In the US, we've always been absent the royalty and landed gentry of Europe, among whom noblesse oblige went hand in hand with their birthright. But, what prompted early generations of American elite to feel a comparable sense of obligation to give? Why do Carnegie libraries dot small towns all across America? What led John D Rockefeller to say: "Think of giving not as a duty, but as a privilege"? Do self-made men - those who realized the American Dream - feel a greater duty to support those less fortunate? By that line of reasoning, one might expect Donald Trump - a modern day poster child for the self-made American billionaire - to be as much a philanthropist with a social mission as a real estate mogul. [Unfortunately, I haven't seen much evidence in his favor.]
It has to have been more than a Helper's High that made those others contribute so much to the development of their young nation. I'd argue it was a sense of shared destiny. A fundamental belief that only in the success of their nation and it's people could they themselves succeed. I think that shared destiny prompted a natural desire to invest in people and communities, where ROI is less easily quantified.
As I was reading a recent New York Times article on the hundreds of Starbucks that are closing across the country, I felt a pang of indirect nostalgia for the days when corporate moguls invested in the public domain. The article focused on one Starbucks in particular - in Newark, New Jersey- slated for closure because of lack of profibility. It's viewed by the community "as a gathering place whose very existence would have seemed impossible a decade before, a symbol of a knocked-down city’s attempts to get up." In the 8 years since it opened it's doors, it became an impromptu gathering place and community focal point. The mayor's office appealed to Starbucks to keep it open, to no avail.
Ah, but Starbucks is a corporation, right? Of COURSE they're focused on ROI, and those stores just weren't bringing in the kind of money they expect. Ok, fine, put profitability ahead of public interest. That's what we've come to expect of corporations. But wait. Hasn't Starbucks built their entire business model around being more than a coffee shop? Didn't they set out to develop rich community hubs, modern day piazzas that serve as gathering places for residents, students, and office workers? Ah, I suppose its ok to market yourself as a community asset, as long as you're making money too. No revenue, no gathering place.
Good thing public parks don't have revenue targets.
