Although philanthropy—the volunteering of private resources for humanitarian purposes—reached its apex in England in the late nineteenth century, modern commentators have articulated two major criticisms of the philanthropy that was a mainstay of England's middle-class Victorian society. …
The more recent charge holds that Victorian philanthropy was by its very nature a self-serving exercise carried out by philanthropists at the expense of those whom they were ostensibly serving. In this view, philanthropy was a means of flaunting one's power and position in a society that placed great emphasis on status, or even a means of cultivating social connections that could lead to economic rewards. …
Modern critics of Victorian philanthropy often use the words "amateurish" or "inadequate" to describe Victorian philanthropy, as though Victorian charity can only be understood as an antecedent to the era of state-sponsored, professionally administered charity. This assumption is typical of the "Whig fallacy": the tendency to read the past as an inferior prelude to an enlightened present. If most Victorians resisted state control and expended their resources on private, voluntary philanthropies, it could only be, the argument goes, because of their commitment to a vested interest, or because the administrative apparatus of the state was incapable of coping with the economic and social needs of the time.
This version of history patronizes the Victorians, who were in fact well aware of their vulnerability to charges of condescension and complacency, but were equally well aware of the potential dangers of state-managed charity. They were perhaps condescending to the poor, but—to use an un-Victorian metaphor—they put their money where their mouths were, and gave of their careers and lives as well.
Which one of the following best describes the attitude of the author of the passage toward the "Whig" interpretation of Victorian philanthropy?
strong disagreement
This fits with the author’s description of the Whig view of history as
mild skepticism
This is going in the right direction, but it’s too weak to accurately describe the author’s attitude. Both “mild” and “skepticism” suggest moderation, but the author is straightforwardly negative and disapproving.
cynical amusement
“Amusement” isn’t a good description of the author’s serious and humorless
bland indifference
“Indifference” indicates neutrality. However, the author provides a definitively
unqualified support
On the contrary, the author strongly criticizes the Whig view, which P3 describes as a
Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.
It takes about five minutes.
Take the free diagnostic