There are a lot of interesting things to hear in this Forbes.com Video interview with Robert and Lucia Duvall. They are talking about the Latin American microfinance institution Pro Mujer. As their name suggests, Pro Mujer is specifically aimed at providing loans to women entrepreneurs. They also provide business training and healthcare. Neither of those things is unique, but Pro Mujer is known for doing a particularly good job with its assistance activities.
The Duvalls are donors to Pro Mujer, and are also using Robert's fame to get the word out about the organization. I’m interested in the way Robert described Pro Mujer as “not really a charity”. This is a common way of looking at microfinance – it isn't charity because people have to pay you back. You are really just helping them help themselves. Why do we feel the need to differentiate? What is wrong with charity? These are central questions in the field of philanthropy, as charity is one of the principal reason for philanthropy to exist.
The questions are also extremely complex, and I’m not going to be able to do them justice in just one post, but I hope to come back to the subject over the next few months, because we don't confront it enough.
Today I just want to understand why Robert Duvall doesn't want us to think that Pro Mujer is a charity. To start, my assumption is that he doesn't have a problem with us believing him to charitable.
I think he doesn't want us to picture Pro Mujer's clients as the recipients of charity – as beggars. The perception, I believe, is that those who receive charity are wretched, or somehow culpable in their poverty. Also, they are powerless and dependent on philanthropists for their salvation. They are not active participants in their development process.
To just give someone money under these circumstances is almost oppressive. It puts them in a position of weakness. But I don't think it has to, because the perceptions I just wrote about are completely ridiculous. I see nothing wrong with accepting help from those who have much when the same luck of birth gave you so little. There are some traditional charities that infantilize their beneficiaries, but the good ones do not. At least, that is what I would like to believe.
I will leave the question, “Is microfinance ‘not really a charity’?” for another time.
[kml_flashembed movie="http://www.youtube.com/v/1_cEvOIZcgs" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]
