In my experience, what has helped me most with “self-examination and moral grappling and ethical action-taking” (as you put it Courtney) is community—particularly with people who will actively challenge me, won’t let me cut corners towards self-congratulation, AND validate my learning and growth. This is an ongoing and deepening process.
I don’t have kids so take this with that grain of salt. But I’m a teacher and I’m also sitting with what kind of family and community I’ll need if I have kids in the near future.
Nuclear families are so isolated, and more so during the pandemic, and deeply connected community might seem impossible, so I understand the desire for this product. But I ultimately don’t believe we can transform alone or in silos.
I feel SO honored to be part of a very strange, very rad, liberation theology-based, social justice-oriented church that works on these transformations together: sermons and convos from movement leaders, organizing and volunteering as a community, reading texts that sharpen both faith and political analysis. The congregation is full of artists, organizers, and faith leaders (the kind who sometimes chain themselves to bulldozers).
I was just in a conversation this week with our children’s minister about how we could create a more inter-generational, “daisy chained” support system for the children in community. I’m excited about how this will help support families both materially and spiritually. Kids emulate what they see, and follow those who support their questions—how can we collectively offer them more relationships that can support their growth into the amazing generous and visionary creatures they are? What adults do they need in their corner to learn what their place is in creating a better world? It is likely not just their parents.
This community is an immense privilege. This does not exist everywhere. And I understand why people crave a box like this. But I fear it entrenches an individualism—that you can be “altruistic” without the support, accountability, and love of those beyond your immediate family.
I believe the scale of transformation required to build a just planet requires a much larger and more interconnected engine than the nuclear family. I'm interested in helping build that.
Wow, I love this so much. Jessica acknowledges that transformation comes through relationship, but where and when that relationship seeds and how it is grown and nourished is the crux of the matter, right? Thanks so much Jesse! Your community sounds amazing.
Thanks for making space for respectful disagreement. With this comment, I'd like to make space for ambivalence and uncertainty...I just don't know right now where I stand!
Hey Jessica-- Thanks for going deeper with Courtney! In the spirit of your openness, I'd love to share what appeals to me about what you're trying to do as well as my biggest nagging question. I'd be curious what either of these make you think (and please don't take the length of the two paragraphs as a sign that the first thought is a brush-off nicety. The second point was just harder to explain succinctly!
First off, I love that you seem obsessed with how to get folks to take sustained actions to live a connected, compassionate life! I think a ton (both personally and professionally) about the gravitational force of selfishness in American family life (especially White American family life) and so am always rooting for efforts to pull us closer into active connection with each other. As an organizer, I am obsessed with foot-in-the-door invitations, and I can tell that you're not only thinking a ton about that but putting that thinking into practice!
I suppose my nagging question comes from a different vision/vantage point on what a connected, compassionate family life might look like in a world of oppression and inequity. I'm not sure if you've read Margaret Hagerman's White Kids (if not, I can not recommend it highly enough!). I think what was most striking about the ethnography at the center of the book (which focused on exactly the kind of families who it sounds like are interested in products like yours) is that it didn't end up mattering how much privileged White parents did "justice-y" things with their kids (service, protests, reading books, having discussion) if the ACTIONS that they were taking as a family gave the implicit impression that, when push comes to shove, individual achievement was more important than community health (esp. the schools they chose, how they related to those schools, the decisions they made as homeowners, etc.). I suppose my question is, how do you reconcile what sounds like a really impressive desire to push folks into living a more helpful, neighborly family life to actually wrestle with the way in which their family's decisions perpetuate big ole systemic inequities? It sounds like your service inspires some deep, difficult conversations-- but would it lead your family's to make a different decision about schools? About their neighborhoods and their house's market value?
Thank you, earnestly, for working to help folks be better neighbors! We need more of that! Thanks also for engaging with criticism!
Hi Garrett. Great question. Two quick thoughts. First, I agree with you (and the research) that our daily actions matter more than one-off "justice-y" things parents can do with kids. I'm hopeful Alltruists sparks conversations, nudges decisions, inspires more action in days and weeks that follow beyond the activities and materials in the box. Second, we try our best to talk about systemic injustice and inequality in the learning materials included in each experience. In the last box on food insecurity, for instance, we explain that it's primarily an issue about inequality. Not easy to unpack it all when you're creating content for young kids but I'm happy with how it's coming so far. Thank you!
Congratulations to Jessica Jackley! This interview with Courtney, Jessica, is truly inspiring and shows how admirable your achievements are through Alltruists. I read CLAY WATER BRICK and your dedication to service through this family effort and beyond is magnificent.
My question is how your endeavor relates to the thought and practice of the ethicist Peter Singer, professor of bioethics at Princeton? As you must know, his books deal directly with the subject of altruism. His many books make a case for "effective altruism" and "The Life You Can Save"(Random House, 2010); he asks readers to sign a pledge to give a substantial part of their income to help people living in extreme poverty. I've signed the pledge and assigned this book and his "The Most Good You Can Do. How Effective Altruism is Changing Ideas About Living Ethically"(Yale Univ. Press, 2015) to my Ethics classes at Barnard College and the public high school where I teach in Portland, OR. They have been met with acclaim, together with his online speeches/interviews. Please tell me your opinion of Singer's work and how it relates to your own commendable efforts.
Dennis! You have already made my day because you've read my book! Thank you. I am grateful that you took the time to do that.
Singer is an incredible thinker and I have an enormous amount of respect for him. That said, I don’t love effective altruism. It ignores (or, too heavily discounts, I think) the ways in which we are shaped by what we do, what we work on, who we interact with, etc. At the end of the day I believe *who we are* matters more on our impact in this world than how much we can donate.
Mostly I take issue with the question of career selection. I disagree with the idea that it’s worse for someone to spend their waking hours working towards the thing itself - solving/fixing an actual problems - vs. choosing a path based on what’s most profitable (even if those profits come from a badly broken system or an unethical job) so someone else can go and fix them. I get it, there are those who’d argue the benefits of donating a ton of money no matter how that money is earned outweigh the impact of a a single person’s career choice. But I disagree. I don’t like thinking about other people’s lives as some kind of offset efficiency equation. I’m very much interested in changes of heart. I’m interested in how each of us sees ourselves and our role in the world. I can’t imagine advising one of my students or my own children to just go find a job somewhere, anywhere, as long as you make a lot of money, and then let other people think hard about what it means to actually do the healing. I believe the world would be so much better if we all showed up ready and inspired to dig in to participate in work that directly affects change in an area/issue that matters. (I wish I could write more to this, it deserves a whole essay of an answer! And I read The Most Good You Can Do years ago so I feel a bit rusty.. But that's my reaction for now. Thank you again for the question.)
I'd love to hear what you think of "effective altruism" Jessica! DD, I've been reading a book about the intersection of disability and animal rights by Sunaura Taylor (Beasts of Burden) and she makes a strong argument that Singer is forwarding an ideology that is ablest in nature. Have you seen this critique? Curious what you would make of it.
Dearest Courtney, I've not read Taylor's "Beasts of Burden" so I'll have to do this before I can comment. Singer is a controversial scholar and radical critic of the gross inequality in our society as evidenced by the increasing gap in wealth that is out of control. I don't mean to dodge the issue of "ableism" but my approval of his work comes from what Jessica seems to support, that is, his appeal from an active altruistic perspective, to give substantially to the poor by contributing, as Singer does himself, a large percentage of our incomes to organizations like Oxfam( among others that he recommends as trustworthy). If Taylor is critical of this position, then I'd be surprised but I'm mainly interested in what Jessica thinks, given her magnificent spirit of altruism revealed in your characteristically brilliant interview. Kudos to Courtney! DD
I have worked in the nonprofit social service sector (primarily focused on kids impacted by poverty, trauma, and racism) for more than 20 years and I am intrigued by this idea. I cannot tell you how many times I have had to invent a feel-good volunteer experience for the kids of a donor or board member. I understand why families seek this out and the intention is definitely 100% good, but as is so often the case, the intent does not match the impact. The real impact is that already overworked and underpaid nonprofit staffers have yet another thing to do, and worse yet, that additional thing is usually a distraction from the core mission. In my world of child service, the work requires long-term trust building and relationships. It is very, very hard to come up with volunteer opportunities that are completed in a few hours and actually advance the work.
The epitome of this is the annual Dr. MLK Day of Service, which again, is an awesome concept. But what it really means is nonprofit staff (often majority BIPOC) need to give up a day off, arrange childcare for their own families, and come in to work to do a dog and pony show so a handful of privileged folks can post Instagram photos of their 2 hours giving back to the community.
If Altruists takes the burden of privileged kids’ learning and growth off of already-overtaxed nonprofits, and provides real tools for families to navigate that growth. I’m all for it.
What a helpful lens, thank you Megan! This makes me think about Darby's question earlier about who is centered. If nonprofit workers and organizers are centered, largely BIPOC+ folks, then maybe this box redistributes labor! It still doesn't seem like it would do much to make that labor unnecessary in the first place (i.e. privileged folks having more awareness of how their requests impact nonprofit workers and/or not needing these kinds of things in the first place). So maybe great band-aid, not a solid root level approach. But lord knows we need band-aids, too.
This makes me think of Anand Giridharadas’s brilliant "Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World," which dives deep into the bandaid of philanthropy. I hope that Jessica and Altruists have the courage to avoid the meta-fragility I mentioned below and truly help kids and families understand the true root causes of our many societal problems.
100%!! Thank you for this perspective Megan. You are spot on and honing on something really important. There's a set of activities/contributions that can be done by volunteers that are actually helpful to nonprofits. There are also a ton of would-be volunteers who really do want to help but find it challenging to plug in, whether because of scheduling or bringing kids or anything else. The main solution to connect nonprofits to volunteers = networks or platforms where volunteers can search for activities in which to take part. Matching people up with opps/orgs is fine, but sometimes not enough. What do volunteers actually show up and do? What is their experience like? The exchange of value there is strange and not managed well, and as you said, that's appropriate because designing for volunteers is rarely part of the mission-critical work that any given nonprofit has committed to do. Very rarely to nonprofits have the bandwidth or the skill set to *design* an experience (within the set of activities that are helpful to them) with the goal of really educating the volunteer, or engaging the volunteer as much as possible, or shepherding the volunteer to do not just that thing but hopefully more over time. Volunteers are 2x as likely to donate later, as just one example (but in general can be incredibly valuable to nonprofits in a number of ways). I'm hopeful that if we can put energy and thought into designing the experience in the middle of these two groups - would-be volunteers and nonprofits - and especially for those would-be volunteers (KIDS AND FAMILIES!) who don't have a lot of other access points, we can unlock a lot of participation.
I started out skeptical but after reading this I’m actually interested in Alltruist. I’m curious to see how they explain issues to kids and how they encourage families to get involved in issues.
I would love to hear any and all feedback! We're really proud of the work and research that goes into explaining issues to kids. I encourage you to check it out!
1. I think it's totally fine to criticize based on a gut reaction and appreciate that you're willing to share space with Jessica. We can't hide from each other...and I don't see your critique as recreational bitterness.
2. Who is being centered here? Who is this endeavor really serving?
3. How can we engage without putting or triggering whiteness in its need to defend? I hope this makes sense...
4. Who is writing their explanations of issues being highlighted?
5. What does success look like for the company? How did you arrive at a $5 donation per box to each nfp partner?
6. Lastly, I would challenge that the foundation we need to build for our little ones is compassion, not empathy. Yes, empathy comes before compassion, but I appreciate that you're pushing an entrepreneur who has the potential to listen more deeply as they build and benefit from the Alltruists endeavor.
First, let me start by saying I think it's really great that a founder is putting herself out there. I believe we have a lot to learn from one another as we dig into varying levels of understanding, compassion, and solidarity with the world at large or more simply, as we do our research.
I think what I'm getting at is rooted in the idea that volunteering and service alone won't solve our toughest problems, which speaks to broader concepts around moral leadership. Secondly, defensive reactions or defense mechanisms can be a mechanism for self-soothing, but ultimately we do so when we are sometimes looking for an out to not change how we operate or show up for one another.
It is a pretty common avenue for upper-middle-income, (frequently non-BIPOC) families to engage with the world through travel and volunteerism, to be widely celebrated in unhealthy ways that perpetuate an imbalanced social order. Travel, gain exposure, come back with opened eyes and roughly, have the ability to solve problems! Traveling the world in and of itself speaks to a financial capacity that many (read: most) just don't have. Increasingly, I associate this type of behavior with privilege, power, and yeah, race. However, I say this without trying to be overly woke when I get out of bed in the morning.
Volunteering, service, and generosity are very much tied into my identity as a person, but I feel like operating on a micro level alone in social ventures doesn't usually lead to macro-level change. Indeed, I actually paid my way to East Africa in college to do volunteer work, and yep - it changed me! BUT I eventually realized that who was being centered in this endeavor was the generosity and time of a few (read: me) rather than a collective of people trying to live their lives to the fullest potential that they possibly could.
And yes, there IS a problem with families not engaging at all or only engaging to the extent that they're not challenged to do more or to think differently about how they show up. Perhaps that's the real audience for the project as we all have to start somewhere...but it's just not enough and I think change will happen when we show up differently from the beginning.
I'll end by saying that I do think there is a potential theory of change to flesh out here in the Alltruist idea. However, without any connection to the 'why' or 'what's next,' beyond engaging, connecting, acting we might be missing out on an opportunity to live in a more wholesome community with people and creatures who need a hand or leg up in this world, as we all do.
What types of relationships are we trying to build with each other? How can we be accountable to our human need to help others?
I hope that Altruists does not fall into the trap of what Vu Le calls "meta fragility." That would be a disservice to the customers of the product and the communities Altruists is wanting to serve.
I appreciate your sharing Jessica Jackley's response to your critique and also her frankness in this interview.
I remember when I first read of that commercial venture, what struck me most was the title Alruists, as I too feared there might be an unintended message here that if you do these kits you can think of yourself as an Altruist. So it was the name more than the idea that first rubbed me the wrong way.
Even if there are not yet enough data to evaluate whether these kits in particular make kids mature into more altruistic people than if they had not been exposed to such kits, I would think there would be some empirical evidence by now of the success, or not, of similar initiatives. For example, does requiring every high school students to do a certain number of service hours as a graduation requirement foster a higher level of continuing service than if students faced no such requirement? This sort of programming has been in place for decades. Do kids exposed to frequent one-on-one or small group conservation messaging at, say, a zoo develop more of a commitment and path of conservation action than if they had no such exposure? How do school led initiatives compare to home based initiatives or initiatives via a community organization or place of worship? How much or how regular should such experiences be to move a person toward a habit of service?
Great questions.. I don't have research to reference right this min but recall that the types of experiences kids have matter most (vs. how many, # of hours, whether or not the experiences were required volunteer hours or not) in terms of how kids develop their own opinions and whether or not they are more likely to go on to volunteer later. In general, it does seem clear that exposure to community service activities, whether mandatory or voluntary, does encourage kids to become more involved in their communities. Will be good to dive into this more. Thanks again for the question.
In my experience, what has helped me most with “self-examination and moral grappling and ethical action-taking” (as you put it Courtney) is community—particularly with people who will actively challenge me, won’t let me cut corners towards self-congratulation, AND validate my learning and growth. This is an ongoing and deepening process.
I don’t have kids so take this with that grain of salt. But I’m a teacher and I’m also sitting with what kind of family and community I’ll need if I have kids in the near future.
Nuclear families are so isolated, and more so during the pandemic, and deeply connected community might seem impossible, so I understand the desire for this product. But I ultimately don’t believe we can transform alone or in silos.
I feel SO honored to be part of a very strange, very rad, liberation theology-based, social justice-oriented church that works on these transformations together: sermons and convos from movement leaders, organizing and volunteering as a community, reading texts that sharpen both faith and political analysis. The congregation is full of artists, organizers, and faith leaders (the kind who sometimes chain themselves to bulldozers).
I was just in a conversation this week with our children’s minister about how we could create a more inter-generational, “daisy chained” support system for the children in community. I’m excited about how this will help support families both materially and spiritually. Kids emulate what they see, and follow those who support their questions—how can we collectively offer them more relationships that can support their growth into the amazing generous and visionary creatures they are? What adults do they need in their corner to learn what their place is in creating a better world? It is likely not just their parents.
This community is an immense privilege. This does not exist everywhere. And I understand why people crave a box like this. But I fear it entrenches an individualism—that you can be “altruistic” without the support, accountability, and love of those beyond your immediate family.
I believe the scale of transformation required to build a just planet requires a much larger and more interconnected engine than the nuclear family. I'm interested in helping build that.
Wow, I love this so much. Jessica acknowledges that transformation comes through relationship, but where and when that relationship seeds and how it is grown and nourished is the crux of the matter, right? Thanks so much Jesse! Your community sounds amazing.
Thanks for making space for respectful disagreement. With this comment, I'd like to make space for ambivalence and uncertainty...I just don't know right now where I stand!
Oh my God, YES to ambivalence and uncertainty. Let's make more for room for both of those in public, please! Thanks Jane!
Hey Jessica-- Thanks for going deeper with Courtney! In the spirit of your openness, I'd love to share what appeals to me about what you're trying to do as well as my biggest nagging question. I'd be curious what either of these make you think (and please don't take the length of the two paragraphs as a sign that the first thought is a brush-off nicety. The second point was just harder to explain succinctly!
First off, I love that you seem obsessed with how to get folks to take sustained actions to live a connected, compassionate life! I think a ton (both personally and professionally) about the gravitational force of selfishness in American family life (especially White American family life) and so am always rooting for efforts to pull us closer into active connection with each other. As an organizer, I am obsessed with foot-in-the-door invitations, and I can tell that you're not only thinking a ton about that but putting that thinking into practice!
I suppose my nagging question comes from a different vision/vantage point on what a connected, compassionate family life might look like in a world of oppression and inequity. I'm not sure if you've read Margaret Hagerman's White Kids (if not, I can not recommend it highly enough!). I think what was most striking about the ethnography at the center of the book (which focused on exactly the kind of families who it sounds like are interested in products like yours) is that it didn't end up mattering how much privileged White parents did "justice-y" things with their kids (service, protests, reading books, having discussion) if the ACTIONS that they were taking as a family gave the implicit impression that, when push comes to shove, individual achievement was more important than community health (esp. the schools they chose, how they related to those schools, the decisions they made as homeowners, etc.). I suppose my question is, how do you reconcile what sounds like a really impressive desire to push folks into living a more helpful, neighborly family life to actually wrestle with the way in which their family's decisions perpetuate big ole systemic inequities? It sounds like your service inspires some deep, difficult conversations-- but would it lead your family's to make a different decision about schools? About their neighborhoods and their house's market value?
Thank you, earnestly, for working to help folks be better neighbors! We need more of that! Thanks also for engaging with criticism!
I learned so much from this comment! “Front-of-the-door invitations” — never heard of it. What a great concept. And of course I love your question.
Hi Garrett. Great question. Two quick thoughts. First, I agree with you (and the research) that our daily actions matter more than one-off "justice-y" things parents can do with kids. I'm hopeful Alltruists sparks conversations, nudges decisions, inspires more action in days and weeks that follow beyond the activities and materials in the box. Second, we try our best to talk about systemic injustice and inequality in the learning materials included in each experience. In the last box on food insecurity, for instance, we explain that it's primarily an issue about inequality. Not easy to unpack it all when you're creating content for young kids but I'm happy with how it's coming so far. Thank you!
Congratulations to Jessica Jackley! This interview with Courtney, Jessica, is truly inspiring and shows how admirable your achievements are through Alltruists. I read CLAY WATER BRICK and your dedication to service through this family effort and beyond is magnificent.
My question is how your endeavor relates to the thought and practice of the ethicist Peter Singer, professor of bioethics at Princeton? As you must know, his books deal directly with the subject of altruism. His many books make a case for "effective altruism" and "The Life You Can Save"(Random House, 2010); he asks readers to sign a pledge to give a substantial part of their income to help people living in extreme poverty. I've signed the pledge and assigned this book and his "The Most Good You Can Do. How Effective Altruism is Changing Ideas About Living Ethically"(Yale Univ. Press, 2015) to my Ethics classes at Barnard College and the public high school where I teach in Portland, OR. They have been met with acclaim, together with his online speeches/interviews. Please tell me your opinion of Singer's work and how it relates to your own commendable efforts.
Dennis Dalton (DD), prof. emeritus, Barnard
Dennis! You have already made my day because you've read my book! Thank you. I am grateful that you took the time to do that.
Singer is an incredible thinker and I have an enormous amount of respect for him. That said, I don’t love effective altruism. It ignores (or, too heavily discounts, I think) the ways in which we are shaped by what we do, what we work on, who we interact with, etc. At the end of the day I believe *who we are* matters more on our impact in this world than how much we can donate.
Mostly I take issue with the question of career selection. I disagree with the idea that it’s worse for someone to spend their waking hours working towards the thing itself - solving/fixing an actual problems - vs. choosing a path based on what’s most profitable (even if those profits come from a badly broken system or an unethical job) so someone else can go and fix them. I get it, there are those who’d argue the benefits of donating a ton of money no matter how that money is earned outweigh the impact of a a single person’s career choice. But I disagree. I don’t like thinking about other people’s lives as some kind of offset efficiency equation. I’m very much interested in changes of heart. I’m interested in how each of us sees ourselves and our role in the world. I can’t imagine advising one of my students or my own children to just go find a job somewhere, anywhere, as long as you make a lot of money, and then let other people think hard about what it means to actually do the healing. I believe the world would be so much better if we all showed up ready and inspired to dig in to participate in work that directly affects change in an area/issue that matters. (I wish I could write more to this, it deserves a whole essay of an answer! And I read The Most Good You Can Do years ago so I feel a bit rusty.. But that's my reaction for now. Thank you again for the question.)
Yes, this really gets at some of my confusions and concerns with Singer (beyond the disability issue, which feels important.) Thanks Jessica!
I'd love to hear what you think of "effective altruism" Jessica! DD, I've been reading a book about the intersection of disability and animal rights by Sunaura Taylor (Beasts of Burden) and she makes a strong argument that Singer is forwarding an ideology that is ablest in nature. Have you seen this critique? Curious what you would make of it.
Dearest Courtney, I've not read Taylor's "Beasts of Burden" so I'll have to do this before I can comment. Singer is a controversial scholar and radical critic of the gross inequality in our society as evidenced by the increasing gap in wealth that is out of control. I don't mean to dodge the issue of "ableism" but my approval of his work comes from what Jessica seems to support, that is, his appeal from an active altruistic perspective, to give substantially to the poor by contributing, as Singer does himself, a large percentage of our incomes to organizations like Oxfam( among others that he recommends as trustworthy). If Taylor is critical of this position, then I'd be surprised but I'm mainly interested in what Jessica thinks, given her magnificent spirit of altruism revealed in your characteristically brilliant interview. Kudos to Courtney! DD
So appreciate and admire both of you for having this vitally important discussion. Thank you, Courtney and Jessica. We need more of this in the world.
Thank you so much Susan!!
I have worked in the nonprofit social service sector (primarily focused on kids impacted by poverty, trauma, and racism) for more than 20 years and I am intrigued by this idea. I cannot tell you how many times I have had to invent a feel-good volunteer experience for the kids of a donor or board member. I understand why families seek this out and the intention is definitely 100% good, but as is so often the case, the intent does not match the impact. The real impact is that already overworked and underpaid nonprofit staffers have yet another thing to do, and worse yet, that additional thing is usually a distraction from the core mission. In my world of child service, the work requires long-term trust building and relationships. It is very, very hard to come up with volunteer opportunities that are completed in a few hours and actually advance the work.
The epitome of this is the annual Dr. MLK Day of Service, which again, is an awesome concept. But what it really means is nonprofit staff (often majority BIPOC) need to give up a day off, arrange childcare for their own families, and come in to work to do a dog and pony show so a handful of privileged folks can post Instagram photos of their 2 hours giving back to the community.
If Altruists takes the burden of privileged kids’ learning and growth off of already-overtaxed nonprofits, and provides real tools for families to navigate that growth. I’m all for it.
What a helpful lens, thank you Megan! This makes me think about Darby's question earlier about who is centered. If nonprofit workers and organizers are centered, largely BIPOC+ folks, then maybe this box redistributes labor! It still doesn't seem like it would do much to make that labor unnecessary in the first place (i.e. privileged folks having more awareness of how their requests impact nonprofit workers and/or not needing these kinds of things in the first place). So maybe great band-aid, not a solid root level approach. But lord knows we need band-aids, too.
This makes me think of Anand Giridharadas’s brilliant "Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World," which dives deep into the bandaid of philanthropy. I hope that Jessica and Altruists have the courage to avoid the meta-fragility I mentioned below and truly help kids and families understand the true root causes of our many societal problems.
I thought of that book also. A must read.
Indeed! I interviewed Anand here: https://www.cityarts.net/event/anand-giridharadas/ And he interviewed me here: https://the.ink/p/courtneymartin
100%!! Thank you for this perspective Megan. You are spot on and honing on something really important. There's a set of activities/contributions that can be done by volunteers that are actually helpful to nonprofits. There are also a ton of would-be volunteers who really do want to help but find it challenging to plug in, whether because of scheduling or bringing kids or anything else. The main solution to connect nonprofits to volunteers = networks or platforms where volunteers can search for activities in which to take part. Matching people up with opps/orgs is fine, but sometimes not enough. What do volunteers actually show up and do? What is their experience like? The exchange of value there is strange and not managed well, and as you said, that's appropriate because designing for volunteers is rarely part of the mission-critical work that any given nonprofit has committed to do. Very rarely to nonprofits have the bandwidth or the skill set to *design* an experience (within the set of activities that are helpful to them) with the goal of really educating the volunteer, or engaging the volunteer as much as possible, or shepherding the volunteer to do not just that thing but hopefully more over time. Volunteers are 2x as likely to donate later, as just one example (but in general can be incredibly valuable to nonprofits in a number of ways). I'm hopeful that if we can put energy and thought into designing the experience in the middle of these two groups - would-be volunteers and nonprofits - and especially for those would-be volunteers (KIDS AND FAMILIES!) who don't have a lot of other access points, we can unlock a lot of participation.
I started out skeptical but after reading this I’m actually interested in Alltruist. I’m curious to see how they explain issues to kids and how they encourage families to get involved in issues.
That's awesome. Let us know if you subscribe and what you think.
I would love to hear any and all feedback! We're really proud of the work and research that goes into explaining issues to kids. I encourage you to check it out!
High-level thoughts:
1. I think it's totally fine to criticize based on a gut reaction and appreciate that you're willing to share space with Jessica. We can't hide from each other...and I don't see your critique as recreational bitterness.
2. Who is being centered here? Who is this endeavor really serving?
3. How can we engage without putting or triggering whiteness in its need to defend? I hope this makes sense...
4. Who is writing their explanations of issues being highlighted?
5. What does success look like for the company? How did you arrive at a $5 donation per box to each nfp partner?
6. Lastly, I would challenge that the foundation we need to build for our little ones is compassion, not empathy. Yes, empathy comes before compassion, but I appreciate that you're pushing an entrepreneur who has the potential to listen more deeply as they build and benefit from the Alltruists endeavor.
These are all such good questions, thanks Darby. Can you say more about #3? I'm curious what you mean?
Sure.
First, let me start by saying I think it's really great that a founder is putting herself out there. I believe we have a lot to learn from one another as we dig into varying levels of understanding, compassion, and solidarity with the world at large or more simply, as we do our research.
I think what I'm getting at is rooted in the idea that volunteering and service alone won't solve our toughest problems, which speaks to broader concepts around moral leadership. Secondly, defensive reactions or defense mechanisms can be a mechanism for self-soothing, but ultimately we do so when we are sometimes looking for an out to not change how we operate or show up for one another.
It is a pretty common avenue for upper-middle-income, (frequently non-BIPOC) families to engage with the world through travel and volunteerism, to be widely celebrated in unhealthy ways that perpetuate an imbalanced social order. Travel, gain exposure, come back with opened eyes and roughly, have the ability to solve problems! Traveling the world in and of itself speaks to a financial capacity that many (read: most) just don't have. Increasingly, I associate this type of behavior with privilege, power, and yeah, race. However, I say this without trying to be overly woke when I get out of bed in the morning.
Volunteering, service, and generosity are very much tied into my identity as a person, but I feel like operating on a micro level alone in social ventures doesn't usually lead to macro-level change. Indeed, I actually paid my way to East Africa in college to do volunteer work, and yep - it changed me! BUT I eventually realized that who was being centered in this endeavor was the generosity and time of a few (read: me) rather than a collective of people trying to live their lives to the fullest potential that they possibly could.
And yes, there IS a problem with families not engaging at all or only engaging to the extent that they're not challenged to do more or to think differently about how they show up. Perhaps that's the real audience for the project as we all have to start somewhere...but it's just not enough and I think change will happen when we show up differently from the beginning.
I'll end by saying that I do think there is a potential theory of change to flesh out here in the Alltruist idea. However, without any connection to the 'why' or 'what's next,' beyond engaging, connecting, acting we might be missing out on an opportunity to live in a more wholesome community with people and creatures who need a hand or leg up in this world, as we all do.
What types of relationships are we trying to build with each other? How can we be accountable to our human need to help others?
Joan Halifax's "Standing at the Edge," also helped me process ideas around altruism and what lies beyond it.
I hope that Altruists does not fall into the trap of what Vu Le calls "meta fragility." That would be a disservice to the customers of the product and the communities Altruists is wanting to serve.
https://nonprofitaf.com/2019/10/meta-fragility-the-fragility-around-others-being-too-fragile/
I hadn't seen this piece before, though love Vu Le's work. Thanks Megan!
Adore Jessica Jackley ♥️
I appreciate your sharing Jessica Jackley's response to your critique and also her frankness in this interview.
I remember when I first read of that commercial venture, what struck me most was the title Alruists, as I too feared there might be an unintended message here that if you do these kits you can think of yourself as an Altruist. So it was the name more than the idea that first rubbed me the wrong way.
Even if there are not yet enough data to evaluate whether these kits in particular make kids mature into more altruistic people than if they had not been exposed to such kits, I would think there would be some empirical evidence by now of the success, or not, of similar initiatives. For example, does requiring every high school students to do a certain number of service hours as a graduation requirement foster a higher level of continuing service than if students faced no such requirement? This sort of programming has been in place for decades. Do kids exposed to frequent one-on-one or small group conservation messaging at, say, a zoo develop more of a commitment and path of conservation action than if they had no such exposure? How do school led initiatives compare to home based initiatives or initiatives via a community organization or place of worship? How much or how regular should such experiences be to move a person toward a habit of service?
Those are great questions, Fritzie. I wonder if that was part of your research while creating Alltruists, Jessica?
Great questions.. I don't have research to reference right this min but recall that the types of experiences kids have matter most (vs. how many, # of hours, whether or not the experiences were required volunteer hours or not) in terms of how kids develop their own opinions and whether or not they are more likely to go on to volunteer later. In general, it does seem clear that exposure to community service activities, whether mandatory or voluntary, does encourage kids to become more involved in their communities. Will be good to dive into this more. Thanks again for the question.