|
|
|||||
|
|||||
| Path: Main Street : Resources & Library : Research Articles : Feature Article |
The new nastinessOctober 5, 1995; Nonprofit News
by Doug JamiesonCanada and the U.S. have long propounded the somewhat fictional notion of a classless society. Certainly, there are clearly defined socio-economic strata in both countries, but at least there were relatively few real barriers to achieving reasonable levels of success during the boom years between World War II and the 1980s. Believing that one's aspirations could be realized, given a little luck and a lot of hard work, more or less kept the populace in a happy and generous mood. Particularly in Canada, the "kinder and gentler" nation, there has mostly been a live-and-let-live attitude on the part of the young and the old, the rich and the poor, the employed and the jobless, the immigrant and the 4th generation Canadian.
Now, perhaps due to declining incomes and chronically high unemployment levels, there seems to be shift in attitudes underway. It creeps into some of the e-mail responses to our monthly survey, and it's a recurring topic for various social observers. Frank Jones, in his Toronto Star column, recently called Ontario "the kingdom of malice and envy," noting that "a new rancor has crept into our public life."
As evidence, Jones mentioned the August march on the home of Lieutenant-Governor Hal Jackman, organized by John Clarke of the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty. Jackman, well-known for his many philanthropic and public service contributions over the years, would seem an unlikely target for such a protest. However, as Jones points out, the real target was Rosedale (one of Toronto's pricier neighbourhoods) which symbolizes financial and social success.
Have we come to a stage in Canadian life where large segments of society no longer have aspirations, or no longer believe that they stand any chance of achieving whatever they define as success? If so, we live in a very nasty time indeed.
To get through the next decade or two of cutbacks in social and other programs, our society needs to pull together in a spirit of teamwork and sharing. If we fragment into competing groups, fighting for whatever crumbs fall off the communal table, we will all be the losers. Actions stimulate reactions, and those who advocate confrontational approaches may reap some unanticipated consequences.
A few nights ago, a television commentator noted that, in the U.S., financial contributions to charitable organizations are increasing while active volunteer participation is declining. There is a lesson there for all of us who think that writing a cheque is adequate involvement in good causes. While money is essential to bring about positive change, donation of time, a more scarce commodity these days, is equally important. If it is true that only pain can bring about change, perhaps we are about to receive a large dose of motivation.
|
|||
