In this holiday season we hear many variations of Charles Dickens’ “A Christmas Carol.” We know the story — miserly Ebenezer Scrooge gets religion and sees the light, Tiny Tim lives, and Bob Cratchit is paid a fairer wage (not clear if he gets health insurance, but Tiny Tim stays healthy somehow). The Cratchits fall away as primary characters and Scrooge shines. It is a heartwarming story, a hardnosed directive for personal behavior, and a powerful, but misguided, template for social reform and charity.
Like many of Dickens’ characters, Scrooge is virtually a parody — in this case, a miserly, self-regarding businessman. His lack of charity harms society, embodied in the form of the hard-working, deserving Cratchit family. The ghosts show him the light, and Scrooge changes, and becomes, in Dickens’ words, “… as good a friend, as good a master, and as good a man, as the good old city knew, or any other good old city, town, or borough, in the good old world.”
We sigh happily at the close — it is truly a great story, personifying the details of greed and misery and personal redemption in a way no dry academic study ever could. In Western civilization, charity transforms the giver. Giving gives back; it confers status on the giver.
Another imposing English writer, George Orwell, praised Dickens as a stylist, artist, and story teller, but chided him with rapier wit as a misguided social reformer. In his essay on Dickens, Orwell likens poverty to acne and an individual moral response as an ineffective placebo, because Dickens has no systematic way of understanding poverty and injustice:
“Dickens at any rate never imagined that you can cure pimples by cutting them off. In every page of his work one can see a consciousness that society is wrong somewhere at the root. It is when one asks ‘Which root?’ that one begins to grasp his position. The truth is that Dickens’s criticism of society is almost exclusively moral. Hence the utter lack of any constructive suggestion anywhere in his work.”
For Orwell (and for me), charity is not the solution. Charity poses as a cure for poverty and injustice while often functioning as healthy vanity, where the charitable giver becomes the focus, instead of the people in need. As Orwell says in “Can Socialists Be Happy?” (which you should read along with “A Christmas Carol”), “…we are not aiming at the kind of world Dickens described, nor, probably, at any world he was capable of imagining. The Socialist objective is not a society where everything comes right in the end, because kind old gentlemen give away turkeys.”
In the end, there are not enough kind gentlemen to give away enough turkeys.
In much religious social thought — Catholic social teaching for one — justice work is separate from charity. (That is why the Catholic Charities, and Protestant and Jewish groups, criticize political agendas to replace government programs with charity, because charity will never be enough.
Perversely, charitable donations fall when need increases. While government spending to help the poor and distressed has fallen due to the Great Recession, charity will not close the gap. It is expected that charitable donations in the U.S. will be down by around nine percent this year at the same time unemployment rates skyrocketed.
So a charitable old man can pay to fix Tiny Tim’s leg, but, as Orwell eloquently writes, those who seek social justice want “a world where Scrooge, with his dividends, and Tiny Tim, with his tuberculous leg, would both be unthinkable.”
Charity is kindness and we certainly need more kindness. But even if it didn’t fall down on rendering justice, charity fails a more basic test — practicality. Charity fails to help the poor when the poor need it the most, and doesn’t address the root causes of their problems
God Bless Us, Every One.
14 Responses to Charity or Social Reform? Dickens vs. Orwell
dank48 - December 17, 2009 at 9:17 am
Charity doesn’t solve all problems, of course. But caritas means caring, and while I’m no kindly old gentlemen, I’ve found that the people who would have had one more Xmas knicknack to deal with seem to prefer a note that a donation has been made to the Salvation Army in their name. To hell with theology and ideology; what’s relevant is what they do, and the Sally does it for those who need it the most.So pick a good cause to which contribute money or time or both. The fact that my contribution is inadequate doesn’t take away what I gain by giving up a little something.As for effectuality, how is socialism doing these days?
rossemmett - December 17, 2009 at 9:31 am
I generally agree with Teresa, but have two comments:a) Dickens did have a social theory: good masters meant a well-ordered society, in which abundance rather than scarcity would prevail. Good masters required a moral transformation of society’s elite. Charity was not enough; a moral transformation that led society’s elite to rule rightly was required.b) Bruce Bueno de Mesquita’s book The Trial of Ebenezeer Scrooge walks through some of the recent work done comparing what we see in The Christmas Carol to what economic historians know about the winter of 1843. A couple of highlights: Crachit is paid highe-than-market wages; having a goose for Christmas would have been a meal few of the English poor could afford; and Christmas was not a holiday — most people would have had to work (as some in the Crachit family did).Finally, the two recent papal encyclicals have a perspective on caritas which Teresa might benefit from looking at.
dank48 - December 17, 2009 at 9:57 am
Orwell, imo, put his finger on Dickens’s limitations when he pointed out that, while Dickens was eloquent about how wrong it was for a sensitive, inteligent child to be forced to work in a bootblacking factory, it never occurred to him that it was wrong for *any* child to be forced to do so.
minnesotan - December 17, 2009 at 6:45 pm
Enforced charity is justice? Why not shoot impolite people and waterboard little girls who tell secrets?Where do you get off telling the rest of the world that they have to adopt the same morality you endorse? What a fascist!
blog21 - December 17, 2009 at 7:07 pm
I am no Dickens scholar, but the problem is the world you and Orwell envision is simply not possible, and trying to construct such a socialist state only results in state totalitarianism which is a worse outcome.
jffoster - December 17, 2009 at 9:26 pm
A world in which people don’t get dividends for investments is “justice”? Sounds more like theft. Or is only the STATE allowed to invest?
agnesdomini - December 18, 2009 at 12:39 am
“In the end, there are not enough kind gentlemen to give away enough turkeys.” Typical illogical,liberal ideology; does the author suppose that the problem of feeding everyone would involve there being enough people from whom to steal enough turkeys? The crux of her argument, as stated, suggests that the problem is not that there aren’t enough turkeys, but that some people should not be permitted to have more than others (dividends) if there are those whom have none. Riiiiight. Scripture attests that a man should not be fed if he refuses to work. (2 Thessalonians 3:10, “For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.”) There is no such thing as unconditional love in God’s framework, because all of the blessings of the Holy Bible (ALL of them) are conditional, i.e., if one does this (accept Jesus as Christ), then one will have life eternal. But let us suppose that the author is limiting helping handouts to the genuinely needy (oprhans, elderly, mentally ill, severely physically handicapped, etc.), and not including the derelicts, grafters, and welfare queens; what she advocates (redistribution of wealth) is STILL a bad idea. Why?History has shown that the only way to reform society is not through enforcd mandates, but by reformation of the soul—because internal changes work far better than external pressures, which is why Scrooge is such an important character, because HE reformed, and remained goodly for the duration of his life, as the closing paragraph of “A Christmas Carol” offers: “He had no further intercourse with Spirits, but lived upon the Total Abstinence Principle, ever afterwards; and it was always said of him, that he knew how to keep Christmas well, if any man alive possessed the knowledge. May that be truly said of us, and all of us! And so, as Tiny Tim observed, God Bless Us, Every One!”The pen is mightier than the sword because I can only hold a sword to your throat for so long in order to force your compliance, but if I can change your mind (and, more importantly, your HEART), then you will be compelled to act in accordance with my wishes all the time without my rapier threatening your obediance,because you believe it to be the correct thing to do—and, moreover, you will endeavor to convert others to think and feel the same. (No doubt, Joseph Stalin recognized the danger of the potency of converting ideology, as he astutely had noted, “”Ideas are more dangerous than guns. We wouldn’t let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas?”)So all the godless Socialism pushed by the liberal agendas rampant, rabid, and rife in academia at present will never accomplish what could be achieved by a renewal of faith and genuine compassion on the individual, personal, INTERNAL level; it is human nature to be flawed and selfish, and even those societies which had attempted socialist ideology have failed, including the Pilgrims: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igdCrePWTF4. (This is why scripture avers that scripture is meant to correct, to set up back on the compassionate and generous path, as prescribed by what Jesus identified in Matthew 22:39 as “the second greatest commandment,” love of thy neighbor as thyself:http://www.mindspring.com/~mamcgee/grace_profitable.html).But it is what Jesus identifies as the greatest of all commandments just before that, love of God with all one’s person, which would work to ensure that the turkeys would be plentiful and accessible to all those in need whom could not work—and liberal socialism is a godless system, and we have become an increasingly secular society and scholarly climate (Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels understood that religion should not be tolerated because it would compete as an ideological framework which could challenge allegiance to the state, hence all Communist nations are atheistic.)Why are we suprises, then, that, as given in Matthew 24:12 “the love of many should wax cold” because iniquity (godless statism) should abound? (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+24&version=KJV)So the advocacy of a godless, liberal, socialist agenda not only contrasts one in which mankind is exhorted to serve his God and his fellow man, it is an ideology which creates and contributes to the ailments of society which it contends need to be reformed—why are surprised that conditions worsen for greater numbers of people the more the godless doctrine of socialism spreads? Internal regeneration is far more effective, lasting, and genuine than external pressure, mandate, or dictum, and it is love, not duty, which should be prolmulgated by our institutions, organizations, and leaders, as Dickens’ tale underscores at its conclusion, “May that be truly said of us, all of us!”
stinkcat - December 18, 2009 at 9:25 am
I used to know a man who came to the US from his less developed country, received an education and went back to work in the family business. When he started to work in the family business, the first thing he did was to double his workers wages, which were pitifully low. The result: nobody showed up to work the next day!
macheath - December 18, 2009 at 10:17 am
Agnesdomini, as part of a long lecture, says:”But it is what Jesus identifies as the greatest of all commandments just before that, love of God with all one’s person, which would work to ensure that the turkeys would be plentiful and accessible to all those in need whom could not work…”Protestant revisionism at its best. Jesus said two things in response to the Pharisees’ question: Love God with all of your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself. When they asked him who is my neighbor, he told them the parable of the Good Samaritan. You can’t just cite part of Jesus’ answer–sitting around loving God with all of your heart, and not loving your poor, beaten, despised neighbor by taking care of him, is not what Jesus told the Pharisees. The parable is particularly powerful, because Samaritans were a despised group among most Jews, and for Jesus to hold up a Samaritan as an example of godly behavior was shocking. Also, the Samaritan doesn’t tell the beaten man to pull himself up by his bootstraps, get a job, join the market economy–rather, he takes care of him, at his own expense. You could argue that is charity, and to be valued, but you can’t argue that is some case for the market economy.Both the Old and New Testaments are full of literally hundreds of admonitions about taking care of the poor. This tortured attempt to turn those messages into propaganda for capitalism (something the U.S. has done for a long time) is simply wrong.
agnesdomini - December 18, 2009 at 7:29 pm
Macheath appears to try to take me task for a deficiency in my argument which simply does not exist, alleging that I “just cite part of Jesus’ answer,” although my response (not a lecture, just an opinion) very clearly states prior to the passage to which he refers, “This is why scripture avers that scripture is meant to correct, to set up back on the compassionate and generous path, as prescribed by what Jesus identified in Matthew 22:39 as “the second greatest commandment,” love of thy neighbor as thyself”. Either Macheath accidentally glossed over the post, or his/her reading comprehension skills are rusty. I am of the estimation that the phrase “Prtoestant revisionism at its best” is meant to be a perjorative and thus the cause of the deficiency which does not exist, yet, based on Macheath’s attempt to correct me, I suspect we are more in agreement than not on what the message of the Gospel is. I am well aware of what the scriptures tell us of the poor, knowing also that Jesus had assured his disciples, when the precious expensive ointment had been used to anoint him for burial instead of being sold and funds used for the poor that he had declared that the poor would ALWAYS be among us (John 12:8, Mark 14:7, and Matthew 26:11—and triple witness, according to ancient law of Judaism, means it is inviolably true.) Of course, the veracity of Jesus’ remark does not mean we are excused from failing to care for our fellow man, if genuinely in need. (See, e.g., the brief essay at http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/1720.htm.)Macheath accuses me of making a “tortured attempt” to propogandize capitalism (which, in my tradition, is often referred to as the “Protestant work ethic, BTW), an assessment which is as dead wrong as the odious brand of socialism which Macheath seems to laud. Speaking as a (non-Jewish) first-generation American hailing from a family whose members have been multi-generational prisoners of the Nazis (WWII), Russian Communists (post-WWII), Kaiser Wilhelm (WWI), and the Bolshevik Russians (October Revolution of 1917), I think I am in a position to understand how horrendous life under tyrannical regimes which espouse socialist ideologies tend to be, so “no thanks” to social reform of the atheistic variety, and glory be to God, from whom all wisdom comes, as it is the fool in his heart which hath said there is no God. (Psalm 14:1) If I refuse to trust in social reform as an institution of man, instead of regeneration of heart in the individual as the means of personal and societal salvation, it is because I believe scripture when it attests,”Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD.” (Jeremiah 17:5)Communism has failed EVERYWHERE it has been attempted, EVERY TIME (and socialism is the transformation from capitalism to communism, per Marx and Lenin); see, e.g., http://cartella.tccd.edu/customers/491/images/galleries/105/Capitalism-to-Communism%20Chart%20%28Socialism%29_full.jpg.)Academia is filled with people educated beyond their intellect, scholars with knowledge yet without wisdom, whom continue to preach the message of social reform (redistribution of wealth, i.e., godless government-sanctioned theft), which really comes as no surprise to me, since scripture avers,” As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.” (Proverbs 26:11)
goxewu - December 23, 2009 at 11:00 am
Re #8:Stinkcat seems to be saying that given a choice between working the same number of days/hours and improving their living standard by double, the workers in that less developed country would rather keep their same low living standard and work half as much. Which is the point of this probably apocryphal tale:* It’s human nature to prefer more leisure time to improving one’s living standard? (Don’t we in good ol’ U. S. of A. wish. Instead of people maniacally working 50, 60, 80 hours a week to get money to buy cars, Ski-Doo’s, McMansions, bling-bling, designer clothes, third homes, Botox, and skybox seats they don’t really need, we’d have a less rapacious and excessive society with a 35-hour work week and greater piece of mind.)* It’s the nature of workers in “less developed” countries, i.e., non-white workers, to prefer leisure time to improved living standard? (Is stinkcat channeling Earl Butz?)* Humane gestures toward the working class are bound to be met with ingratitude and negative consequences? (Is stinkcat channeling a Robber Baron or two?)Re #s 7 & 10:One buttresses one’s arguments in academic disputation with quotations either because the quote puts a point especially well, or the person/work quoted is intellectually authoritative in the field. Quoting the Bible usually works only and only occasionally for the first reason. Quoting the Bible because of its supposed supernatural authority (i.e., it’s the word of God, or the person quoted is speaking for God) won’t wash with people who don’t happen to be Christians or (Old Testament only) Jews of a certain religious intensity. Bottom line: Quoting the Bible in church might work; citing Scripture on “Brainstorm” doesn’t add anything to one’s argument. My authority in saying this? Goxewu 12:23.
dank48 - December 23, 2009 at 11:49 am
“. . . we’d have a less rapacious and excessive society with a 35-hour work week and greater piece of mind.”Personally, I’d settle for peace of mind.
goxewu - December 23, 2009 at 4:35 pm
Thanks to dank48 for giving me a peace of his mind about my typo.
agnesdomini - December 30, 2009 at 1:10 pm
Goxewu, I love your “reference” to in #11 to “Goxewu 12:23″—clever and good-natured. I happen to agree with you that citing scripture doesn’t “wash” in argumentation if used as an authoritative text, because, of course, it would pointless and absured, for example, to accuse a Buddhist of being a poor Christian, or a Moslem of being a lackluster practitioner of Hinduism.But I disagree with you on your assessment that citing scripture on this site “doesn’t add anything to one’s argument,” because it IS a matter of competing ideologies at the crux of the debate , i.e.,compelled, externally-enforced “social justice” or voluntary, internally-generated charitable acts, and Dickens’ character of Scrooge epitomizes the latter approach. It would be seriously problematic, bizarre, and untenable for the author or any critic on this site to make the argument that a work which is, in fact, entitled, “A Christmas Carol,” which takes place on Christmas Eve and Day, which involves the spirits of Christmas, and which concludes with the principal character demonstrating Christian charity and a genuine Chrsitian repentance is not a work which is intended to espouse Christian ideals; simply put, you can’t take the scriptures out of a discussion based on Christianity versus a construct of human society in debating which is the superior model for civilization. (And whereas quoting scripture might not win any converts to Christianity when arguing which of the two models should hold sway, it certainly can be said to reinforce or reassure wavering or uncertain readers whose tendencies are inclined to the Christian model.)Ordinarily, I would agree with you, but since this article was not a critical examination of the texts proper by Orwell and Dickens, but rather one which revolved around the radically adversarial tenets which the author of the essay contends they represent, it would be folly, indeed, to not take into consideration WHY the Dickens “solution” resonantes so greatly with so many, because scripture was HIS source and authority in crafting the text, thus it is ideologically relevant to quote the Holy Bible in defense of what Dickens had argued.