If the world were a village of 100 people, how many people would be involved in volunteer activities?

Needless to say, this way of questioning imitates the best seller If the World Were a Village of 100 People published by Magazine House in December 2001. “If the world were a village of 100 people, 90 would be heterosexual, 10 would be homosexual or lesbian. 70 would be colored, 30 would be white. Of the wealth in this village, 6 people own 59% - all of them from the United States -, 74 people own 39%, and 20 people share the remaining 2%. ”In this way, by using the number 100, the book allows the readers to “feel” the reality of the world. In fact, I have met many young people touched by reading this book.

Let's get back to my subject. How many people would be involved in volunteer activities? I don't have the slightest idea of how many people volunteer worldwide, but let's take a look at Japan. White Paper on the National Lifestyle 2000 shows that the total number of volunteers reported by the Social Welfare Council, the Red Cross Service Group and social and educational facilities comes to approximately 11.4 million. Accordingly, if the number is converted into a village of 100 people, it is almost 8 people. Obviously, this cannot accurately represent the total number of volunteers. For example, I wonder if the following people are counted: minorities who take an active part in advocacy, or people who are involved with politics? How about the people who put the catch phrase of a TV commercial - “You can volunteer with a single finger” (*1)into practice?

What is a “volunteer” ? What is the definition of volunteer? For those who are volunteering or coordinating volunteers there is little point in strictly giving a definition to volunteer activities and sharply categorizing which activities are considered as volunteer activities. It is more important for volunteers to address challenges on the work front than to work hard at defining what is a volunteer.

I then encountered one book that made me think anew that we have to face this question.

It is the book:“Hisao Ohtsuka and Masao Maruyama - Mobilization, Independence and War Responsibility” (*2) written by Toshio Nakano and published by Seitosha in December 2001. The book was introduced in a book-review column in a major newspaper, and provoked discussion among the persons involved in volunteer activities. This is a laborious work that critically analyzes the ideological works of Mr. Ohtsuka and Mr. Maruyama who were considered leaders of the postwar philosophy of enlightenment. The author critically argues about volunteerism, allocating considerable pages in the book, and points out that the idealistic lifestyle of a volunteer results from merely will (self-activity). For example, a volunteer “wants to do something” even though that “something” may not have a purpose (an objective) or a substance (significance) in itself. He thus criticizes that volunteers may react the government appeals and become helpmates unawares as part of national systems to complement the government flaws.

It is true that the persons involved in volunteer propulsive organizations had ultimately valued “voluntary will” and have talked about volunteerism with particular emphasis since the 1980s. They did so to wipe out established grave and narrow images of such words as “contribution”, “benevolence” and “service”. There was, however, a tacit presupposition behind this.

In the 1990s, volunteer action propulsion had been mentioned in reports of national councils one after another. For example, in a report by the Council on Lifelong Learning, volunteerism is defined as “contribution to society by providing one's skills and time independently and volitionally”. It was also defined in a report by the Social Policy Council as “action based on voluntary will and behavior supported by motivation such as charity and service-minded consciousness, self-actualization, mutual aid, and reciprocate”. Among them, “anytime, anyplace, anyone, casually” is proposed.

These definitions are, of course, not wrong. But, is there a very tacit “presupposition” in here? Let's think what is the tacit “presupposition”, which people in volunteer communities have stopped talking about since the 1980s.

It is “civil autonomy”. As Mr. Nakano points out, we cannot say that volunteers are independent from the system even though they act voluntarily. Naturally, volunteer activities are aimed at “civil autonomy” independent from the national system, and should have been the tacit presupposition among the persons involved in volunteerism.

However, it may not be tacit presupposition anymore as it has been decreasingly emphasized in the past twenty years.

Not only does Mr. Nakano simply criticize volunteerism, but he also raises to point at issues such as “independence from the nation in civil society” and “human independence”. In any case, as far as Mr. Nakano's criticism on volunteerism is concerned, I believe we should treat it as biting remarks against us, people who are engaged in volunteer propulsive organizations that are failing to clearly articulate about “civil autonomy”.