Philanthropy, a Greek word demonstrating the love for humanity, has become an important part of today’s society as many people and organizations demonstrate that love through charitable means and support. However, the idea of philanthropy varies from time and place; it is not a universal idea. Tracing down its different forms will help understand other societies and how philanthropy developed to what we know today. A great example would be the area where the word itself was born; in ancient Greece philanthropy occupied a special role in the form of “Xenia”. Xenia was considered an institutionalized guest-friendship that if violated it would be punished by the father of all gods and humans, Zeus. To understand Xenia, one must understand the terminology. Xenos is defined as “a friend in a foreign country who would be your “guest” in your country and your “host” in his country”, that being said, “Xenia is the relationship between these two individuals” (Mikalson, 2010, p. 229). The very fact that Zeus’ epithet was Xenios, indicated his role in this type of philanthropy, showcasing it’s importance in society and how people valued this tradition and feared punishment from the Gods if they dared to show inhospitality towards their guests (Fuchs, 2008). Moreover, this paper will examine the philanthropic tradition of Xenia in Ancient Greece; its origins while at the same time explore the importance of giving in this Ancient Greek tradition.

​It was often believed by the ancients that the Gods would descend from Mount Olympus and mingle with their human creations. As a result, it was this line of thinking which the tradition of Xenia gained its roots. In essence, it was the fear of offending a guest, who may have been one of these mingling Gods, which sparked this tradition (Fuchs, 2008). Xenia can be broken down into three aspects, the way in which the guest respects the host, the hospitality shown to the guest by the host, and the traditional gift given to the guest by the host when they part (Fuchs, 2008). It is through this tradition of gift giving that a bond is created between the host and his guest, which solidifies their relationship, which could transcend generations and may play a significant role in future political and tribal alliances (Robb, 1994).

This act of giving, in relation to Xenia, can be seen throughout many of the more recognizable works of mythological Greek literature. The most famous of the works, Homer’s “Iliad” and “The Odyssey”, both are laden with many examples of Xenia and more specifically the aspect of gift giving. In “The Odyssey” it is discussed in great detail how Odysseus is gifted a swift ship for his return home to Ithaca from the Phaeacian king, Alcinous (Robb, 1994). Diomedes and Glaucus, at opposing sides during the Trojan War, met in battle but recognized tokens and by reciting their lineage they realized they were bound by Xenia amongst their family line. Hence, they had to stop and exchanged their armour, which indicates the importance that Xenia played in Ancient Greek society; even battles had to seize. In the same fashion, wars can also start at the violation of Xenia, as it was the case with the Trojan War and Paris breaking the Xenia Menelaeus offered by eloping with his wife Helen (Homer, 1990).

From antiquity, the primary form of charity is represented in the institution of Xenia. As a result, both political and economic alliances were formed as well as animosities when the rules of Xenia were not respected and followed. To this day, Greek culture follows a strict code of conduct where the guest and host relationship is concerned. Guests are welcomed with open arms and are offered abundance as one would offer to a deity.

Works cited

Fuchs, P. (2008). Xenia-The Act of Gifting. Periferic 8Biennial for Contemporary Art as Gift. Retrieved February 3, 2014, from http://perifericbiennial.wordpress.com/2008/09/18/xenia-the-act-of-gifting/
Homer. (1990). The Iliad. (B. Knox, Ed. R. Fagles, Trans.) New York, NY: Penguin Classics.
Mikalson, J. (2010). Ancient Greek Religion. United Kingdom : Wiley-Blackwell; 2 Edition .
Robb, K. (1994). Literacy and paideia in ancient Greece. New York: Oxford University Press.

We have to differentiate between three markedly different eras in modern Hungarian history, when it comes to Fundraising. In order to understand why professional fundraising still doesn’t exist today, we need to take a brief look at each of these phases.

1ST PERIOD, BEFORE 1945
Until 1945 Hungary functioned as a capitalist society, with market economy. It didn’t differ much from its other European counterparts. The education and health services were run as business. The poor and the needy was taken care of by the countless charity organizations, and the Catholic Church.
Theatre was a profitable capitalist enterprise. The monies were either put up by the Backer, donated by an Aristocrat, or put up by the modern and adventurous self-made-man. If a theater didn’t make profit, or at least didn’t break even, it went out of business.

2ND PERIOD, 1945-1988
In 1945 the communists took the over the country, and its social-economical structure had been dramatically re-organized. Health and education became free, and fully subsidized. Everybody had to be employed, by law. The salaries were quite even. Living standards were not very high, by western standards, but there were no such things as the Poor and the Needy anymore. And no more need for Charity either.
Lucky for them, because the rich left the country anyway, and the the activities of religious organizations were brought down to an absolute minimum. Religion in general had been either oppressed, or eradicated.
The arts were also fully subsidized, but accompanied by a strong ideological streak. This ideological oppression however started to loosen up very quickly, and by the 1980s Hungary was the most western one in the eastern bloc.

3RD PERIOD, 1988-2010
The Market Economy set in, and it hit theatre real hard. Soon most theaters faced a Shakespearean question: to be or not to be, and if yes, then how on earth.
Society at large went through some dramatic changes as well. For Education and Health services they started charging a small symbolic fee. This later became less and less symbolic. There was the Rich and the Poor again, but this time – nobody took care of the poor. Some new religious organization sprung up, like the Malta Love Services, or generous foreign benefactors, like George Soros came along, and established his Foundation, – but these were mere exceptions. And soon the poor got joined by the even poorer, Hungarians escaping from Romania. Homeless on the streets, and unimaginable view for an average Hungarian. In Poland religious organizations always played an active role in helping out the needy during bad times, and they did have some, also, religion served as a form of social resistance, – but not in Hungary.

FUNDRAISING FOR THE ARTS, THAT WOULD BE NICE

From the mid 1980s on, certain figures of the art scene were on the lookout for ways to turn an artistic endeavor into a capitalistic enterprise. Part of the country’s main film production company was searching for financial independence, hence, from a segment of Mafilm the Objectív Filstudió was formed. The experiment was quite naive. They were trying to combine capitalist film distribution with government subsidized film making. To keep all the good stuff from the communist system, and enrich it with some even more good stuff from the capitalist system, – this just simply didn’t work.

In theatre, before the Berlin Wall caved in, every aspect of theatre was controlled by the Communist Party. Yes, it was fully subsidized, but party officials decided on what plays should be or not be produced, who should or should not be directing them, and even casting ideas were coming sometimes from “above”. By the late 1980s however the political leadership figured it out, that the only way to win over the evermore rebelling intelligentsia is to give them more freedom. In theatre, this meant artistic freedom.

The harshness of the market economy was hitting hard, and at the same time there were no mechanisms in place how to raise money for theatre. Fundraising as such, was unheard off. Even though the state subsidy was still covering about the half of the production costs, and the local city council was covering even some more, theatres had to scramble for money, – and they had no professionally trained personnel to do that. Not knowing what monies will come in from what source, they got into a habit of double bookkeeping. One book for themselves, just to see where they are, and another one for the government, and for auditors.

The ticket prices were rising, the number of theatre goers were declining, and the ever worsening working conditions slowly started eroding the strong cultural values.

To work in the theater was never meant to be a quick way to get rich. It always required the self-sacrifice and devotion that borderlines lunacy, but this new situation was just too much for most professional artists to bear.

HELP ON THE HORIZON

The first private sponsorships appeared on the horizon.
And almost immediately, the weekend long, American style training sessions sprung up, promising quick result on how to find a Sponsor, and how to get quick money out of them. But this new market economy simply didn’t have any written, or unwritten rules, and there were no traditions to return to either. No proper business managers in place, in the capitalist sense. Some of the banks started sponsoring theatres her and there, but professional fundraising still remained an unknown phenomenon. The need was there, but nobody knew how to do it.

And there was also another setback. While theaters achieved a relative independence from government, a large part of their operating budget was still coming from up there, and somehow those government people never gave up on the idea, that artists are just artist, they are like kids, they always will need Big Daddy to look out for them. Government sponsorship came with a baggage, political ideology, expectations, etc. So on the end, in a way they were back to square one.
BUSINESS MANAGERS

Management schools sprung up, and some of the big universities started offering courses on the subject as well. Terms like publicity, marketing, public relations, promotion,- soon became household names in theatre management, but often theatre managers had to learn it on the the job. And learn it fast, and learn it from scratch, and implementing it all while running the business itself. As the economical situation deteriorated, theatre directors were forced to reduce the number of artists employed, lower the quality of the productions, etc. There were running against declining audience sizes, raising costs, worsening working morals, – the myth of Sisyphus could have been modeled after this struggle.

And there was also the fight within.
While theatre managers were trying to run the theatre as a business, the artists themselves were resisting the changes big-time.
Theatre is still dominate by the Director and his Concept, and many of them would stubbornly deny that Fundraising and Sponsorships has anything to do with their work. Art, being Marketed ? How distasteful !

And I am afraid, this is it. This is where we are now.
Fundraising is being done, partially by the theatre’s business manager himself, partially by the public relations person, – but the wonderful Art of Begging and as we know it, doesn’t exist yet. Will it ever, I wonder.

VALUES

Habits are changing slow … Let me give you one example.
If anyone walks by a street musician in Budapest, – automatically gives. The gesture comes from the deeply rooted belief, that art is important, because in one form or another, it is part of our lives. The person you give to is a Musician, and not a beggar.

If anyone walks by a street musician in Toronto, – automatically denies. You give to the homeless, but not the street artists. The gesture of not giving comes from a deeply rooted belief, that that Art isn’t important, it is Entertainment at best, like a Saturday night movie. Besides, it is free, and we love free stuff, don’t we ….

THE END

Literature of any kind on the subject is shockingly scarce.
Understandably, people who are making a pass at Professional Fundraising are few and far between, and even fewer has the chance to write about it.

Works Cited

On Hungarian Maltese charity service

http://www.maltai.hu/index.php?node=1&startup=yes&

On George Soros, the great hungarian benefactor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soros

Objectív film studio

http://www.objektivfilm.hu

On theatre’s economical aspect

http://szinigazdasag.hu

The main hungarian theatre site for individual theatres, theatrical organizations, etc.

http://szinhaz.hu

Comments are closed Edit

Only recently did the concept of charity emerge in Russian culture. According to Gazetta (2011), as little as 20 years ago, charity did not need to exist because the Soviet government took care of its “less-fortunate” citizens. As a consequence of this, the more fortunate citizens did not feel the need to interfere with these social services.

It was not until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 that the majority of social services were shut down and there became an absolute need for charity. In Russia today, there are only 20 major charities and approximately 100 smaller charities; however, this is a huge growth for Russia in comparison to only a few years ago. Since 2007, Russia has shown the largest growth in Philanthropic aid throughout the entire former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.

The unique characteristic of charity in Russia is they have yet to form their own philosophy of philanthropy. Because of this, charity can be very spontaneous which causes a need for every citizen to help out. One other distinctive characteristic of charity is Russia, according to Bokova-Foley (2011), is that charities often replace services that should be covered by the government, for example scholarships and health care.

In Russia, the most common charitable organizations are centered around education, culture and medical services for children. Not only are they target groups for individual donors, but they are also the most popular charities for larger corporations to sponsor. On the contrary, it is unlikely for Russians to give to charitable organizations that support the elderly, the disabled, or single mothers. These types of supports are seen as the governments responsibility only, and do not require support from the general public.

Although Russia has seen such an increase in philanthropy over the last few years, there has already been a major shift in the way Russians are giving. In the past, 70% of charitable donations were given by large business corporations, which in 2007 totaled $1.5 billion. A poll done by a Moscow business, Daily Vedomosti, showed that 49% of Russians lacked confidence in their local charitable organizations and as a result, they preferred to give their money directly to people in need. (Gazetta, 2011) Nowadays, Russian charitable organizations have seen a decrease in sponsorship from corporations; however, single sponsorship has not decreased at all. It is also noteworthy that Russian businesses and citizens do not receive tax deductions for charity donations.

To show a specific example of philanthropy in Russia, Advita (a local children’s charity) used to hold large charity auctions which raised large sums of money for their cause. However, once the decrease in corporate giving’s set in, they soon realized they would need to make a second approach in order to sustain their pediatric organization. They decided to print children’s drawings onto post cards and sell them for a very small amount of money. The program coordinator admitted this was originally a joke, but she soon realized many people were willing to give small amounts which soon totaled $7,000 towards their goal. Today, 57% of their annual earnings come from individual donors.

Works Cited
Bokova-Foley, T (2011) The philanthropist of Dagestan. Russia! Magazine; the war and fashion issue. http://readrussia.com/blog/business/00333/

Gazeta , R (2011) Russia’s vulnerable need sweet charity from philanthropy. Russia Now. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sponsored/russianow/5194435/Russias-vulnerable-need-sweet-charity-from-philanthropy.html