II

To think about the talk about philanthropy, then, probably requires a rough political-economic philosophy that will permit some generalizations that others might share. Mine are these:

• A concept of human nature that allows for rational noneconomic behavior -- for one-way transfers of exchangeables -- for the public good. If altruism is not a part of the human condition but merely a refinement on the self-interested egoism of the selfish gene (a debate that others must resolve), then the notion of philanthropy is still essential to what it means to be civilized.
• A concept of the human condition which accepts human frailty and pathology as well as human competence and goodness, in a social environment that shapes and is shaped by human desires, aspirations, weaknesses, knowledge, and ignorance.
• A notion of the individual as a distinct entity -distinct from other people as well as distinct from the natural world. The concept of the individual allows for antisocial as well as prosocial behavior; it also allows for withdrawal and isolation as well as participation in community. The notion of the individual has developed to include the political and economic rights inherent in individuality, and the burdens and risks of the extremes of personal freedom. The ways in which individuals express the preferences made possible by their freedom gives us a concept of personality -- patterns of behavior that are roughly predictable. Individualism in extreme forms is possible: in the parable of the rich young man who turned his back on God and walked away. In its more radical form, the consequences of individualism are fatal.
• A political-economic system based on private property. To speak of private property requires a legal system that recognizes the use of property, the idea of profit to be gained from the use of property, and the idea of "liberality" -- the right to dispose of property for other than private and exclusive benefit.
• A political-economic system that recognizes individuals and groups as actors and agents: a system that is organized around a free and open marketplace and that is dependent on traditional values of honesty and trust in exchange, saving, investment, and commerce.

All of these values -- freedom, individualism, democracy, rights, the free marketplace of ideas as well as goods -- are the cumulative product of a social philosophy that is usually labelled "western liberalism." Among other things, western liberalism puts a high value on reason and its associated instruments of education and science. It assumes action in the face of human and social problems, rather than passive acceptance of evil conditions imposed by an inscrutable and omnipotent God. Liberalism believes that most if not all problems can be solved or alleviated by human action, informed by reason (i.e., knowing what is going on, considering the consequences of action).

My assumptions limit but do not rule out the welfare state or social democracy; they do rule out centralized control and ownership of production and distribution of economic goods. My assumptions, if they are to be consistent, must also allow for a shift in the direction of a reduced role for the state in control of the marketplace and in providing services and protections for individual citizens. All that seems to be minimally required is use and ownership of private property that includes the right to dispose as one wishes of the surplus generated by its use.

o However, my assumptions also include a notion of pluralism -- political decentralization of decision-making that extends all the way to small groups and to individuals in a process of decreasing generality. Pluralism in a democracy includes the decentralization of power within government as well as reserving the economic power of groups and individuals outside government and protecting the political power of individuals and groups against the state. The First Amendment summarizes the political power essential to philanthropy; the Constitutional protections of property rights appear to be much weaker, or at least less clear.

These characteristics of modern western liberalism make philanthropy as we know it possible; they tend to encourage its development and use as a means of alleviating suffering and introducing improvements into the social condition. They are strengthened and enhanced, and probably inspired by:

• A free and open and democratic society which permits individuals and groups to exercise voluntary initiative for change.
• A moral order shaped by religious values: concern for the needy and helpless and for the stranger.
• Stewardship of resources and some sense that wealth must be created if it is to be shared -- that is, some basis that makes self-help essential to the condition of being human.
• A variety of compacts with God which introduce the divine into the mundane relations of human beings with each other and with the natural world.
• Beyond concern for the poor and social reform to improve the material conditions of society, the political and economic system implicit in my assumptions about the philanthropic tradition include voluntary action for the maintenance, enhancement, and improvement of morals, culture, religion, and a vast array of other things making greater or lesser claims on our resources of time and money (e.g., sport, entertainment, pets, hobbies, memorials, and the esoteric research of humanistic scholarship.)
• The philanthropic tradition makes allowances for the beneficent actions and effects of the other two sectors: the normal functioning of government and the private economy have undeniably beneficial consequences, even though those consequences are not the stated purpose of either sector. And, if the notion of "corporate philanthropy" can make sense, then the notion of "government philanthropy" can also be defended. That is, systematic programs can be designed within the other two sectors that achieve some of the same ends as those of the philanthropic sector.
• The most important fact of all is that the third sector cannot exist without the first two. A corollary is that democracy cannot exist without a third sector.

III

The universe of philanthropy includes the most sublime and the most ludicrous of human behavior, but the underlying theme of the philanthropic tradition is best summarized for me in the (borrowed) phrase, "the social history of the moral imagination." The word "history" reminds us that the study of philanthropy engages us in the study of a tradition, of the history of a cluster of ideas and social behavior. The word "social" emphasizes but does not exclude the political and economic, because philanthropy is in constant interaction with them, drawing and redrawing the boundaries and modifying the values of the three sectors.

The very term "moral imagination" lends a tone of praise (or self-congratulation) to what is a checkered social history. The cardinal virtues sometimes obscure the ordinary vices; virtue and vice can be evident in the same action.

It is necessary in the study of the philanthropic tradition to think -- as politically liberal writers usually do -- of the social problems and failures of social institutions that create "opportunities" to do good. In the face of social problems, steps can be taken to change behavior in ways that will change attitudes and values. If we organized society properly, people would naturally behave better.

On the other hand, it is often necessary to think -- as politically conservative writers usually do -- of the problematic nature of philanthropy, the possibility or even likelihood that harm is often done in the name of doing good. Changing behavior is risky at best, even when it works; it is better to recognize the flawed nature of man and try to make the best of it. The tension between the two perspectives is captured in Allan Bloom's observation:

If [under the old moral order] men were self-concerned, that order tried to expand the scope of self-concern to include others, rather than commanding men to cease being concerned with themselves.

Because I link the philanthropic to the civilized in an essential way I am attracted to those thinkers and actors who find meaning in notions of virtue and the Good Life. The study of philanthropy at its core is the study of an aspect of moral philosophy, but moral philosophy deeply colored by religious beliefs and practices.