Photo courtesy of kiroittaessani.
This post is authored by Steven Fajon, an intern at the Case Foundation. Steven is a fresh graduate of McGill University where he majored in management. He is currently exploring opportunities in the nonprofit sector and is sharing lessons learned with us at Social Citizens.
Is there a textbook definition of the common good? There’s a ton of research, articles, blog posts, and debates out there about what the common good means, but none of it actually seems to get to a shared conclusion. But even if there was such a definition, would it be that useful? Ayn Rand, famous author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, described the common good as "a meaningless concept [that is] undefined and undefinable." So why, then, would we even want to attempt to explain an idea that can’t be explained and that has no particular use?
What the Heck is the Common Good Anyway?
Recently I listened in on a webinar hosted by Independent Sector, as part of their 2012 NGen Leadership Series. It was dubbed “What the Heck is the Common Good Anyway?” Kara Carlisle, from the Kellogg Foundation, moderated the discussion. Four speakers from various organizations debated the purpose of a shared definition of the common good: Ai-Jen Poo, director at the National Domestic Workers Alliance; Nick Troiano, national campus director at AmericansElect; Billy Wimsatt, co-founder of Rebuild the Dream; and Kristin Soltis, policy research director at the Winston Group. Their experiences in nonprofits were helpful in discussing the importance of a shared common good definition, with a purpose to supposedly to unite organizations, individuals, and communities towards building and protecting a common ideal of a better and more just society.
As a new actor in the nonprofit world I’ve already been exposed to dozens of worthy organizations in the sector, all fighting for causes that, while diverse, are also linked by a shared desire to improve the lives of others. In that sense, it’s easy and quick to apply a “common good” label to these organizations’ actions -– to achieve that ideal world.
What’s Good for One Person Isn’t Necessarily Good for Another
The speakers explored the difficulty of defining the common good in a universal way, applicable and beneficial to all. This debate is magnified by the simple notion that what is good for one person is not necessarily good for another. For example, what’s good for shareholders in a corporation might not be favorable to its employees. Further, allocating limited resources to providing access to clean water to populations in Sudan might take away from sending food aid to Ethiopia. While I admit these analogies are simplistic, I believe they illustrate the issue at hand.
The common good is never “common” in the literal sense because it can only apply, in the best case scenario, to a majority of individuals who share a common interest: as Alison Goldberg explains, "The ‘common good’ embodies the idea that shared resources should be used to improve the well-being for the greatest number of people possible." Then, can we only use the term to aspire to a world in which most win, while some lose?
I Don’t Get It
As it may have become obvious, I was starting to get confused. I decided to turn to the experts, so during the webinar, I asked: "Is it possible to address the issue of the small few sacrificing their morals or self-interests for the good of the many?" In my mind, I had come to the conclusion that using a definition of the common good to justify actions could lead, in the worst case scenarios, to dangerous situations where one community or individual attempts to take advantage of another in the name of that common ideal.
Ai-Jen Poo responded that the purpose of the common good and its definition is not to provide something universal that all should adhere to; in fact, its objective is to initiate a dialogue between communities in need; to give a voice to those that actually make these sacrifices. It is also not to state that every single individual has the same needs, but rather that those needs can coincide and that by working together, agents of change are able to do just that -– change things.
All This Got Me Thinking…
At the onset of the webinar, the organizers surveyed participants to ask whether they felt that a universally shared definition of the common good was necessary. At that point, 14 percent answered that no, it isn’t necessary, and 17 percent said they didn’t know. When the discussion was over, the same question was asked, and this time 20 percent said no, while those unsure amounted to a measly 3.4 percent.
For my part, I answered “No” at first because I didn’t think it was possible to give the concept a single objective definition. At the end, confused and unsure, I think I was the only one to select “I don’t know.” With hindsight, though this was my instinctive choice at the time, I probably still don’t believe in a shared definition. Because in the end, the idea of the common good doesn’t need to be an exact science –- it simply has to strike up a debate, just like it did in my mind. It raises questions and creates conversations to become one of many useful tools in the nonprofit world.
Now that I’ve shared my thoughts on the "Common Good," I’m curious as to what our audience thinks. Let me know in the comments section!