You are on page 1of 23

Martin 1

Creating a Philanthropic Imagination:


Reimagining Love, Philanthrocapitalism, and Communication
25

Just then a lawyer stood up to test Jesus. Teacher, he said, What must I do to
inherit eternal life? 26He said to him, What is written in the law? What do you read
there? 27He answered, You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and
with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your
neighbor as yourself. 28And he said to him, You have given the right answer; do
this, and you will live.
29
But wanting to justify himself, he asked Jesus, And who is my neighbor?
30
Jesus replied, A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell into the
hands of robbers, who stripped him, beat him, and went away, leaving him half dead.
31
Now by chance a priest was going down that road; and when he saw him, he passed
by on the other side. 32So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him,
passed by on the other side. 33But a Samaritan while traveling came near him; and
when he saw him, he was moved with pity. 34He went to him and bandaged his
wounds, having poured oil and wine on them. Then he put him on his own animal,
brought him to an inn, and took care of him. 35The next day he took out two denarii,
and gave them to the innkeeper, and said, Take care of him; and when I come back,
I will repay you whatever more you spend. 36Which of these three, do you think,
was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers? 37He said, The
one who showed him mercy. Jesus said to him, Go and do likewise.
Luke 10:25-37, NRSV

Learning to Love: Introduction


As a preachers kid, I grew up around Biblical stories like this one. These parables were
used in our and other churches as evidence for why Jesus Christ is both a celebrated figure in the
Christian faith and a model for how Christians should act. But it wasnt until I studied both
communication and religion in college that I saw significance for those stories outside of a
religious tradition. As a student of religion, Im interested in how religious teachings, such as the
Great Commandment above, inform and impact our actions and work outside of the church
in our interactions with others and our lives in general. As a student of communication wanting
to put my rhetorical skills to work in the nonprofit sector, Im also very interested in the
development of philanthropy. According to the Urban Institute Center on Nonprofits and

Martin 2
Philanthropy, there are currently over 1.6 million nonprofit organizations in the United States and
the field is growing faster than for-profit and government sectors. While these charitable
institutions accounted for 5.4% of the national GDP in 2010, there have been more significant
changes to Americans understanding of philanthropy that have come from firms technically
outside the nonprofit sector. In previous projects I have analyzed the rhetorical effectiveness of
such for-profit, socially minded companies like TOMS Shoes in an attempt to better understand
the current state of philanthropic work.
As much as it has evolved since ancient times, philanthropy has still been associated with
the Great Commandment. The idea of loving your neighbor is an ancient, well-known teaching
it is declared as a critical commandment numerous times in the Bible. But that axiom is still
relevant in contemporary society. Such a lesson is pervasive because the Christian tradition is
inherently embedded in American culture. This teaching likely prompts a similar widespread
view of philanthropy as the public institution of loving our neighbor. But regardless of how
common such teachings about love are, thinking and living accordingly isnt always so easy.
What we need, as communication scholars and as people living in community with one another,
is a mindset that allows us to incorporate those ancient religious teachings whether were
religious or not into our everyday lives. We can achieve that goal with what I call the
philanthropic imagination.
After all, philanthropy today doesnt always fit the ethical assumptions the fields name
brings with it. Philanthropy, charity, the nonprofit sector whatever we call it is supposed to be
focused on doing good and nothing else. But in 2014, even generosity is commercial. Corporate
philanthropy, or philanthrocapitalism, is taking over the charitable scene (Bishop xii). So is there

Martin 3
a way to refocus on the original intentions of such a well-meaning sector? I believe so and that
path goes all the way back to religious teachings.

The Parameters of Love: Methods and Goals


Given the earliest etymological origins of philanthropy, which use Love Your Neighbor
as the sole guideline, this project seeks to create a path towards incorporating those origins of
love back into modern philanthropy. This path, which I call the philanthropic imagination, isnt a
foreign concept, but if we are going to put it to good use, its necessary that we name and
organize it, connecting meaning to a symbol (Wood 12). Only then can we situate ourselves as
scholars of communication and rhetoric along the path towards a modern understanding and
implementation of agape.
For the purposes of this project, certain limitations are necessary. First, advocating for a
society in which everyone loves each other is not the point of this project because such a goal
would be nave and unrealistic. But creating a scholarly community that cares for humanity
that is possible, and without a doubt worth arguing for and supporting. Furthermore, while every
major religion has its own connections to philanthropy, this paper will deal solely with
Christianity. Such a decision was made for two reasons: first, Christianity is the context with
which I am most familiar, and second, the origins of the words for philanthropy and charity have
clear connections to Biblical teachings. The philanthropic imagination certainly speaks to much
broader cultural ideals than just communication and religion. This project will in no way attempt
to tackle every aspect of what that notion entails, but it will serve as a first step on the road
towards fully understanding what it could look like for our community.

Martin 4
This paper will reconceive philanthropy and college communication programs role within it
because academia serves as a place in which an imaginary like this one is allowed to prosper. My
argument is threefold. First, the current state of philanthropy has moved away from the original
motivations of love, which is regrettable. Second, my proposed philanthropic imagination serves
as a valuable remedy to that divergence. Third, collegiate communications programs can and
should have an important role to play in bringing this new mindset into the academy. To better
understand the need for a philanthropic imagination what I hope will become part of the future
of philanthropy we must get a sense of where philanthropy came from, as well as its current
existence as a business-focused sector. Only then could we propose a future and position our
field within it. Perhaps by doing so, we arent just reinventing philanthropy were really
reimagining love for a modern context.

In the Beginning Was Love: Etymological Origins and Implications


Today the nonprofit sector is assumed to be a well-meaning, but still secular, part of the
economy. In fact, of the millions of charities registered in the United States, only 6.1% of them
are religion-related (McKeever and Pettijohn 6). Yet etymologically, theres a much stronger
connection between this sector and religion. The two most common words used to describe
nonprofit organizations are charity and philanthropy. These terms have two things in common
love and Biblical origins. While the connections that will be drawn in the first part of this section
are largely semantic, as scholars of communication, rhetoric, and writing studies writ large, we
recognize the value of language and the importance that our words have. For us, the words we
use, and the origins they have, matter.

Martin 5
The same is true for scholars of religion. As celebrated author and lay theologian C. S.
Lewis wrote in his 1960 book The Four Loves, [o]f course language is not an infallible guide,
but it contains, with all its defects, a good deal of stored insight and experience. If you begin by
flouting it, it has a way of avenging itself later on. We had better not follow Humpty Dumpty in
making words mean whatever we please (12). Scottish theologian James Moffatt would have
agreed with Lewis. In his 1930 book Love in the New Testament, Moffatt cautions that [i]t is to
court misconception if one attempts to study love or any other feature in the NT [New
Testament] without some accurate linguistic and literary criticism; many of the current
misunderstandings have arisen out of a failure to examine the terms employed and to ascertain
their original associations (53). So with a clear exigence for providing a better understanding
of key terms in a religious context and their wider importance, this section will retell the histories
of the words philanthropy and charity, contextualize them in Biblical teachings, and connect
those lessons to a universal understanding of morality. By doing so, we will have an important
appreciation for our nonprofit sectors earliest beginnings. While we recognize that the origins of
words to not necessitate a certain modern interpretation, such an analysis allows us to recover old
wisdom and apply it to our imaginary, our new way of seeing the world and the people in it.
Word Origins
Both philanthropy and charity originate from Greek words for love. In English, we use
one term to represent any kind of meaningful affection, and that was true for classical Greek too.
But by 250-50 BC, when the Hebrew Bible was being translated to Greek, the language had
modernized to include four different words to distinguish as many kinds of love, though scholars
dont know how that linguistic shift developed (Rausch 29, 37). Eros is a passionate, physical
love, usually of a sexual nature. Storge is the sort of natural affection felt by parents for their

Martin 6
children. These two forms of love, while real and important, are not relevant to this project. Eros
and storge are also far less common in the Bible than are the two forms of love we will now turn
our attention to: philia and agape.
Our modern word philanthropy originated from philia, which is usually translated as
brotherly love (as in Philadelphia, the City of Brotherly Love). In The Four Loves, Lewis
argued that even though this form of love is sometimes assumed to be weaker than others, philia
is the instrument by which God reveals to each the beauties of all the others (126). Through
this brotherly love, we are able to experience other kinds of love, as well as all other beauties
the world offers. Philia became the root word phil-, still meaning love. That root combined with
-anthropy, which is derived from anthro, meaning human, gives us the modern word
philanthropy, meaning love for humanity. So when we consider the present and future of
philanthropy, we shall keep in mind that the word, in its purest origins, means love.
The evolution of the English word charity is a much better story. The origin of that word
is the fourth Greek word for love, and by far the most used word in the Septuagint, the main
Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible (Rausch 37). Agape is regarded as the highest form of
love its the love between God and Christians, but its also the love that humans should feel
towards one another. Its standard definition is of an unconditional love for humanity. In a word,
agape encapsulates the Great Commandment. Agape is the love Christians are taught to emanate.
From the Bible, agape was eventually reinterpreted by Saint Augustine, a North African
bishop and theologian whose writings are among the most influential for Western Christianity
(circa 400 AD). Augustine wrote extensively on caritas, the Latin translation of the Greek agape.
He defined it as Love to God and love to neighbor (qtd. in Nygren 495), importantly linking
those two pieces together, just as the Great Commandment does in the Bible. Augustine

Martin 7
characterized caritas as different from cupiditas, love of things of the world, by situating them as
the right and wrong approaches to the same sentiment. He argues that love can be the highest
thing if directed towards something significant, but it can also be the lowest thing if targeted
at temporary, material things (qtd. in Nygren 494-5). So for Augustine, and therefore for Western
Christians, one must love something worth loving for the desire to have real meaning.
The word caritas was eventually translated to charity, and all the way through Old
English, the word was tied to Christianity. Still today, though we mainly understand charity to
mean institutions that help the poor, dictionaries still include definitions of love for humanity. So,
both philanthropy and charity mean a love for humanity. It is this origin of love that should
remain in our philanthropic and charitable endeavors. After all, thats what theyre meant to be.
Biblical Teachings
The word agape was characteristic of early Christianity, especially as the traditions
foundational writings expanded that term, that love, far beyond a standard definition of neighbor.
In the Old Testament, where the Love Your Neighbor teaching originated (Leviticus 19:18),
neighbor was interpreted as not just those nearby, but all permanent residents of the wider area.
This definition would include almost everyone an Israelite would meet in daily life [y]et there
is no clear evidence that before Jesus anyone took neighbour to mean fellow-man (Moffatt
103). Moffatt went on to write, [i]t was he who taught and practised love so deeply that it broke
with particularism and emerged into love for man as man, a neighbor being anyone who needs
our help, irrespective of creed or nationality. A contemporary understanding of this teaching as
referencing humanity in general, then, is a direct result of the recorded teachings of Jesus Christ.
Elaborating on that broadened definition, Swedish theologian Anders Nygren provides
four distinguishing features of agape love: it is spontaneous and unmotivated, meaning it and

Martin 8
the actions it encourages exist not because any teachings tell you to do so, or because youre
acting in your own best interest (as in to reach Heaven or any other religious goal); it is
indifferent to value, requiring followers to love absolutely unconditionally (in the Bible, this is
to say, loving the sinners along with the righteous); it is creative, in that it creates value in those
who love and are loved; and it is the initiator of fellowship with God, inspiring the foundation
of the relationship that Christians have with God and with one another (75-80). Let us keep
Nygrens characteristics of agape in mind, as they provide an optimistic framework for living out
such a love for humanity, even in the twenty-first century.

Universal Morality
Obviously, the teachings of Jesus are important to Christians because members of the
tradition are taught to base their worldview and actions on those parables. Yet, these stories have
implications that reach far beyond the two billion Christians in the world (Hackett et al. 9). The
Love Your Neighbor maxim and wider understandings of agape have shaped the way people
think and act in the broadest sense. To begin with, Saint Augustines doctrine of caritas as love
of the highest thing is undeniably one of the most interesting and important junctures in the
whole history of ideas, as it contributed to an ongoing scholarly conversation about what should
be philosophically considered the highest good (Nygren 501). So whether one is Christian,
otherwise religious, or not, these works are still critical to our understanding of how humans
relate to one another.
The works of Augustine, Nygren, and others serve as interpretations of the Love Your
Neighbor teaching, which is the Christian origin of the Golden Rule. While every other world
religion has a similar version of this ethical code (Blackburn 101), the phrasing that Americans

Martin 9
are most familiar with, Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, comes straight
from the Bible. Jesus is quoted as delivering this message in both the Gospels of Matthew and
Luke (Mt 7.12; Lk 6.31). While the Golden Rule has been critiqued as being impractical (for
naturally unbalanced relationships like parent-child) and depending on self-interest, Moffatt
argues that these criticisms exist because humans simply have a difficult time living up to such
an idealized standard:
The fact is, justice is always easier for the average individual than generosity; to refrain
from injury sounds more simple and feasible than to act kindly; hurt nobody is more
intelligible than help everybody. But when we take the Golden Rule not as a complete
summary of what Jesus taught on mutual duties but in connexion with the rest of his
teaching on the reign and love of God, it turns out to be not so open as it seems to
certain criticisms which have been passed on it. (102)
Loving our neighbor is never characterized as an easy task, but it is worthwhile enough that its
the center of our sense of morality.
Again, Christianity is not the only origin of the Golden Rule. Every major religion
incorporates some version of the same general principle, which is why it is so ubiquitous even
today. Still, it is not fair to discount the Biblical understanding of the Great Commandment
because [t]he Gospel form is a splendid working principle, which has wrought incalculable
good to humanity (Abrahams 22). So although it is one interpretation of many, this Christian
representation of the Golden Rule is worth crediting. Regardless of our individual beliefs, then,
there is no denying the connections between our moral teachings and their Christian origins.
Overall, based on the etymological origins of philanthropy and charity, Biblical teachings and
later interpretations, and their influence on the Golden Rule, it should be clear that the love-

Martin 10
origins of our current nonprofit sector are worth keeping.

The Business of Love: Contemporary Shift Toward Capitalism


We began with philanthropy and charity as words for love, and we now understand those
terms as identifiers for legal institutions that work to further a social cause. Institutionalized
giving has existed across cultures since ancient times, but it has evolved away from being a
strictly religious practice. Perhaps thats not such a surprise. As The Economist pointed out in a
2006 special report on wealth and philanthropy, some of Americas early philanthropic
powerhouses came from the business world, such as Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller.
Their charitable endeavors were based on maximizing their social impact, and the same could be
said for a new trend in giving back, popularly referred to as philanthrocapitalism. This hybrid
term coined by economists Matthew Bishop and Michael Green is understood as incorporating
values and practices of capitalism into the philanthropic realm. This broad genre includes
charitable billionaires like Bill Gates, online giving through sources like kiva.org and Facebook
Causes, and for-profit companies that incorporate a social cause into their business model.
It is that third category the for-profit, socially minded corporation that is the most
interesting and recent development. Therefore, it will be the focus of this section. To narrow our
attention even further, I will use the example of one such company TOMS Shoes and its
One for One business model as a sort of case study. I chose to narrow that focus in this way
because of my previous scholarship on TOMS, and more importantly because this company is
the firm that has popularized the One for One model, which I will argue blurs the lines between
philanthropy and capitalism.

Martin 11
TOMS Shoes was inspired by a 2006 trip its founder, reality television star-turnedentrepreneur Blake Mycoskie, took to Argentina. In his 2011 New York Times best seller Start
Something That Matters, Mycoskie recounted that fateful vacation. Over the course of his visit,
he met children who were prohibited from attending school because they couldnt afford shoes.
Before returning to his home in Venice, California, he had conceived of a company that would
manufacture shoes based on the traditional Argentine alpargata and for every pair sold, would
donate a pair to a child in need. His plan was summed up by the mantra (now a registered
trademark), One for One. Mycoskie called his brand Shoes for a Better Tomorrow,
eventually abbreviated with TOMS. Eight years later, the company has donated over 35
million pairs of shoes to children across the world, so they have sold a comparable number of
products (One for One). More recently, they have expanded to sell sunglasses, which are
connected to the giving of medical treatment, surgery, or prescription glasses to someone whos
visually impaired and coffee, which is connected to giving clean drinking water to someone
who doesnt have access to it.
TOMS main form of advertising is their website. In a previous rhetorical analysis, I
noted that all of the rhetorical strategies employed by the companys web writers rely on heavy
pathos-based appeals. This strategy isnt always problematic we know that emotional appeals
are effective. Yet, in the case of philanthrocapitalism, its this strategy that causes customers to
think of themselves more as fellow philanthropists than capitalist consumers. Particularly on
their homepage and the pages under the One for One tab, the company refers to itself as a
movement and positions its audience potential and returning customers as participants in that
movement through inclusive pronouns. Through a cluster analysis of their website for that
previous project, I found that we and our were used far more often than any other pronouns.

Martin 12
Even when you and they were used, those terms still identified customers as members of the
movement (Martin 13). The use of the term movement certainly creates a deterministic frame. We
are reminded more of a charitys website than of one for a major corporation.
Yet as rhetoricians and scholars of communication, we know its important to keep in
mind that this movement mindset is created by a profit-maximizing company. We know that
when a corporation uses a cause to market a product, customers are more likely to make a
purchase (Marconi 3). As consumers ourselves, that makes sense. Tiffany White, associate
professor of business administration at the University of Illinois notes in a 2012 edition of the
college of businesss Perspectives publication, [c]ustomers are enthusiastic about spending
money at a business that shows they understand who their customers are and what they value. It
helps build brand loyalty and trust and long-term, resilient relationships with customers. It
validates their decision making and enhances the brand. As a business, it makes perfect sense to
incorporate a social cause as a way to make a product stand out in the market.
But the language that companies like TOMS use to talk about their work is whats
important because thats what is causing the shift in philanthropy from being a separate sector to
a universal undertaking. And they know exactly what theyre doing. Mycoskie told the Wall
Street Journal in 2010, My customers are my biggest evangelists, clearly recognizing the
power of word-of-mouth advertising (and lets not overlook the fact that he used religious
language to do so). In Start Something That Matters, Mycoskie doesnt shy away from the fact
that his enterprise is a for-profit company, and that its connection to a powerful story encourages
customers to connect to more than just a product, making it more likely that they tell others about
their new shoes (32). Cause marketing is effective because it allows customers to feel more like
philanthropists, participants in a movement, than just people buying a product.

Martin 13
We know that one cannot not communicate, so the terms we use matter, and thats just as
true for corporations as it is for individuals. An organization doesnt arbitrarily decide to be
called a charity or a company. Those words matter because it determines how the firm runs. This
language can also be interpreted as indicative of its biggest economic priority, whether they are
considered maximizers of profit or cause they cannot be both (McEachern 52). Its not wrong
to go a for-profit route, but that decision does affect how an organization is perceived by its
audience its customer base. At this point, we could be quick to assume that
philanthrocapitalism is a ruse, that customers are being scammed, and that corporations are
always corrupt. These suspicions are fair and do encourage us to pay closer attention to the
institutions we support financially (whether thats by donations or purchases). Most importantly,
they lead us to recognize the rhetorical strategies used by these companies, if only because of
their widespread success.
Even on a larger scale, this development towards for-profit philanthropy is not
necessarily destructive, but theres no denying its effectiveness. And we can move forward that
way as long as were still tied to the origins of love. But we arent, at least not on a technical
level. The Great Commandment is above all others love is to be our highest priority. So the fact
that profit has now entered the equation complicates things. Engaging in corporate charity
necessarily places the cause below profit on their priority list. Mycoskie wrote that he preferred
the for-profit model because it allowed his project to be sustainable rather than being
dependent on kind people making donations (6). That stance makes sense to us in 2014; starting
a business sounds like a safer investment. But as Christians, or at least as optimists, shouldnt the
kindness of others be something we can depend on? If we cant, thats undoubtedly a goal worth

Martin 14
pursuing. Our current mindset shows that weve grown away from holding agape paramount, so
that we think in terms of individualistic profit before we think of the rest of the world.
Maybe philanthrocapitalists create profitable projects so they can generate more
sustainable service, or because companies pay higher salaries than nonprofits. That disparity is
irrelevant to this project. I have no interest in determining why it has evolved this way Im only
interested in studying how this new system works, now that its here. Whats clear is that
philanthropy has developed away from agape to a self-serving model, but this shift also suggests
that love is simply not reserved for the nonprofit sector anymore. This development, which I see
as only continuing, shows that philanthropic actions are suitable for every sphere of influence.

The Future of Love: Thoughts for Undergraduate Communications Programs


We are used to thinking of charity as synonymous with nonprofit organizations, so thats
how we use the word. But now the act of being charitable, of showing agape to others, is being
taken on by businesses. While that development does blur lines between whats philanthropic
and whats profit-driven, the optimistic side of that development is that perhaps charity is
becoming everyones responsibility. From a religious standpoint, its easy to argue that showing
agape is the responsibility of every individual, and therefore every organization of people. So if
thats true, how do we make that development real and widespread? And what role could
collegiate communications programs play? This final section of analysis will answer such
questions with the introduction of the philanthropic imagination.
The term Im introducing may be new, but theres clear precedence for it. As an academic
discipline, sociology relies on C. Wright Mills sociological imagination: a mindset that enables
its possessor to understand the larger historical scene in terms of its meaning for the inner life

Martin 15
and the external career of a variety of individuals (5). The sociological imagination encourages
the scholar to contextualize the experience of one person in the wider experience of their society,
which we now understand as critical to the study of sociology.
More generally, creating a social imaginary is something scholars in a variety of fields
do, whether intentionally or not. Prominent Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor defines a social
imaginary as the ways people imagine their social existence, how they fit together with others,
how things go on between them and their fellows, the expectations that are normally met, and the
deeper normative notions and images that underlie these expectations (23). Taylor goes on to
write that any effective social imaginary incorporates some sense of how we all fit together in
carrying out the common practice (24). So in creating any sort of collective mindset, as Mills
did for sociology, one is must pay attention to how the actions of one individual, one
organization, one discipline, affects and coincides with the actions of the wider community.
Using that context, the philanthropic imagination is a mindset that incorporates back into
our lives the etymological root of philanthropy; it is keeping agape at the forefront of everything
we do, professionally and personally. For Christians, a philanthropic imagination is inherently a
life of grace because it requires one to live above and beyond the law we arent trying to get by
with the minimum. For all individuals, the philanthropic imagination is a reminder to think of
others always, to care for those around us without prioritizing our own needs. Its living out the
Great Commandment to love our neighbor, to live a life of love. Sure, suggesting that every
person on earth reframe their entire lives may not be realistic but just think of what the world
would look like if we could. Prominent political commentators Tavis Smiley and Cornel West
have thought about it, imagining such a world in their 2012 poverty manifesto The Rich and
the Rest of Us. If Americans cultivated a surplus of compassion, our children would not be

Martin 16
without food, shelter, and quality health care...With a surplus of love, the untapped potential of
our youth would not rot away in our nations prisons (119). As we focus on what the
philanthropic imagination means for individuals and disciplines, let us remember the powerful
potential such a mindset could have on our wider community.
But for now, well focus on a first step towards that powerful potential. Spreading any
sort of new message, much less a new mindset, requires effective communicators. If the
philanthropic imagination is going to live in the present day, well need to do some heavy
persuading. By now we recognize that agape has a place in our culture, and if we want it to catch
on, we need to do our part. We already know that the academy is a context that can breathe life
into these sorts of theories and imaginaries, and we know that effective communicators are
ethical. So let us imagine the role that undergraduate communications programs could play in
cultivating a philanthropic imagination in our students. To do so, well first reflect on the
interdisciplinary nature of the college experience. Second, well discover unique advantages this
mission provides for our discipline. Finally, well look towards areas for further research as we
continue to explore what a new understanding of love could mean for our field and our students.
Because the philanthropic imagination, like any social imaginary a la Taylor, recognizes
implications and connections, let us first turn our attention to our wider community of higher
education. Undergraduate programs are becoming more interdisciplinary, which creates a more
holistic student experience. As Michael Roth, president of Wesleyan University writes, this
development is beneficial for faculty, too:
How can we find more ways to give our professors opportunities to teach what they are
most passionate about while giving our undergraduates the skills and contextual
comprehension they need to launch their own intellectual adventures? If we keep this

Martin 17
question in mind, I believe that campus communities can reshape their curricula in ways
that offer a transformative experience to their students while giving faculty the chance to
advance their own fields.
A move towards interdisciplinary studies is advantageous for both students and faculty.
Incorporating the philanthropic imagination into the collegiate experience, as worthwhile aspect
of students intellectual adventures and faculty advancement, makes sense then.
There are many ways to diversify our programs, but the philanthropic imagination has
unique advantages that will only enhance the education we offer. This social imaginary is
applicable to an expansive audience, not just those wanting to work in the nonprofit sector
professionally. First off, this mindset allows us to practice what we preach. If we understand
communicative competence as the way we effectively communicate based on context and social
knowledge (Saville-Troike 18), then employing a philanthropic imagination is a way to reach
that highest level of praxis. We wont just be talking about loving our neighbor and making a
difference in the world, or teaching it, or thinking about it, or idealizing it. Well be living it.
Moreover, incorporating the philanthropic imagination into our collegiate programs helps
us integrate our courses with other disciplines on our campuses. It prevents academic disciplines
(ours included) from unknowingly committing the communicative crime of bypassing we may
be teaching similar concepts and skills and not know it because we dont take the time to
connect. After learning about religious scholars recognition of the importance of language, as
well as the implications of languages evolution, we can predict that the discipline of religion
would also be on board with living the philanthropic imagination, and even with incorporating it
into discussions of living out religious teachings. So, integrating a philanthropic imagination
would certainly help the field of communication connect to other academic disciplines.

Martin 18
When we claim the philanthropic imagination as part of the field of communication,
rhetoric, and writing studies, we become the experts. We become the discipline that champions
service and agape in our research, work, and lives. We know how it connects to our own theories
about empathy and effectiveness, but by explicitly teaching it, we can share what we know more
broadly. By adopting an all-embracing theory like this one, are enhancing the credibility of the
communication field. As the world of higher education becomes more interdisciplinary, other
fields, or at least students in other fields, would seek out the communication department for ways
to create their own philanthropic-minded courses and objectives.
Incorporating a philanthropic imagination into our undergraduate programs makes sense
on a more basic level, too. There are numerous courses that exist in institutions of all sizes that
educate and train students in developing cultural awareness. Teaching students to cultivate a
philanthropic imagination is another form of achieving that goal enriching our students
experience and providing them with a wider range of skills and perspectives, exactly what theyll
need as they enter our increasingly interdisciplinary workforce. Wed be helping students learn
both the value and the techniques of communicating for yet another audience, reminding them
that one of the most basic guidelines of communication is to be empathic, which is certainly a
guideline we should follow in every aspect of our lives.
Focusing on this specific audience, whether it is in the official nonprofit sector or more
generally, is increasingly important because our students are craving an explicit connection
between their education and service. College-age Americans are more service-minded than ever,
and are looking for careers that incorporate those same values (Bishop 179). Theyre looking for
ways to learn how to make a difference, and to prepare to do so once they enter the workforce.
So why not let the communication department be the place where they can do just that? This shift

Martin 19
to a more philanthropic-minded audience simply provides us with a new rhetorical situation. In
this case, we have the same audience and constraints as always, but the philanthropic
imagination deepens our exigence. Bitzer would surely argue that incorporating this new mindset
would be a rhetorical exigence, or goal for persuasion, because its capable of positive
modification and when positive modification requires discourse or can be assisted by discourse
(6). This means that to really make this shift in thinking, to begin to alter how we live teachings
of love, we dont need a major policy change or drastic action. We need to communicate with
humanity better.
So how do we do that exactly? For the purposes of this project, I have explored the
reasoning for this philanthropic imagination, justifying this new exigence. But if our programs
are truly going to incorporate an education of agape, far more research must be done. We need to
break down specifically what this development would look like for different kinds of schools,
from R1 research universities to small liberal arts colleges. We need to develop curricula for
specific courses we want to incorporate, perhaps classes with titles like Writing for Nonprofits
or The Rhetoric of Service. We need to work with our colleagues in other academic disciplines
on our campuses to find courses that may already be doing exactly what were looking for, and
cross-list or team-teach them for students of communication. Finally, to generate a more
thorough understanding of what love means today for the nonprofit sector, for education, and
for daily life we must trace the teachings and developments in other religions and cultures,
beyond what I have done with Christianity. Only by expanding our understanding could we fairly
say that were working to teach our students how to love and communicate with our
neighbors, whoever they may be.

Martin 20
The Call of Love: Conclusions
From its very beginnings, Christianity has revolved around the Great Commandment, as
taught by Jesus in the conclusion of the Good Samaritan parable. Its no wonder that St.
Augustine called Christianity the religion of love (Nygren 450). We can rejoice in the evolution
of the Bibles most powerful words for love, philia and agape, into distinguishing institutions
that strive to love our marginalized neighbors in a variety of ways. We can even be glad that
service has become such a pervasive part of our culture that corporations are integrating
philanthropy into their annual budgets, and even into the core of their business models. Yet,
because we know that philanthropy is to be an unconditional love for humanity and nothing else,
we are wary of any person or institution that suggests that making a profit is the best way to
make a difference, though that strategy can surely be effective.
So now were ready to bring those origins of love back into our lives. The philanthropic
imagination is a way for us to reimagine love in a contemporary context. Im not asking anyone
to make drastic changes to their lifestyle. But we can and should all recognize that we have a
responsibility to think of others, to care for them, to love them, with our actions. We are ready to
change our perspective, knowing that doing so has far-reaching effects. Smiley and West write:
This new day must begin with a fresh imagination, a decision to discover some hard
answers to some hard questions. Namely, what kind of person do we really want to be?
Cowardly and complacent or courageous and compassionate? What kind of country do
we really want to be? Cold-hearted and callous or caring and considerate? The choice is
ours. (136)
Let us not be overwhelmed by the magnitude of the problems we face, but by the simplicity of
our solutions first step. The philanthropic imagination is, at its core, about communication

Martin 21
with ourselves about what we want for our lives, and with each other about what we want for the
future of our world.
We know now, too, that this love-minded mindset is right at home in communication
departments. We know our audience, our exigence, and our constraints moving forward. We
know to be empathic. We know that everything we do what we say, how we spend our money,
how we treat people is sending a message to the world, and we know how to teach others to
value effective communication in whatever future career they desire. But beyond the pragmatic
need to teach what students want to learn, were doing philosophically what we need to do
teaching them what theyll need in order to change the world. We already know college to be an
inherently transformative experience, and what could be a better way to make that experience
even more positively transformative than with the philanthropic imagination?
College students are taught to decide on a clear plan for what they want to do next what
their vocation is going to be. The workforce is competitive and we want our students to be
prepared. But we shouldnt forget that a true vocation is more than just a job. Its a calling. If we
want our students to study communication, lets give them something worth communicating
about and advocating for humanity. And lets help them discover it in our programs and not
leave the discovery of a calling to their extra-curricular involvement. Our students are looking
for a calling and the philanthropic imagination helps us all create one. The goal of
communication is to effectively persuade an audience to support a specific message. We have our
message, and its a vital one. Now its our job to start communicating it in our classrooms, in
our research, and in our daily lives.

Martin 22
Works Cited
Abrahams, Israel. Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels. London: Cambridge UP, 1924. PDF
file.
Binkley, Christina. Charity Gives Shoe Brand Extra Shine. Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones &
Company, 1 April 2010. Web. 6 Nov. 2012.
Bishop, Matthew and Michael Green. Philanthrocapitalism: How Giving Can Save the World.
New York: Bloomsbury, 2009. Print.
Bitzer, Lloyd F. The Rhetorical Situation. Philosophy and Rhetoric 25 (1992): 1-14. PDF file.
Blackburn, Simon. Ethics: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford UP, 2003. WorldCat. Web. 17
Nov. 2014.
Hackett, Conrad, et al. Global Christianity: A Report on the Size and Distribution of the Worlds
Christian Population. Pew Research Center, Dec. 2011. Web. 17 Nov. 2014.
Lewis, Clive Staples. The Four Loves. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World, Inc., 1960. Print.
Lockman, Cathy. Cause Related Marketing. Perspectives. College of Business at the
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 11 May 2012. Web. 10 Nov. 2012.
Marconi, Joe. Understanding Cause Marketing. Cause Marketing. Chicago: Dearborn Trade
Publishing, 2002. 15-40. PDF file.
Martin, Emily. Purpose as a Purchasing Factor: Ideological Critique of Mission Statements in
Philanthrocapitalist Organizations. Transylvania U, 2013. Print.
McEachern, William A. Microeconomics: A Contemporary Introduction. 10th ed. Mason: SouthWestern, Cengage Learning, 2012. Print.
McKeever, Brice S. and Sarah L. Pettijohn. The Nonprofit Sector in Brief: Public Charities,
Giving, and Volunteering, 2014. Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy. The Urban Institute,
2014. PDF file.
Mills, C. Wright. The Sociological Imagination. New York: Oxford UP, 1959. Ebook.
Moffatt, James. Love in the New Testament. New York: Richard R. Smith, Inc., 1930. Print.
Mycoskie, Blake. Start Something That Matters. New York: Spiegel & Grau, 2011. Print.
The New Oxford Annotated Bible. New York: Oxford UP, 2007. Print.
Nonprofits. Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy. The Urban Institute, n.d. Web. 18 Nov.
2014.
Nygren, Anders. Agape and Eros. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1953. Print.

Martin 23

One for One. TOMS.com. TOMS Shoes, LLC., n.d. Web. 21 Nov. 2014.
Rausch, Jerome W. Agape and Amicitia: A Comparison Between St. Paul and St. Thomas. Rome:
Catholic Book Agency, 1958. Print.
Roth, Michael. The Proper Role of Interdisciplinary Studies. HuffingtonPost.com.
TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc., 23 Apr. 2010. Web. 23 Oct. 2014.
Saville-Troike, Muriel. The Ethnography of Communication: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell
Publishing, 2003. PDF file.
Smiley, Tavis, and Cornel West. The Rich and the Rest of Us. New York: SmileyBooks, 2012.
Print.
Taylor, Charles. Modern Social Imaginaries. Durham: Duke UP, 2004. PDF file.
TOMS Company Overview. TOMS.com. TOMS Shoes, LLC., n.d. Web. 22 Nov. 2014.
Wood, Julia T. Communication Mosaics. 2nd ed. Belmont, Thomson Learning, Inc., 2008. PDF
file.

You might also like