STORY BY'Tis the season of gift-giving, and there is no shortage of suggestions on what to give - from slick Neiman-Marcus catalogues to "alternative giving markets," which offer charitable contributions to missions and ministries as choices. There seem to be few invitations, though, to examine why we give.
The possibilities are boundless: tradition, expectation, symbolism, manipulation, social pressure, guilt, wanting to please, and last, but not least, altruism. In the midst of planning lists of what to give, it is perhaps even more important to examine our motives for giving.
All religions seem to teach the importance of giving. Historically, Christianity virtually begins with the gifts of the three Wise Men. Its centerpiece became, "It is more blessed to give than to receive." The teachings of Jesus examine the motivation of the giver.
In the parable of the poor widow who gave her two copper coins, he praised her generosity: "Verily I say unto you, that this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury: For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living." (Mark 9: 43-44).
In Islamic teachings, the Prophet Muhammad said, "Never will charity diminish the wealth, rather it augments it."
Tzedakah, the Hebrew word for charity, or giving to the poor, is an obligation in Judaism and as the Talmud describes, has several levels, from least meritorious to most.
The least meritorious is giving begrudgingly. The next few levels involve giving less than you can but doing it cheerfully. Next, is giving before you are asked. The higher levels deal with giving anonymously.
But the highest level of giving is to give someone a job, teach them a skill or supply the means to do so, "for this way the end is achieved without any loss of self-respect at all. " (The Guide to the Perplexed, Maimonides, 12th century).
In the Buddhist tradition, there are bodhisattvas, beings who bring compassion and wisdom to all that lives, however long it takes.
As Buddhist teacher/psychologist, and author, Jack Kornfield, reminds us, "Every tradition offers prayers and meditations for setting the heart's best intentions. Sometimes the intentions are general. 'May the words of my mouth and the meditations of my heart serve you, oh Lord.' 'May every activity be a prayer.' 'I vow to bring awakening to every being I meet in thought, word, or deed.' The Jewish tradition uses hundreds of prayers throughout the day, to foster a seamless gratitude and love of the heart." (After the Ecstasy, the Laundry, p.252).
Our motivation in giving may dramatically influence our health. But should our own benefit be a consideration in giving? Science seems to be split on the question of whether any giving is purely altruistic.
Comte, the 19 th century French mathematician and philosopher, who coined the term, defined altruism as an unselfish desire to "live for others." But desire is different from doing. And in doing, the question has been asked "whether anyone transcends the bounds of self-interest."
The effects of religion on health has become a hot topic in the media while medical science is still trying to tease out the mechanisms by which prayer or spiritual belief can benefit a person's physical health. Does it make any difference whether one's religion or spirituality is either intrinsic—motivated from the inside, or extrinsic—motivated by external factors?
Hans Selye, the University of Montreal endocrinologist who first put "stress" in the scientific vocabulary, as well as in the popular press, made clear what he meant by "altruistic egoism." He was convinced that each of us wants to feel needed and useful up to the very end.
In his own life Dr. Selye practiced what he preached. After becoming diagnosed with metastatic cancer, which spread to his bones, he continued to lecture to scientific audiences across North America.
We went to the final lecture he gave at the Texas Medical Center, standing with the help of crutches at the podium. He gave of himself right up to his death in 1982, convinced that in any giving there is an experience that feeds the ego and the soul.
In probing the effect of religion or spirituality on our health, researchers keep coming back to whether our beliefs and/or our giving are intrinsic or extrinsic. Having embraced a creed or spiritual belief, do we live it every day?
Or do we adopt it for utilitarian reasons of status or sociability or solace? Probably, a mixture of both. Some evidence suggests that intrinsic giving may result in less risk of depression than extrinsic, but measuring either is problematic.
Much of our brain's limbic system speaks to the silent, wordless part of the self. This is a powerful part, which communicates in synchrony with the limbic brains of others who move us, inspire us or connect with us at some deep level.
There is evidence that suggests our very immune systems respond positively in the presence of truly giving, selfless figures.
Even being shown a film of Mother Teresa as she helped the poor and destitute on the streets of Calcutta, produced an increase in salivary IgA antibodies, which helps strengthen the immune system. But what most surprised Harvard researcher and psychologist David McClelland was that even viewers of the film who protested that they didn't even like, much less admire, Mother Teresa, also registered greater immune strength.
Whether we are intrinsic or extrinsic, more altruistic or egoistic in giving, there is something in the act that seems to move us at deeper levels, even when we are just witnesses. So does motivation really matter?
Maybe the answer comes from St. Francis of Assissi: In giving, we receive.
Last Updated: 12-22-2003Editorial Board | Legal Disclaimer | Privacy & Security | Contact Us
© 2000-2010 Office of Institutional Advancement, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston
Follow us on:
Dr. Blair Justice is professor emeritus of psychology at UT School of Public Health and the author of several books. His wife, Dr. Rita Justice is a psychologist in private practice in Houston.
See Drs. Justice also at:
Eating healthy
reverses metabolic syndrome
Dr. Tasnime Akbaraly of University College London and her colleagues were interested if healthy eating could actually turn-the-tide and reverse metabolic syndrome, which is having 3 or more of the following risk factors: excess abdominal fat; high triglycerides, hypertension, low levels of HDL the “good” cholesterol, or type 2 diabetes. Having metabolic syndrome doubles a persons’ risk of heart disease and greatly increases the odds of developing type 2 diabetes.
The researchers studied 339 British civil servants with metabolic syndrome, and how closely the adhered to the Alternative Healthy Eating Index (AHEI) to see if it could help reverse metabolic syndrome. The AHEI is a set of published nutritional guidelines by the Harvard School of Public Health in 2002 that emphasizes whole grains, fruits, vegetables and decreased red meat consumption.
Five years into the study, nearly 50% no longer had metabolic syndrome. People who followed the AHEI guidelines the closest were nearly twice as likely to have reversed their metabolic syndrome. The results of the study were published in Diabetes Care, online July 29, 2010.
Dr. Alice Lichtenstein, an expert on diet and heart health from Tufts University in Boston who was not involved in the study said, "It's not about focusing on individual components of the diet, it's really the whole package, and that becomes important because it means that if one of the components of a healthy diet is to eat more fruits and vegetables, just buying a pill saying that there's a concentrated extract of fruits and vegetables is probably not what's going to help you."
Call and make an appointment with Wellness Coach Sam Hester, CWC, CPT, LWMC, at 713-500-3327. It's confidential and free. For more information on the wellness services provided, visit UT Counseling and WorkLife Services.
