Guilt can be good in charity fundraising

14 Nov 2012 Voices

Following debate over the place of guilt in fundraising, Celina Ribeiro says guilt is good - at least in moderation.

Image copyright Julia Rosien

Following debate over the place of guilt in fundraising, Celina Ribeiro says guilt is good - at least in moderation.

We have been made to feel guilty about guilt. Feel that guilt holds us back. That it is used as a weapon. Awful, old guilt is the result of narrow world views and a lack of certainty about the self.

But perhaps its time to revisit guilt. Maybe guilt is good.

Guilt is a motivating force, and often it motivates us to do things we know we should do but for various reasons have not done. Fundraising asks can make people feel guilty because they know, relativism be damned, they actually can do more to help the causes they care about and to make the world a safer, better, cleaner, fairer place for everyone and thing living in it.

A story on civilsociety.co.uk last month drew some controversy. I reported that Alan Clayton, at the International Fundraising Congress, in a speech on the “exquisite joy of giving” said that fundraisers should not apologise for either their profession or the fact that asking people makes them feel guilty, because that guilt may eventually get them to donate following which they can experience this “exquisite joy”. Many fundraisers applauded his sentiments but some felt disconcerted.

Just as many in the development sector have expressed some concern about the imagery used by aid agencies such as Save the Children, showing kids in the greatest need. But it’s honest, isn’t it? Save the Children hasn’t starved children, made them trek to desert tent cities, orphaned them. It’s treated them, filmed them and asked the public for help so it can do it again.

While the viewer should not feel at fault – this would tip the balance into guilt-tripping – it is their own goodness, their own conscience, which makes them feel guilty as they watch the television adverts at home, with their children fed and safe.

I recently read Peter Singer’s The Life You Can Save in which the philosopher argued that people living in the affluent West – even if by local standards they are not affluent – have an ethical duty to eschew even the most basic of comforts (pensions, home ownership included) so that their money may prevent unnecessary tragedy elsewhere in the world. It’s a challenging argument – which it can be, being made, as it is, from the safety of outside the charity sector.

There is massive injustice in the world. There is widespread preventable and solvable pain now and in the future. Charities can address some of these issues and need money from those who can spare it to do so. Fundraising should not seek to create guilt – that is wrong – but should a feeling that I could and should do more be prompted by an ask, so be it.

As with red wine, guilt has its benefits. But, as with red wine, excessive guilt is paralysing and bad for your health. Moderation, as always, is the trick here. But not abstinence.

More on