This piece is based on the premise that human beings are fundamentally benevolent. We do have evil, violent and egoistic streaks but we are the only creatures that can think about the morality of our behaviour and conceivably act morally exclusively out of duty’s sake.

Most of us have a moral sensibility, so much so that even when we perform the most dastardly deeds, we need to convince ourselves and others that these are morally permissible, excusable or actually required.

Even the neoliberal economy and culture imposed on most of the planet use a whole array of cultural weaponry to assuage any tendency we might have to question the mantra that greed is good and to make those of us who consider ourselves (wrongly, in most cases) to have succeeded in life believe that we are not responsible for those who did not succeed.

We still give vent to our most rapacious, destructive and greedy impulses, while banishing any natural sympathy we may have towards fellow humans. Cain’s principle (I am not my brother’s keeper) requires a coating of moral acceptability to be swallowed. It also requires that our critical faculties go on holiday.

Focusing on our island, Christmastime is undeniably the silly season in terms of self-righteousness and self-praise.

It is frequently said that the Maltese are a uniquely generous nation, accompanied by the other line that, despite our differences, ‘we’ are a family united in love and solidarity.

I shall not discuss the bombastic nature of the first mantra. (How many locals have voluntarily gone to Africa to work with Ebola patients, as many Cuban doctors have? How many of us would volunteer to repair a leaking nuclear reactor as many Japanese technicians did a few years ago? I suspect the answer would be ‘Not many’.)

Nor shall I consider the hypocritical nature of the second line. A good number of those who have made handsome contributions would show their employees the door if they were to justifiably complain their wages are indecent, even if these same employers could afford pay raises.

I shall consider instead the many who have genuinely and generously contributed to the fundraising events organised and consider how these undoubtedly positive phenomena co-exist with other features with which they are inconsistent.

Despite a neoliberal bombardment, people still have generosity vibes

Records have been broken in marathons to collect alms for the needy. In immediate terms this is a positive phenomenon. If the State, which ironically is organising the most important of the events, is not providing enough assistance for a number of people to lead a decent existence, other organisations have to intervene, providing such individuals with their needs.

If I’m starving I need a revolution only in the long-term future; but I want food immediately. The generous donations of many provide the fodder which enables organisations to function.

Admirably, such donations kept coming even though, since a few years back, gifts were eliminated from the main fundraising marathon and, recently, the organisers laudably decided to stop airing clips publicly humiliating the needy in a bid to touch the hearts of potential donors.

This notwithstanding, if one were to suggest the government ought to minimally raise taxes, instead of lowering them, for those with a good income and use the funds to support those in the lowest echelons of society, many of the donors would probably raise their voice in protest.

I also suspect that many of those who donated money would probably consider single mothers and people receiving welfare to be ‘bums’ and would harbour racist sentiments. Moreover, one who can cheat one’s fellows and get away with it. One who would not do so for some moral reason, would still be considered to be a moron by many in society.

So, in terms of generosity and its opposites, our society (as, I suspect, many others) demonstrates a contradictory mix.

This contradiction presents both negative and positive facets. It definitely serves those who wield economic and political hegemony.

It provides an outlet where people can express their generosity without questioning whether poverty, social exclusion and need have structural causes: whether the social, economic and cultural structures leading some to succeed are causing others to fail.

Hence, the people in the street would feel no urge to change such structures.

The positive facet is that despite the neoliberal bombardment, people still have generosity vibes. Together with a critical mind, these could have a devastating effect.

Accomplishing this ought to be the mission of progressive political activists and thinkers. Are they up to it?

Or will they limit themselves to conferences and literary evenings?