And The Problem with High Net Worth Philanthropy Is…? A Post-Modern Perspective
The knives are out for philanthropists. Editorial coverage of their motives, gifts, and impact is increasingly negative, particularly in the UK, but in the USA and elsewhere too. Can we accept that philanthropists are genuinely looking to help others, or should we be suspicious that are they working only in their self-interest, diverting resources that might be better allocated elsewhere to their personal priorities. And are they perhaps picking projects primarily because they know they will lead to public acknowledgement, acclaim, or some other form of self-aggrandisement?
These criticisms have been around for a while, but the past few years have seen a strengthening critique. Three books have proved particularly influential: Anand Giridharadas’s Winners Take All, Rob Reich’s Just Giving, and Edgar Villanueva’s Decolonizing Wealth. All have made the case that giving by “wealthy elites can be undemocratic, a distraction from the unjust ways that wealth is created and do more good for the givers than the receivers.” (Matthews 2019).
So does this surge of negative publicity matter? Many worry that it does.
It has been a few months now since Prism the Gift Fund commissioned a survey of public opinion in the UK about attitudes to giving and those who give. The final report authored by Dr Beth Breeze (2020) indicates that around 30 per cent of their sample felt that philanthropists were not good for society. And 55 per cent of respondents said they did not trust philanthropists to “do what is right with their donations.” Breeze also identified that many negative words were used to describe philanthropists such as “cheat”, “condescending”, “self-serving”, “tax-avoider”, “undemocratic” and “untrustworthy.” Many see these criticisms as unfortunate because the fear of being called out and labelled in this way, might make it less likely that wealthy individuals would become philanthropists and/or give at the kind of heightened levels that might draw scrutiny or invite unwelcome attention to themselves, their families, or their businesses. The report concludes that “rebuilding our civic society must involve tackling problematic public perceptions in order to remove (these) barriers to giving.”
The logic is clear. One may conclude that societal attitudes have developed that are harmful to philanthropy. So, to encourage giving we need to grow public understanding of the realities of our sector and draw attention to the many benefits that philanthropists deliver for society. As the public (and media) understand more of the good that can result, attitudes will become more favourable, and philanthropists will feel more supported in their endeavours. Philanthropy will be stimulated as a consequence.
What I’ve just articulated is a plausible “metanarrative” for how to grow philanthropy: it is a construction I’ve just built from what is termed a “modernist” perspective. In other words, I have identified a problem, marshalled my evidence, and hypothesised a universal “treatment” that I believe should fix it.
It might. But there are other ways of looking at the issue.
Enter – post modernism.
Postmodernism is largely a reaction to the assumed certainty of scientific, or objective, efforts to explain reality. In essence, it stems from a recognition that reality is not simply mirrored in human understanding of it, but rather, is constructed as we build our particular and personal reality (First and Dholakia 2006). For this reason, postmodernism is highly sceptical of explanations which claim to be universally valid and as a consequence it eschews metanarratives such as the one I just built above.
Philanthropist is only a label. It’s a word that we use to describe an identity - someone who “seeks to promote the welfare of others, especially by the generous donation of money to good causes.” But who are we when we give? Are we indeed philanthropists or do we each define ourselves (when we give) as something else? Consider the question “do you trust philanthropists to do what is right with their donations?” Imagine replacing the word “philanthropist” with abuse survivor, grateful patient, moral person, passionate environmentalist or proud Plymothian. What degree of trust would then be indicated? Might we perhaps have a better shot at growing giving by celebrating a multiplicity of different identities and ceasing our fascination with the social construction that is “philanthropist.”
Another metanarrative that from a postmodern perspective holds philanthropy back is the notion that giving should be selfless or that for it to be selfless is somehow more virtuous. This flows naturally from the modernist fascination with altruism. Postmodernism, by contrast draws attention to the potential of different modes of being and sources of meaning that can accrue through the existence of the “other” (Caputo 1997). When we understand who we are when we help others and allow that identity to guide our selection of causes, our sense of self can then be strengthened or even transformed through the act of giving and we can experience a heightened sense of wellbeing as a consequence. The presence of self in giving can make the act intensely more meaningful than its absence and this too, represents a gain. Thus, the divide created in modernism between subject and object is no longer valid or appropriate. Donors can be both and nonprofits might consider their impact on both beneficiaries AND supporters. If the experience of giving were engineered to significantly heighten wellbeing, philanthropists would be better equipped to overcome or “ride out” any negativity they might experience from other sources.
Modernity is also characterised by a deliberate shedding of the past. Its focus is deliberately on the future and aspirations for what could be and the set of “rules” that will get us there. Post modernism, by contrast, is focused on the present and finding meaning and substance in the here and now. Its lens also encourages the folding in of the past into the current moment, so that historical figures, events and ideas are part of what contribute to our rich sense of the current. As we look to wrestle with the “problem” of growing philanthropy we might thus return to the notion of love that is by definition at its core. And if philanthropy is all about love ask ourselves why the modern focus is seemingly always on money, gifts and giving, rather than the articulation and deepening of that love? Perhaps rather than define fundraising as the process of seeking and gathering voluntary financial contributions, as Wikipedia and others do, we might rather define it as a process of developing the human capacity to love others. That would certainly be true if one were to view fundraising as the servant of philanthropy as Hank Rosso and other historical figures have done. The key to growing philanthropy might then lie in developing a deeper understanding of what it means to love and how we can better love our donors and assist them in developing their own competence in loving themselves and others. Or perhaps more precisely, develop their competence in loving themselves as they love others.
I’ll close by noting that in postmodernism there is also a clarion call for appreciation of difference and against framing such difference in terms of superiority/inferiority. Yet as fundraisers, we routinely talk in terms that do exactly that. We use terms to describe our donors such as high value donor, major donor, lead donor and yes, philanthropist too. And when we publicise the success of our fundraising, we inevitably focus on high value gifts and the individuals who make them. Such division and categorizations are unhelpful as all would be considered philanthropists by our earlier definition. And if our sector maintains such a focus, little wonder then that the media who cover it, will do likewise. So having just argued that we might eschew our use of the term philanthropist, perhaps we might instead re-appropriate it and broaden it to include all those who give, thereby eliminating the implicit and intensely unhelpful sense of “other”.
In a short blog it is impossible to do justice to a vast post-modern literature, but it’s important to recognize that post-modernism brings much more to the table than the brief ideas I have just articulated here. The field of post-modern marketing has been with us since the 1980s and there is much that it can and should teach us about the practice of modern fundraising and how to use it to respond to the challenge of growing philanthropy. Insight is certainly not the preserve of modernism.
Professor Adrian Sargeant
July 2021
References
Breeze B (2020) The Philanthropy Paradox: Public Attitudes and Future Prospects for Planned Giving. Available at https://prismthegiftfund.co.uk/the-prism-thought-paper/ Accessed July 7th 2021.
Caputo, J.D. (ed.) (1997) Deconstruction in a Nutshell: A Conversation with Jacques Derrida. New York: Fordham University Press.
Firat A.F and Dholakia N (2006) Theoretical and Philosophical Implications of Postmodern Debates: Some Challenges to Modern Marketing, Marketing Theory, 6(2), 123-162.
Matthews D (2019) Philanthropy is Undergoing A Massive Backlash. A New Book Argues It’s Gone Too Far. Available at https://cep.org/2019-in-the-news/ Accessed July 7th 2021.
Learn about the benefits of Phil Psych™ for your organisation with our Certificate in Philanthropic Psychology class, or our Introduction to Philanthropic Psychology webinar.