A benefactor's clients owed gratitude and support to him. Apparently in Roman times benefactors could be choosy about who they gave to. The benefactor could lose face if his clients were unworthy--they were now associated with him.
In modern Korea (from the book):
An American couple slowly became suspicious as a Korean they knew showered them with gifts and treated them to luxurious restaurants. They finally discovered why. After spending months attempting to establish guanxi ("relationship"), she hoped to obligate them to teach her son English. Reciprocity is a natural part of relationships.
I have never found the article from years ago which claimed that when "The Best and the Brightest"™ devised the fundamentals of the modern American welfare system they didn't bother to talk with the mere religious folks who'd been doing the heavy lifting for years.
One of the side effects of the system is that, because it is merely a bureaucratic machine, there is no relationship between benefactor and client. It is impersonal, which is isolating and bad enough, but also, in our individualist society, evokes nothing from the recipient--not even always gratitude, since the gift is often seen as entitlement.
As quoted above, reciprocity expectations can and will be abused, but in charities their lack--if it doesn't actively divide us, it fails to unite.
I'm not proposing any cures or improvements. I doubt there are any. But I wish TBATB had listened first.
3 comments:
I have thought it important that those who received should have the understanding that they should give back from what little they had and expect to give when they can in the future - and perhaps as important, that the givers not be arrogant and understand that a day may come when they will need to receive. It is not merely transactional, but a way of keeping everyone connected.
I had a patient who lived in a meager apartment downtown and received disability payments every month because of his mental illness. He would go out every morning and sweep in front of the shops on his block, and shovel in front of them in winter, because he felt that he should give back what he could. I always admired that.
That's exactly why they should have involved the churches.
Also, the idea of an interactive relationship of gifts and obligations is common to many cultures, as I mentioned a few years ago. Native America, Indo-European, Austronesian...
https://assistantvillageidiot.blogspot.com/2018/12/ghosti.html
Post a Comment