Everyday Morality and Moral Concerns and Their Implications for Charitable Giving in the UK

This paper examines how individuals are morally evaluative beings, who interpret the social world in relation to things that matter to them, and how charitable acts are embedded in their lives with different degrees of meaning and importance. The paper offers some criticisms of the Bourdieusian theory on giving, which depict individuals lacking reflexivity, emotions and disinterestedness. Drawing upon various literature that view individuals as evaluative beings, I will suggest that there are three modes of moral reflexivity that have various implications for charitable giving, moral obligations and civil society. First, moral conventionalists, who value familial and social networks, use charity events as an opportunity to socialise and to have fun. Second, moral individualists, who are strongly committed to work and career, view charitable practices as performative acts that demonstrate their knowledge and skills. Third, moral critics are deeply committed to charitable causes, motivated by strongly held values and beliefs, which offer alternative visions for society.

The paper draws upon an ESRC-funded investigation into charitable giving that involved 41 semi-structured interviews with men and women of working and middle class social backgrounds, mostly white interviewees. Each interview lasted on average 2.25 hours, divided into two parts: the first part asked the interviewees to recount their life history, describing the twists and turns in their lives, their personal goals and their everyday practices, and in the second part, they recalled significant acts of giving and volunteering, describing their feelings and motivations.