Give Them Cake!

 

That expression has come to signify a person of privilege completely out of touch with common people. “Cake? Okay, queenie. How about we address the hunger first?” But we can do better. Why not cake?

Roger Scruton noted that the “form follows function” philosophy of architecture is mistaken when “function” neglects the constant human desire for beauty. In “Why Beauty Matters,” he referred to studies showing that the productivity of laborers is improved by working in beautiful settings. Modern architects were not wrong to emphasize utility. They were only misled to believe that beauty is a frivolous addition, rather than a practical aspect.

Similarly, Mother Theresa of Calcutta frequently reminded her admirers, both faithful and secular, that her service to the poor was not primarily material. Above all, she emphasized the need for people to feel loved and appreciated. It would not suffice to feed the hungry and mend the sick. They need smiles and laughter, touch and sincere conversation, so that charity can be accepted not as a burden or cold duty but as a gift of personal concern and communion.

For practical efficiency, we often structure our gift-giving by division into bare necessities. “I could give this cause $100. But I could give to 5 causes if I give $20 each.” We send rice and dry goods. We donate old clothes.

All gifts are helpful, of course. Sometimes the most basic are the most appreciated. Sometimes only certain things will survive the journey.

But people don’t live on spreadsheets. We internalize the differences between a wave and a hug, between a simple loaf of bread and a delicious cake. Sometimes, at least, give your best.

Published in Religion & Philosophy
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 33 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. DrewInWisconsin, Oaf Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oaf
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Aaron Miller (View Comment):

    Suspira (View Comment):
    I saw an article that said most donated clothing is tossed out.

    If so, that’s inexcusable… unless it’s dirty underwear or something unhygienic. There are plenty of people, including me, willing to wear clothing with holes and frays. Many clothes are only thrown out by the original wearers because they don’t want to look poor.

    I just threw out some underwear with holes. Because if I kept them for the purpose of “Poverty Chic,” I’m not sure anyone would notice my efforts.

    • #31
  2. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    DrewInWisconsin, Oaf (View Comment):

    Aaron Miller (View Comment):

    Suspira (View Comment):
    I saw an article that said most donated clothing is tossed out.

    If so, that’s inexcusable… unless it’s dirty underwear or something unhygienic. There are plenty of people, including me, willing to wear clothing with holes and frays. Many clothes are only thrown out by the original wearers because they don’t want to look poor.

    I just threw out some underwear with holes. Because if I kept them for the purpose of “Poverty Chic,” I’m not sure anyone would notice my efforts.

    If you wear your pants low enough. . .

    • #32
  3. Manny Coolidge
    Manny
    @Manny

    Suspira (View Comment):

    Aaron Miller: We donate old clothes.

    Just a few days ago, I saw an article that said most donated clothing is tossed out. Rather like the plastic I scrupulously recycle sometimes is sent to the landfill because the recycling facility is overwhelmed.

    What’s a well-intentioned person supposed to do?

    I think I said above somewhere that they tell us they take “gently worn” clothing.  Yeah I believe most is thrown out.

    • #33
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.