In the United States, there is a distinct attitude and constellation of values connected with giving. One example of this basic attitude comes about when individuals or groups get together and come up with an idea that is intrinsically worthwhile – so worthwhile that they feel others will certainly be of the same mind. They then lead the way, calling on other people to consider what ways they might like to contribute to this development, inviting them to help, to give money, time, and ideas.
If for a moment we disregard the financial facet of this scenario, then we can see that this attitude is connected with community-building and with individuals who are following ideas which they are so sure serve the public good that they feel and believe others will voluntarily rally and join them in their efforts.
Tocqueville referred to this as a "habit of the heart” in the USA, and saw that this “habit” also captured the positive experience of liberty in this country. In his study Democracy in America, he writes about an individual who comes up with an idea that he felt would have a direct impact on the welfare of society:
“It does not enter his head to appeal to public authority for its help. He publishes his plan, offers to carry it out, summons other individuals to aid his efforts, and personally struggles against all obstacles. No doubt he is often less successful than the state would have been in his place, but in the long run the sum of all private undertakings far surpasses anything the government might have done.”[1]
This captures a facet of the social-spiritual structure of fundraising and civil society in the United States. It is totally different from petitioning the government and the psychology of market transactions that increasingly inform our actions and lives[2]. It is faith in a good idea, and in the intrinsic generosity and goodness of others. Tocqueville saw the life of free association and civil society as the foundation of democratic success in the USA. He also saw that a relative economic equality of condition was key to supporting this manifestation of democracy.
Decades earlier, Thomas Jefferson drafted the religious freedom statute in the Virginia constitution. This was an achievement above all others for Jefferson. He characterized how the authentic feeling of giving out of respect, out of hope and good faith, is vital to the health of spirituality and religion. Thus, any money used in support of a spiritual practice that was gathered through coercion (taxation), ultimately threatened to corrupt the clergy and the very authenticity of a religious community[3].
Taking these two characterizations together, the contours of collective action for the public good appear as a form of liberty. This liberty is not simply a matter of not being censored, rather it is a liberty of activity, of creativity and community-building.
While the philanthropic sector and giving by individuals in the USA continues to stand out as a global phenomenon, economic inequality is increasing[4]. The feeling of community effectiveness and the ability of individuals to join forces to contribute to the common good through free initiative is facing an income scarcity, which leaves them with less and less philanthropic capital. This is not due to an actual lack of capital in society. Those with wealth are creating giant philanthropic foundations and initiatives, and are able to wield great influence. They gain this influence through the way wealth is currently distributed through the market. They do not have to convince their neighbors through enthusiasm and interaction! There is a clear trend toward Plutocratic law-making in the United States[5], and this is also happening in civil society. We increasingly see an oligarchic, plutocratic philanthropy, or rule by a small circle of wealthy individuals.
This is a deeply significant development! The feeling that one can give, and volunteer, in order to contribute to the common good of one’s community is a cornerstone of the experience of freedom in the United States. It contributes to a deep sense of belonging, community, and agency. As Hannah Arendt has pointed out, this is connected with our sense for the reality of political freedom[6].
Two interconnected developments stand out as contributing to the weakening of this facet of our society. The first is simply the diminishing effectiveness of giving on the part of the majority of people, through the growth of economic inequality. The philanthropic power of the majority is literally dwindling as inequality grows. This leaves the majority feeling the impotence of their collective capital power. Their efficacy is more and more relegated to the market and the ballot box. They may have enough that they can vote with their dollars when they shop for the basic necessities of life, but little more. This means a loss in the authentic experiences of giving inspired by respect, out of hope and good faith in the free initiatives of local community members – a feeling that is vital for the average community member, but also for those working as teachers, wellness practitioners, artists, performers, and in religious groups.
The articulation of social-cultural work as a common good becomes more and more translated into market relations and government programs. This is the second development that is weakening this cultural facet of life in the United States. There is an increasing lack of articulation of liberty for the common good, which is being brought about by specific economic philosophies. There is a definite trend among so-called advocates of “freedom” to push everything onto the market, to try to transform all relations into transactional relations, and all goods and services into commodities.
One of the most beautiful traditions in the USA is “public” radio. Yet “public” radio is, in many places, listener-supported, and many stations receive next-to-nothing from the government. But they are “public”! They are for the “public” good! I am convinced that this is a healthy archetypal attitude for all social and cultural work. It is best when the work is supported by gratitude and voluntary giving, and when the services and products of the work are available to everyone who wants to partake in them!
Free Columbia – which now offers programs that include studies in social theory, natural science, and the arts – began 12 years ago with a focus on offering practical education in the arts. The founders were dedicated to the idea that the work was being pursued for the general good, and that no one should be turned away from developing themselves simply due to their financial status. There would be no pay walls, minimum tuitions, or fees. This made all activities for the public!
While working at Free Columbia, I quickly learned that people gauge their generosity based on knowledge, and transparent sight of, the need, coupled with their inner enthusiasm and solidarity with the work. We could not simply ask for donations; rather, we had to outline our budget, build a pledging network, and, at the beginning of every program or workshop, provide each participant with a letter describing that the materials for their course had been purchased by previous donations, and that based on the costs of the current course, a donation of a certain amount is now suggested in order to make another future course possible. If one were able, one might donate twice that amount. If one were not able, one could contribute less. This form made it possible for people to feel gratitude (through receiving the gift of the class) and to join a community of good work (through capitalizing on the work and shaping the future, while giving to others).
Money is absolutely not merely money! The question is: “How” does it change hands? If we had simply had a fixed price for the class, the whole shape of the relation would be different! The social capital would be different! The feeling of agency and contributing to the future would be different!
Some economists conceive of altruism and generosity as a fixed supply in the human being. Not only that, but it is usually thought of as being quite a small supply in most people. Only the few have an abundance of it. Yet this is a deeply misleading notion. Freedom, initiative, and giving in enthusiasm and solidarity are more like muscles that atrophy if they are not regularly exercised, and if there are not social institutions that are also defended by articulations of thought and conviction, or a culture of freedom.
Through regular crowdfunding campaigns, a pledging circle, annual appeals, letters, and conversations like the one described above, Free Columbia has managed to exist for 12 years while being organized like public radio.
These experiences and thoughts, along with a visit to the Chiemgauer in Germany, led me to conceive of the idea of creating a local currency that could serve as a buttress to these “habits of the heart.” Digital currencies are often conceived as a means of encouraging localism and economic cooperation and collaboration. This is certainly good. After joining together a few different monetary designs, I felt that a currency could also encourage and enliven democratic philanthropy.
In the Summer of 2018, there was a crowd-funder to support a research project in this direction, through which we raised $22,000. Seven interns joined Seth Jordan and myself for two months. We recently published a report with our findings[7]. The basic design is as follows.
The currency would be on a digital platform (not unlike the platform you might know from your bank, or from using frequent flyer miles). Your currency would not earn interest if you let it sit, in fact it would lose value. This of course works as an encouragement to use the currency and can increase the velocity of exchanges. But the deducted amount then appears in a separate “gifting” account that can be directed to local social-cultural work in your area.
The amount of money that would move toward not-for-profits would be small, and it is certainly questionable how much enthusiasm there would be for such a complicated “give a penny” scheme. But certainly there must be some freedom-loving individuals who have found themselves on the upper side of the inequality gap who would like to contribute to a Free Culture fund, a fund that would quadruple (?) every gift!
This would allow the pooling capital in our society to be directed by the respect, hope, and good faith in local free initiatives that other local community members authentically feel. This makes the local user of the community member into the steward of creating the future through giving and volunteerism. This stokes the fire of their sense of agency, hope, and effectiveness. I feel that this is an elegant alternative to what can often be cumbersome grant committees that have to pass judgement on where gifts are most deserved. Instead, the “habits of the heart” of the whole community are put to work, and exercised in the process.
This is not ideal; it is situational. The Free Culture fund returns efficacy to the community, but ideally it would not have been taken away in the first place! Ideally there would be a much more equitable distribution of wealth through our economic practices, and the dominant one-sided market philosophies would be seen for what they are: enemies of a truly free society. But the Free Culture fund can be immediately implemented, and this is an exceptional opportunity considering the amount of time it would take to achieve something through the United States Congress!
Free Columbia will at least triple in its activity and expenses over the next year. While we will be working with professionals in development – pursuing grants and larger contributions – we have been to the mountaintop already! To feel that the programs, art, and activities you are pursuing are totally supported by community gifts, and then being able to give that work freely to everyone in your area who is interested, has been a great and enlivening privilege.
The study and design offered for a currency that would support local economic cooperation and democratic giving is a celebration of that mountaintop and a testimony to the conviction, at least in myself, that it is one of the greatest social-cultural assets of the United States at present.
[1] Alexis de Tocqueville. Democracy in America. Library of America, 2004.
[2] Michael Sandel. What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2012.
[3] Thomas Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson: Writings (LOA #17): Autobiography / Notes on the State of Virginia / Public and Private Papers / Addresses / Letters. Library of America, 1984.
[4] Lester Salamon, The State of Nonprofit America. Brookings Institution Press, 2012.
[5] Martin Gilens. Affluence and Influence: Economic Inequality and Political Power in America. Princeton University Press, 2012.
[6] Hannah Arendt. On Revolution. Penguin, 2006.