For Profit, or Not-For-Profit?

In reading the Block this week, as expressed in class, I found the contradictory nature of his writing to be offensive. Block advocates the change in perception from deficiencies to gifts, and quite passionately so, yet he seems to completely negate this ideal when he devotes a whole chapter to the dysfunction of society at large (Chapter 3: The Stuck Community).

After class, I kept asking myself why I was so offended by his writing. Looking back on it, I think I was so offended because I felt personally attacked, and to a certain extent rightfully so. I suppose, to his credit, however, this shows Block's power as an author to personalize his writing. As I said in class, and again stress since giving the reading a second look, I do believe Block has some intriguing and genius ideas in this chapter.

I think one of the most compelling points he raises in this chapter is the misnaming of not-for-profit organizations. Sure, the title refers to monetary gain, or a lack thereof, but in some stretch of the word it also implies a complete lack of gain. I guess this really just comes down to one's definition of "profit." Not-for-profits create a huge amount of social capital and social fabric, and serve as catalysts to associational life. So, why is it then that these organizations are called "not-for-profits"? Unfortunately, the reality is many communities do calculate success based on the dollar sign attached to the front of a figure. So, how does one retain the integrity of these organizations? Simple. Change the name. This is a perfect example of how language can empower and encourage a thriving community.

Another point worth mentioning is the lack of identity found in the label associated with not-for-profit organizations. Block conceptualizes this idea brilliantly when he suggests people introduce themselves as who they’re NOT. This lack of identity within the volunteer community leads to a breakdown of associational life that, in the mindset of Block, would throw a community into regression.

Another interesting idea about associational life is the notion that volunteerism is a distant contribution. Distant in the sense that one is not required to immerse one’s full self into it. Sure, it’s nice to help out, but at the end of the day we all go back to our happy-go-lucky lives while for some the oppression we volunteered to alleviate, if only during the course of a warm meal, is a constant reality of which there seems to be no escape. I guess this also ties into the idea of volunteerism as solving (or sustaining) symptoms not the problems. So is volunteerism as great as it seems? Or is it a way for the fortunate citizens of a community to feel less guilty about their success. Does it become a moral obligation?

Congruently, running with this notion of volunteerism as a handicap of community, Block states in the his book that it is our current understanding the more social programs a community has the weaker it is perceived to be. So where does volunteerism become a crutch of society? I was always under the impression that one could not volunteer enough. I suppose it is all about the manner in which you volunteer. There’s a saying, “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.” So, where does one stop feeding and start fishing?

All in all, I think volunteerism can serve as a great asset to a community, as does Block. But in stating the negative mindset, Block leads me to think, “How much is too much? When should one be expected to help one’s self?” I know that in this class we’re talking all about the unity of a commUNITY, but where, if at any point, should one be held accountable for his/her actions? Is volunteerism really just a form of coddling? I like to believe it is not, but Block raises a very interesting point.