Vol. 63, No. 2 — March/April 1982 —
The Call for
Volunteers
Download
PDF version
The people who help others of their
own free will in their own free time perform a vital service
to society. As Volunteer Week approaches, they deserve our
praise. Their services are needed now more than ever. May
their numbers continue to grow...
An article published in an American news magazine not long
ago described how women were using volunteer work as a foot
in the door to the employment market. It said that the feminist
movement had accelerated this trend by urging women "to seek
work that is 'real' - in other words, paid." The co-ordinator
of volunteers in a large institution was quoted as saying
that women were doing unpaid work to improve their skills
and hence their career prospects. Also quoted was a former
volunteer who had moved on to a full-time position: "I guess
finally I was interested in being paid for a job. Money is
the way society shows that it values what you are doing."
If that is so, it makes a disturbing commentary on current
social values. For surely much of the work that is done for
money is worthless to anyone but those who profit by it. Voluntary
service, on the other hand, is so valuable to its beneficiaries
as to be literally priceless. Who could ever count what it
is worth to a crippled child to be taught how to swim, or
to an elderly shut-in to have someone do the shopping and
drop in for a chat once or twice a week?
The attitude that only paid work matters is lamentably common.
You will look in vain in books on economics for so much as
a mention of the contribution which voluntary service makes
to the national wellbeing. In fact, voluntary activities account
for an estimated 3.3 per cent of Canada's gross national product.
One in every seven adult Canadians is engaged in some sort
of volunteer activity. Organized volunteer work in Canada
amounts to some 374 million man-hours a year.
But the economic statistics are the least of it. Though
great numbers of Canadian volunteers are active in the fields
of sports, the arts, consumerism and civil rights, 31.5 per
cent of them work in the social welfare and health fields.
Another 25 per cent donate their time to religious groups,
which are also partially involved in health, welfare and education.
In other words, these people are directly concerned with helping
others. And in helping others, they are helping the whole
society.
One of the mainstays of society, after all, is the common
understanding that the stronger must share their strength
with the weaker. There could be no social order if the community
interest did not come before purely selfish pursuits. The
religions which did so much to establish that social order
in the first place have always stressed that the individual
has an obligation to his fellow human beings. The concept
of mutual support is implicit in every major religious belief.
For instance, it is a maxim of Hinduism that "he does not
live in vain who employs his wealth, his thought, his speech
to advance the good of others." "The way to heaven is to benefit
others," the Taoist philosophy says. According to the Prophet
Mohammed, "A man's true wealth is hereafter the good he does
in this world to his fellow man."
In the Old Testament we find the example of Job: "I was
eyes to the blind, and feet I was to the lame. I was father
to the poor and the cause which I knew not I sought out."
In the New Testament is the Parable of the Good Samaritan:
"Go and do likewise," Jesus enjoined.
John Ruskin made an acute observation of scriptural teachings
when he wrote: "It is written, not 'blessed is he that feedeth
the poor,' but 'blessed is he that considereth the poor.'
A little thought and a little kindness are often worth more
than a great deal of money."
Neither public nor voluntary agencies
can meet
all the need
Money for good causes is needed and welcome, but under the
simpler social systems of earlier times, the giving of alms
was considered no more than a natural duty. That is because
there is such a thing as cold charity - charity without compassion.
"To feel much for others and little for ourselves; to restrain
our selfish, and exercise our benevolent affections, constitutes
the perfection of human nature," wrote Adam Smith. As the
father of classical economics, Smith was an upholder of laissez-faire,
the doctrine that the public good is best served when governments
intervene least in people's lives.
Laissez-faire dominated the social policies of western
countries in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Governments
shied away from dealing with social problems. It was left
mainly to individuals, churches and other charitable organizations
to attend to the public welfare. Though it was a full-time
job for many of them, the people who worked in charitable
institutions were essentially volunteers.
The present century brought the birth of universal tax-supported
programs in health, welfare and education. The political thrust
for more government involvement came from early socialists
who believed that undeserved privileges were perpetuated by
laissez-faire. They regarded the old system of charity
as not much more than self serving paternalism, a scattering
of crumbs from rich men's tables. They insisted that the needs
of society could never be met by private benevolence alone.
It is true that the old system was spread too thinly and
was too selective. The churches understandably looked after
their own adherents first.
Among non-sectarian charities, some causes were more popular
than others. The less-popular ones did not receive the attention
they deserved.
As time went on, the place of religion in society diminished.
Governments took over much of the work that was formerly performed
by religious communities. The nature of the family also changed.
In an age when the family unit embraced grandparents, aunts
and uncles as well as parents and children, the handicapped,
sick and aged were often taken care of in the home rather
than in public institutions. The fragmentation of the immediate
family, with more young people leaving home earlier and more
marriage break-ups, has given rise to a host of new problems
which must be dealt with by society as a whole.
Today, even right-wing political parties agree that governments
should provide some basic measure of social service and security
for people who really need it. At the same time, even leftwing
parties (in the western world, at least) agree that governments
cannot do all that has to be done. Public services lack the
human touch that people in distress need so badly. Volunteers
can either supplement the services provided, or take care
of special problems which government programs tend to overlook.
Does the spirit of volunteerism still
live in a
self-centred age?
In Great Britain, where a socialist government introduced
a comprehensive welfare state after World War II, the functions
of the public and voluntary sectors have long since been reconciled.
As an official British government publication puts it, "State
and voluntary services are now complementary and co-operative.
Both central and local authorities make grants to voluntary
social services. Public authorities plan and carry out their
duties taking account of the voluntary help available." Much
the same could be said of the situation in Canada today.
After many years of governments taking on more and more
of the social responsibilities once borne by private citizens,
the pendulum is now swinging back to the voluntary sector.
Governments everywhere are deeply in debt, and they are finding
that there is a limit to how heavily they can tax people without
damaging the economy and their own political appeal. As a
result, they have been cutting back on publicly-funded services.
In one country where drastic economy measures have been
imposed, the United States, President Ronald Reagan is trying
to rekindle what he calls "the spirit of volunteerism." "The
truth is, we've let government take away many of the things
we once considered were ours to do voluntarily, out of the
goodness of our hearts and a sense of neighbourliness. I believe
many of you want to do those things again," he said in a recent
speech.
The question is whether goodness of heart and neighbourliness
still can grow amidst the negativism and hedonism of what
Tom Wolfe has called "the me generation." As recently as 1979
a team of American futurists composed the following scenario
as a projection of prevailing behavioural trends: "There will
be a fantastic expansion of self-realization activities aimed
at helping the individual to realize maximum personal happiness
and self-expression. The solidarity of groups - families,
neighbourhoods, communities, associations, etc. - will decline.
The individual will be supreme; the group will be tolerated
only as a means to helping individuals to realize their private
goals. Charity will decline."
That hardly seems like an atmosphere conducive to voluntary
service. Fortunately, though, the reasoning behind the scenario
is flawed. The writers fallaciously conclude that self-realization
can be achieved through arrant selfishness. The wisdom of
the ages proclaims just the reverse.
The ancient Roman philosopher Seneca wrote: "He that does
good to another, does good also to himself, not only in the
consequences, but in the very act; for the consciousness of
well-doing is, in itself, ample reward." For a more recent
authority, take Sir Wilfred Grenfell, who spent a lifetime
helping the people of Labrador: "Real joy comes not from ease
or riches or the praise of men, but from doing something worthwhile."
When volunteers are asked the reasons why they volunteer,
they usually cite the satisfaction they derive from helping
others. A typical reaction came from an ex-champion figure
skater who teaches skating to blind children. "Don't get me
wrong. I don't teach these classes as charity. I'm basically
a very selfish person. I teach them because I get tremendous
gratification," she said.
The Report of the National Advisory Council on Volunteer
Action to the Government of Canada in 1977 noted a "new and
healthy realization that the volunteer himself does and should
benefit from voluntary activity." It said: "Today, many volunteers
tend to place less emphasis on a charitable motivation and
frankly admit that their involvement in voluntary activity
arises from their need for self-expression, self-development
and self-protection. Given that large numbers of Canadians
are heavily engaged in voluntary activity, many are seeking
to fulfil their personal needs."
People enjoy doing something for nothing
on
their own terms
The report raised the question of whether volunteers should
be paid in view of the fact that they incur expenses for baby-sitting,
transportation, etc. A subsequent study of the question in
Ottawa showed that the altruistic instinct is still strong.
A control group of hospital volunteers was paid for its work
while another received only verbal acknowledgment. Within
a short time the performance of the paid group deteriorated.
The results confirm that people enjoy doing something for
nothing. The poet Edward Arlington Robinson put his finger
on this facet of altruism long ago when he wrote: "There are
two kinds of gratitude - the sudden kind we feel for what
we take, the larger kind we feel for what we give." At least
some volunteers would not do the work they do if a price were
put on it. Said a hospital auxiliary worker with a hard and
occasionally unpleasant job: "I wouldn't do this for any amount
of money. I do it because I want to. I feel I owe something
to this community. This community has been very good to me."
The idea of giving something back to the community of your
own free will seems to be undergoing a revival among the people
who were least expected to be interested in voluntary service
- the members of the "me generation." Community affairs offices
in Canadian high schools have been mobilizing students to
help the disabled, entertain children, drive people to and
from hospitals, tutor slow learners, baby-sit for working
mothers and the like. Added to the continuing good work being
done by organizations like 4-H, the Boy Scouts and the Junior
Red Cross, this makes it look as if the grossly selfish "me
generation" was a swiftly passing phenomenon. Perhaps it never
really existed at all.
The fact that more married women are now in the labour force
has changed the character of voluntarism. Traditionally, most
volunteers for social and health service were homemakers with
time on their hands. Now that so many women use up all their
time in their dual capacities as workers and homemakers, the
ranks are being filled increasingly by men and young people.
Of the 100,000-odd volunteers in the Montreal area, for instance,
40,000 are male, and a large proportion of them are from 16
to 19 years of age.
Older people, too, are volunteering more and more to make
good use of the free time they have in retirement. In some
cases their former employers are co-ordinating and sponsoring
their work. In Minneapolis, Honeywell Inc.'s Retiree Volunteer
Program has about 300 volunteers on its roster. Some ex-employees
volunteer their expertise in their specialties, while others
look for a change from what they did during their working
careers.
Businesses are getting involved in volunteer work in another
way, by lending their expertise and resources to non-profit
organizations. Since 1969 the Volunteer Urban Consulting Group
of New York City has helped a variety of bodies in social
affairs and the arts to manage their own affairs. Management
people such as accountants, financial planners, corporate
lawyers and systems analysts voluntarily act as consultants
to non-profit groups, and their companies often contribute
technical resources. A similar organization, the Agora Foundation,
was recently formed in Toronto. It offers the services of
both working and retired managers to non-profit groups requiring
management aid.
While there will always be a need for people to do basic
chores like mailing out fund-raising literature or pushing
carts around hospitals, there is a growing trend towards more
challenging forms of service. One of these is Citizen Advocacy,
in which able persons are paired off with mentally or physically
handicapped persons who cannot entirely look after themselves.
Among the other fairly new developments in voluntary service
are round-the-clock telephone listening services for people
with emotional problems, meals on wheels for shut-ins, and
palliative care for dying hospital patients.
If you do all you can, it can never
be too little
Learning enrichment programs are an example of the activities
that have grown up as a result of government economy measures.
When provincial education departments found themselves with
relatively less money to spend, they went over the curriculum
and cut out non-essential "frills." In some localities parents
have taken it upon themselves to conduct after-hours classes
in aspects of art, music and physical education. It shows
how volunteers are needed more than ever now that cost-conscious
governments are partially withdrawing from various fields.
The need for volunteers is bound to grow, not only because
of this but because there is so much trouble and hardship
to be alleviated. During Volunteer Week in North America,
held this year from April 18 to 25, we should honour the volunteers
among us and think about what else we could be doing ourselves.
The watchword of voluntarism is "do what you can." If you
do all you can, it can never be too little. Mother
Teresa of Calcutta, who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize
of 1979 for her work among the poor in India, put the idea
of service into perspective when she said: "We feel ourselves
that what we are doing is just a drop in the ocean. But if
that drop was not in the ocean, I think the oceans would be
less because of that missing drop."
Published by RBC Financial Group. All editions from the RBC
Letter collection are available on our web site at www.rbc.com/responsibility/letter.
Our e-mail address is: rbcletter@rbc.com.
Publié aussi en francais.
[ Return to RBC Letter
home page ]
|
