Been thinking about Chancellor Rishi Sunak's remarks about the "gentleness of charity" this week, (which have raised quite a bit of ire) & wondering if they point to terminological confusion or more fundamental ideological point (or a bit of both).
So excuse an ickle thread. 1/
So excuse an ickle thread. 1/
I think the crux of this is a conflation (either accidental or deliberate) of the notion of "charity-as-virtue" with the notion of "charity-as-institution".
The former may well be gentle- the latter are often anything but (and for good reason!) 2/
The former may well be gentle- the latter are often anything but (and for good reason!) 2/
Obviously support for charities-as-institutions may well be driven by charity-as-a-virtue, but that's far from the only possible motivation.
Others could include civic pride, enlightened self-interest, desire for 'warm glow' or anger at injustice (to name only a few of many). 3/
Others could include civic pride, enlightened self-interest, desire for 'warm glow' or anger at injustice (to name only a few of many). 3/
The conflation of these 2 understandings of charity is problematic if it leads to policy affecting a large, complex & vital sector of our society/economy being made based on subjective or quasi-religious moral judgments about the value of inferred motivations.
IMHO, anyway. 4/
IMHO, anyway. 4/
We've already seen a bit of this kind of narrative about "charity-as-act" applied to charities-as-institutions in the pronouncements of the Charity Commission over the last few years. (Which has also rubbed many people up the wrong way!) 5/
Perhaps this just illustrates why "charity" is a somewhat problematic term, given the various interpretations it can give rise to.
(And tbh why, when doing work in an international context, I never use it - preferring terminology like "civil society org" or "nonprofit"). 6/
(And tbh why, when doing work in an international context, I never use it - preferring terminology like "civil society org" or "nonprofit"). 6/