trend has continued. The religious traditions of Judaism and Christianity have lost their power to inspire and challenge the sophisticated humanists of western Europe. Until about a decade ago, the religious tradition was replaced by a new Marxist tradition; it too is being abandoned, along with existentialism. Utopian visions (and even Dystopian ones) succeeding themselves in an endless and frustrated search for social perfection.

Nietzsche noisily announced the death of God, but the death of the religious tradition in Europe came, as Eliot predicted, "not with a bang, but a whimper." Traditions attenuate: They wilt, fade, weaken, diminish. They are not overthrown in revolution; they are abandoned.

The philanthropic tradition is deeply rooted in religion in America. Religion is the most powerful motive force behind individual charity. Religion indirectly influences corporations and foundations just as it more openly and directly influences political parties.

There is a danger that threatens philanthropy, then, if religion weakens in this country as it has in Europe. The new secular society of modern Europe has broken free of the domination of the church. In the process, they have put their faith in the state to meet the needs that had been met by religious charity. Philanthropy as a private and voluntary act of individuals and churches has been replaced by legislated programs of state agencies. Philanthropy was never a stated target of revolution; it was merely a victim along with its religious sponsor. Unlike the situation in Europe, however, there never has been a state church in this country.

In a secular society striving to preserve religion, like ours, there is a tendency to make the philanthropic dimension the exclusive preserve of the religious or the secular.

There is then the danger: that partisan politics begins to divide the religious and the secular, with private philanthropy on the former side and public altruism on the latter.

It is not simply a matter of competing claims for best representing America's most distinctive virtue. The conclusion to the essay on "Philanthropy and Its Discontents" in this book makes the point that "the independent sector is more important than we realize." The philanthropic tradition is not just acts of benevolence; it is also a powerful lever of social change. It is the voice of discontent and dissatisfaction as well as the expression of nurture and encouragement.

It is often in the independent sector that the voices that shape social policy are first heard. Another, more positive aspect of the independent sector was pointed out to me by John Simon (who in turn was prompted to think about it by his former colleague at Yale, George Silver). Philanthropy surfaces needs that are met by the marketplace—new pharmaceuticals and chemicals, for example, and even new uses of technology.

The choice would appear to be between two futures. In one, philanthropy fades away along with religion, and the state becomes the dominant influence. The independent sector becomes inconsequential. The other choice is a future in which the independent sector becomes increasingly political, whether dominated by religious or secular ideology. to reshape the community when it takes legislative form often overwhelms concerns of compassion; the massive scale of development sometimes drives out relief.

There is a third future that is most like the present and recent past: It accepts the complexities and contradictions of the tradition and maintains some balance between the demands of compassion and community.

Will we continue to withstand the pressures?