"I believe consenting to society is an active choice, unless you’re Mountain Man Walden or something."

Over zucchini spaghetti and cookie dough cheesecake, our community discussed  David Brook's New York Times op-ed "The Way to Produce a Person", which was written in response to Dave Matthew's "Join Wall Street. Save the World" this week. The articles are about Jason Trigg, who works at a hedge fund on Wall Street and gives back the majority of his money to charity.
Specifically, Trigg gives back in what we found to be a very opportunity cost or utilitarian-oriented manner: the Against Malaria Foundation has determined $2500 can save a life by prevent malaria through the distribution of free bug nets, among other things. Trigg has found he can save more lives by giving to this foundation than by engaging in "direct service," or going to Africa himself and helping people at risk of death from malaria. The benefit of saving so many people with such a high salary outweighs the cost of working for Wall Street, supplemented by a lifestyle lived at a lower economic level.

Our conversation yielded a number of initial frustrations and questions with Trigg's philosophical foundations: How can you base your entire philosophy on a statistic ($2500 prevents one life)? How can you measure impact? Can we really rate charities on effectiveness, like Give Well does and as Trigg pronounces in his opportunity cost model? Should we be giving our money to inequalities here in the US, rather than abroad? Why is it easier to sympathize with an abstract concept far away from us, like the problem of malaria in Africa, than it is to connect with something concrete right in front of our eyes? How will a partner later in his life, or the desire to provide for a family, impact his decisions?

Ultimately, questions like that need to be decided individually, and our group disagreed on whether Trigg was engaging in social change or not:

Mike: "I don't think Trigg is making a difference. I don't think that sort of charity addresses systematic inequalities - I believe consenting to society is an active choice, unless you’re Mountain Man Walden or something. Unless you are against the forces of inequality, the system, actively, you are supporting it through implied consent. Camus said that not making a choice is a choice, and I’m going to hold Trigg to that."
Olivia: "Everyone can argue against the system, and I don’t agree with just giving charity, but if that’s what he [Trigg] recognizes and feels comfortable doing, then he should do it. I don’t think he’s consciously accepting the system – he believes he’s fighting against the system." 

One of the comments from Matthias Beier in response to the article reconciled our disagreements effectively:

"I am particularly struck by the phrase 'you may end up coolly looking across humanity as a detached god.' It is no secret that Wall Street has much to do with the lopsidedness of the world's economic balance, a major reason for the poverty in many countries around the world. As noble as the individual motivations of Jason Trigg and other young professionals with a 'heart' for charity are, their naïve disregard of Wall Street's systemic role in the unfair wages across the world, for instance, allows them to easily feel like 'good' persons, like charitable 'gods' who can afford to throw a few crumbs from their privileged excess in the direction of the impoverished. There is an alternative between the either/or of working at Wall Street as usual or going to Africa or Bangladesh to work with those made poor: fight to change the mindset and culture of Wall Street from within to help produce fair trade across the world, so that the creation of poverty finds an end. "
 

On Judgment...

Intentionality plays an important role in how we view our engagements with social change. It isn't our right to assert one belief about what social change is over another, but on the other hand we are doing a disservice to ourselves and to others if we don't engage in a form of judgment about what we qualify as social change: "I like the idea of being moderately judgmental. Although I appreciate the ideal behind engaging in non-judgment, I think by doing so I ignore moral and ethical questions of what matters in our community. If we don’t judge things, they won’t change – if we aren’t changing, we aren’t acting and doing social change. Judging can also just be evaluating and thinking critically. “Judging” can be a really important mechanism of social change." - Taylor 

But judging can become an extremely hazy world - how do we effectively determine what someone's intentions are? What is social change for Jason Trigg - changing Wall Street? Setting an example? On the one hand, Trigg's work is legitimate – he’s working within the system to change the system. On the other hand, Trigg isn't engaging in social change not only because he's consenting to the system's inequalities implicitly, but because of the financial condition of Trigg's work. Does Trigg think his obnoxious salary is deserved? Probably - Regardless of what Trigg does with his money, the fact that our society gives him that much money for what he does is unjust, and his role in that system delegitimizes any “social change” he might do. People can get fulfillment from working within the financial system, and that isn't wrong - Trigg probably enjoys working for a hedge fund, we can't make the assumption he doesn't - but the disproportionate compensation he receives for his work is the problem.

To get all "Ole" with regards to the issue, we thought about the St. Olaf mission statement exemplifying a "life of worth and service." Trigg may think he's doing social change, but do we view his actions as part of a life of worth and service? 

Not really... There is no arguing that what Trigg is doing is a charitable act worth commending. Many of the non-profits we work for noted the importance of donations from corporations like Target - members of "the system." If more corporations, or people working for those corporations, donated money cool places could get more cool things done. But what Trigg is doing is a singular service act repeated monthly, it isn't a lifetime commitment in what we view as a "life of worth and service." A lifetime commitment would have to blend his vocation and career - deliminate the way Trigg has compartmentalized his life. A life of worth and service entails enacting your beliefs about social change in both your personal (or vocational) and your career world - Trigg separates the two pretty distinctly. A similar parallel flips this metaphor on its head: Do you think someone who worked for an organization with a veritable mission would be doing doing social change if, in his personal life, he lived the life of the stereotypical Wall Street employee - fast cars, expensive caviar, and excessive consumerism? 

The idea of compartmentalization delves into our main issue with Trigg's example, a concept we actually discussed last week as well. Oles compartmentalize their lives - one friend group from sports doesn't overlap with your friend group from your physical chemistry class, and the values you express about sustainable during an Environmental Coalition meeting may not play into your participation in the Debate Team . If we can bring our values into our work world, and the ideals of our work into our personal world, then we can take steps toward an entire lifetime of worth and service. A General Mills manager may think he is doing service because he is providing food for people who need to eat and jobs for people who need to work, but that manager is only engaging in a lifetime of service if he can recognize the implications of such unsustainable food production, corporate subsidizing, etc etc and work to change them. We need to look beyond the immediate to broader implications. Additionally, we need to recognize that we DO social change - it isn't a passive act. Writing a check doesn't take much action on an individuals part, and if you hope to work for change in the world it needs to be action-oriented (whether direct or systematic). "Leading a life of worth and service cannot be the as as engaging in an act of service." - Steph

On leading a life of service:

"I’ve always wanted to work at the State Department, but as I’m working on my application I’m realizing I don’t agree with many things the State Department promotes – i.e. the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. I feel like I could justify it for a semester for the knowledge and the skills I would gain, but it is a balance of values and the mission of an organization. I doubt it will ever be possible to encompass all of the things you value, want, etc in one job. Maybe that work could be a stepping stone. Maybe you could use something to propel you to work that is more meaningful."  - Olivia

"I found myself resonating with the idea of working within the system. I believe in the idea of lifestyle – we need to enact our values in all parts of our worlds, and not compartmentalize our lives. But we have to learn how to do that by experimenting and trying something that maybe doesn't line up with our values right away. We are “leaders” for social change – we can serve as leaders in a lot of contexts." - Nicole

" Some of the work we do or we see people do in serving others we should think about how what we do can be more effective – instead of just writing checks, how can we be more comprehensive and instill broader change? Maybe our goal should be touching one life at a time. We need to reflect on how we can make the work we do better. The work that Trigg is doing could be affecting people negatively as well." - Sudip

Brooks, in his op-ed, was right in promoting caution in making the decision that a career with a lot of money is worth it if you give it all back. The people we surround ourselves with do affect us as people, and influence who we become. If we aren't growing in our personal lives as we help communities grow, we aren't engaging in a lifetime of worth and service, even if we engage in an act - and for our community, that's what is valuable.  

For further consideration:

How to be a "do-gooder" or engage in service is a concept that will always initiate conflicting opinions. Sonja brought up toward the end of the conversation the humanitarians who attempted to help the situation in Rwanda following the genocide, and ended up just funneling money to the refugee camps, which were run by the same people who started the genocide and continued ethnic cleansing through their management of the camps. In contrast, Paul Rusesabagina worked within the system to change things through "Hotel Rwanda." This American Life has done a great episode on the concept of what makes a good do-gooder, and I suggest you all check it out: Ep126: "Do-gooders," particularly Act II: Humanitarians.