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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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!
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?