What’s Right With “Teach a Man to Fish?”

Listen to this article:

Check out True Charity Ennoble on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.

“Give a man a fish, and you will feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.” This aphorism has been a staple of American folk wisdom for over a century — and for good reason: It has the ring of plain truth. But some erudite minds in the poverty alleviation field have taken it to task for being misleading or downright wrong. Their numerous objections extend the metaphor in interesting ways: The pond doesn’t have enough fish, people don’t have access to the pond, people don’t have a fishing rod, and people don’t like fish.

While one doesn’t want to sink too deep into a metaphor, the underlying critiques are worth consideration. Put simply, should charity leaders mount this phrase on their walls — or toss it back in the lake?

Before we measure whether it’s “a keeper,” we must recall that a metaphor necessarily simplifies the point it illustrates. Additionally, a metaphor does not prove a claim is sound, it merely helps the hearer understand it. If we strip away the maritime imagery, we can see this one makes several assumptions and explicit claims about people in poverty:

1. They have an inherent capacity to provide for themselves that is equal to the non-poor.
2. They have an obligation to provide for themselves if they are able.
3. Poverty is unlikely to solve itself without some deliberate action from the non-poor.
4. The non-poor have a personal duty to be concerned with the plight of the poor.
5. Direct transfers of wealth do some good but are insufficient to resolve root issues.
6. The poor are sufficiently motivated to provide for themselves but lack something essential to pull it off.
7. The thing they lack is knowledge.

For people who operate from a Judeo-Christian worldview, inherent capacity (1), personal responsibility (2), the general necessity of action from the non-poor (3), and personal duty to serve (4) raise no issues. Even most secularists in the charity space presume these claims. Some proponents of expansive government assert that (3) it’s a duty and that people have a right to sustenance regardless of their willingness to contribute to it. However, as has been amply demonstrated by communism’s failure to provide guaranteed provision, it’s problematic to assert “society” has a collective duty that does not derive from the obligations of individuals in it.   

Those who question the insufficiency of wealth distribution to solve poverty (5) are members of the “give directly” crowd, holding that given enough material resources, people will overcome any obstacle to sustainability. While there’s good evidence unconditional cash transfers are wisely invested by some people in developing countries, universalizing it ignores that short-term transfers of cash likely result in a wiser use of those funds (versus long-term guarantees of cash). But even if we constrain this proposal to short-duration infusions of money, it still overlooks the truth that money can’t buy everything.

An African villager with a strong community, an extended family network, a work ethic refined by survival in austere conditions, and a faith that gives her meaning and purpose, may spend a lump sum of “fish” with great prudence. But many of those preconditions are not universal, evidenced by the fact that when cash transfers are tried in the US, researchers must carefully limit participation to get the greatest likelihood of success.

The premise that most of the poor are missing something beyond material goods (6) would explain why cash welfare and cash-equivalent programs like SNAP have not been wildly successful. That’s because there are numerous preconditions for personal stability and success: economic opportunity, enforceable property rights, social connections, personal virtue, mental and physical health, a source of motivation, a supportive family, and knowledge. While their absence is not limited to those with low wealth, their continued lack will have economic implications. Indeed, even professional athletes and lottery winners who lack the above-mentioned preconditions routinely squander fortunes. And while there are certainly scoundrels who gain and maintain great wealth, their misdeeds come at a price because their lives aren’t typically steeped in satisfaction.

That leads us to (7), i.e., the final claim that the poor are missing the knowledge of “how to fish.” Despite frequent protestations to the contrary, there is evidence a disproportionate number of poor Americans lack basic financial literacy. So yes, some lack critical knowledge. Yet as we’ve seen, other deficits exist that are neither monetary nor intellectual. Thus it seems on this crucial point, the maxim fails to measure up.

Further, while critics can be correct, they often stumble into the same reductionist error they critique. In other words, they point out a single area of lack as the culprit (e.g., access to opportunity or capital). Granted, these can be valid deficits, but so is lack of knowledge, motivation, and relationships. Therefore, if the saying were to be revised to perhaps “equip a man to fish” it would be defensible in all respects since that wording acknowledges missing ingredients to flourishing can vary.

Should we salvage this metaphor? That decision is your own. Regardless of intention, how your audience understands it matters most. For my part, I believe there is much truth in it. That said, if you choose to jettison it, keep in mind it’s worth acknowledging the truth it does convey.

Do you want to see the poor flourish? Then get to know the people you want to help and assume they have capacity. But don’t assume what they lack. Instead, ask for specifics, exercise discernment, enable their abilities — and celebrate when they land the big one.  

For more information on effective charity and how your organization can implement programs that deliver long-term results to those being served, visit truecharity.us/join.

Already a member? Access your resources in the member portal.