Assignment 3: Is whistleblowing charity?

Pratyusha N, 3rd Sem

What needs stating and perhaps even some restating is how one needs to form an argument
based on an informed opinion. When Edward Snowden came out to the public about
government surveillance and the impact it was having on the privacy of the US citizens, a
shocking majority came out saying that this information did not bother them. Between
wanting perfect security, one seems to have realized slowly that in several countries, not just
the USA, privacy has become a matter of trivialization. Not because one doesnt value it, one
probably does, but because there is no longer a simple yes or no, black or white answer. To
keep the country from ending up in a state of chaos, one does end up tangled with situations
that arent all ethically or morally correct. This, of course, means that information, especially
free information, becomes a questionable act. Somehow, this information is being taken for
granted, and this information, that is indeed required for an informed opinion, is where my
question of charity comes in. Does Edward Snowden, someone who clearly gave up
privileged information, giving away information that is in fact important to the public count
as charity? And if it does, does this mean that whistleblowing is a charitable act in this day
and age?
The nature of the relationship between the donor and the recipient is a tricky one, and
perhaps this is something that is pointed out in Theories of Gift in South Asia. Heim talks
about how while theorists regard the gift object itself and its essentiality in the process of
dna. In this case, since the gift object in question is the information itself, one has to wonder
if it is as simple as that. Obviously Snowden goes beyond the established amount he can
sacrifice to bring forward this information to the public, and one can argue that since this is
the case, that he is under scrutiny for making this gift available to the commonperson, and
one mustnt take for granted the effort he has put in to bring this information forth. In fact,
people would argue to say that he has lost his credibility in his field, is probably facing a law
suit on numerous clauses and perhaps has no chance in regaining a normal career again.
Truly, it is a sacrifice that Snowden has made, and perhaps a good call as well, considering
the moral and ethical ramifications of having no privacy, but the idea of safety instead. As
Heim points out, even if learning isnt a material gift, it is still one that has manages to
make a statement about the kind of moral life it entails. One can know and accept entirely
that Snowden is indeed morally correct to understand that the piece of information he was

privy, and he alone had access to, was in fact not something that solely concerned issues of
the USA, but of its people. Where safety for the people and the country is one thing, bringing
about a false sense of security for its people while stripping them of their privacy is another.
A violation, and perhaps not as much of a moral act as it seems, Snowden decides to bring
this point to the people in hope that it will be received and accessed in a way that will allow
them to be liberated from it. The gift, here then, is subjected to a certain amount of
expectation on Snowdens part, for perhaps he assumed that if it were his Skype chats that the
government was watching for signs or hints of terrorism, he would want to know.
The catch in the process of gift giving is quite simple, and something that Heim
indulges in as well. The gift itself may seem irrelevant but here, the gift becomes the
central focus of our conversation. How does one look away from the gift, and the donor,
when it is clearly with the intention to teach the recipient of what he doesnt know? It isnt
simply the fact of the gift being a thought that counts but also an action that needed doing
for the good of citizens of the United States. It would seem that here is where Snowden needs
to understand that perhaps, even if his gift needed to see the light, he needed to accept that
somewhere his thought for bringing the information out into the scrutiny of the public eye
would never be questioned. In fact, his gift itself is something that one may transform into
various things, or even remain ignorant of it. But the thought does count, the gift isnt for
nothing. It isnt the donors position to make this kind of judgment, though, and perhaps of
the recipients. Where there is expectation and there is a manner in which gift giving has
evolved over the centuries, there is a need to address the simple issue of what makes gift
giving prevalent in a society like ours, and if it is a system that deserves to hold its position.
Where Snowden is definitely someone with the means, he is someone who has definitely
given away something that is in proportion with his means, as talked about Heim: Although
the texts often employ the standard phrase according to ones means (yathakti,
yathvibhavam) to suggest that the amount and the substance of the gift should be appropriate
to the economic position of the giver, the quality and quantity of the gift are by no means
irrelevant. (Heim 2004, 121) The quality of the gift is, of course, precious, and much
needed. There isnt a manner of pretence as to whether or the gift matters, because it does,
and it needed to find its way to its people so that the right course of action can takes its play,
but does Snowden have the right to place the weight of his expectation on the outcome of a
gift?

In a manner, it does defeat the purpose of the gift, if at all it can be called a gift, if one
waits to see the role of the gift in the recipients life. It isnt merely the matter of what can be
the outcome or what good will come of it, but will it be used at all? And if so, will it be used
in the way the donor expects it? Clearly, information is much more valuable than material
objects, which makes one realize that there is a certain power that Snowden gifted to the
people by taking on the role of the whistleblower. And if the act itself were in question, it
seems to me that it could be called a charitable act to whistleblow as the outcome is the gift in
the recipients hands, without any interference from the donor at any given point of time.
While Near talks about the necessary direction that whistleblowing needs to take, that
is its undeniable need to be effective, and Davis discusses the whistleblowers rationale
behind calling her act justifiable, one needs to remember that if it is truly the thought that
counts, then the manner in which the information becomes a gift doesnt make it effective or
justified, it makes it a gesture. Bringing in the effectiveness of the gift itself makes the gift
not a gift, not charity, but a problematic structure within which there are numerous ways in
which gift giving itself becomes ineffective. Charity, or dna, doesnt concern itself with
what is or isnt effective, it remains within the gesture, the relationship between donor and
recipient, and the way of what allows this gesture to be morally good. What allows it to have
the donor be revered and the recipient, perhaps, indebted? Why does a population of millions
need to necessarily know who brought forward the truth behind what is private and what
isnt, when the gift itself feels irrelevant to them, or rather, outside their everyday needs?
Perhaps a society aligns itself with the thought that the gift isnt one that needs to be received
as the donor sees fit, but as the recipient chooses to. This choice remains the important
question that the donor definitely makes in giving the gift, but somehow becomes absent
when it comes to the recipient.
All in all, effective or not, justified or not, the whistleblower makes the decision to
bring forward things that the general public needs to hear, and that decision plays well along
the lines of dana. This, in turn, makes it difficult for the recipient to choose between what he
needs and how he goes about working with the gift in question. If he chooses to ignore it,
informed of what that will bring him, or her, then so be it. Ethically, being informed is
important, but for some it matters little what the information is. Sometimes it is the act of
merely leaving the gift hanging for those who need it rather than deserve it or ask for it. At
any cost, the information is out there that none of our cyber activities are unmonitored, and if
the people of the United States are happy with that fact then there goes the question of

justification or effectiveness, for the gift isnt effective at all. The gift is a liberated object,
one that passes from the donor to the recipient merely as a handover, but once this is done
with there is no question of what becomes of this object, regardless of its consequences.

References
Davis, Michael Some Paradoxes of Whistleblowing (USA: Business and Professional Ethics
Journal, 1996) 3-19
Heim, Maria, Religion in History, Society and Culture (Britain: Routledge, 2004)
Near, Janet P., Miceli, Marcia P. Blowing the Whistle: The Organizational and Legal
Implications for Companies and Employees (USA: Lexingtion Books, 1992)