While our first week considered the differences between
program grants and operational grants and what different causes were of high
value to the class, this week has been on discussing more of the intricacies of
philanthropy and giving. First off, meaningful giving. The articles we read for
Tuesday discussed meaningful giving is and the differences between strategic
philanthropy and emergent philanthropy.
To me, there is no such thing as giving that is not meaningful.
Meaningful giving to me means giving to make a difference in people’s lives-
and that could be large scale or small scale.
The question I ask when considering meaningful giving is if lives are
being changed in some way, whether it be for the individual (small scale) or
for the community/society (large scale). Moreover, it is important to consider
what different organizations are capable of doing when it comes to people’s
lives. For example, it is much more likely for a large-scale organization to
create mass societal change than it would be for a small local nonprofit
organization. Both work to achieve vital goals to make society better in some
way.
When contemplating strategic versus emergent giving, you
first have to understand the differences between the two. To my understanding,
strategic giving works on outcomes that come from specific causes that can be
predicted, attributed, and repeated. The criticism of strategic giving is that
it doesn’t account for the unpredictable nature of social change. Furthermore,
the linear strategies determined by strategic giving can quickly become
outdated, given the constant changing tide of society and the issues within it.
I think that strategic giving can be valuable so long as the strategies are frequently
being revisited and reevaluated in order to stay relevant and achieve long-term
goals. Furthermore, I believe that strategic giving is more fitting to smaller
nonprofits as they may have limited resources and a better use of their time
and money would be in directly giving and working than reevaluating
strategies. The philosophy about
emergent philanthropy exists on the idea that giving should constantly change
as circumstances change and the importance of strengthening systems and
relationships that generate solutions instead of creating the solutions
themselves. More simply put, that means
that this kind of philanthropy promotes that the ways solutions are generated
have more emphasis than the solutions. This kind of giving requires constant
reevaluation, as the reevaluation is the main focus. It seeks to critique and
understand how beneficiaries, government, activists, and community leaders can
work together to create social change on a variety of issues. Additionally,
emergent philanthropy would most likely be best used in a larger scale
nonprofit that has more staff and finances to dedicate to constant reevaluation
and would still have staff and finances to dedicate to other areas.
The bigger question that these types of giving bring up is
the “big picture” versus people’s lives. For example, having a nonprofit that
addresses the causes of hunger and having a nonprofit that directly provides
people with food. In my opinion, both are vital. Society can not expect people
that are struggling to survive to be able to lift themselves up. I believe that
expectation is not only unfair, it is highly ignorant of systematic oppressions
many groups affected by hunger face. My idea for a way that the example of a
soup kitchen can be both strategic and emergent is for it to create a program
giving those who are benefitting from eating at the soup kitchen the
opportunity to volunteer in preparation, cooking, and distribution. This type
of giving would not only feed hungry stomachs, but would also give the
opportunity to give someone work experience and a reference from the person
supervising the soup kitchen when they do try to enter the work force. A
specific example of how volunteering can allow for someone to develop their
strengths and skills is this TEDx Talk (the benefits
are better explained towards the end).
Another different, yet connected issue, is that of the exorbitantly
wealthy’s philanthropy that can often be seen as selfish, self-serving, and
elitist. For example, when philanthropists create art galleries in their own
name. While the arts are important to many, they have little to do with the
greater good of the masses. After all, how will the Mona Lisa help someone who
has slept on the street for the past six months? This kind of giving, in my
opinion, does more to promote the perception of someone than actually bettering
society. A great example that critiques these types of giving (done by the
likes of Carnegie that we read about last week), is in this video. I believe
that creating an art gallery does not make up for years of abuse of workers,
the environment, and disproportionately benefitting off of society.
Furthermore, many of the wealthy’s labor practices do little-to-nothing for the
masses while keeping the elite in high power and then keeping that elitism by
funding the arts over helping the poor. Perhaps if these figures both past and
present earned a little less money and created better opportunities for
workers, there would be less of a need for lower classes to be assisted as much
as they are. This kind of idea speaks on addressing the systematic causes of
poverty instead of the symptoms of poverty.
No one chooses to be poor or hungry or homeless and creating
opportunities for people to be cared for and also better themselves is the
greatest way to allow people the ability to pull themselves up by their own
boot straps. I believe philanthropy can advance social change. But I also
believe social change begins with the individual. Therefore, there is no such
thing as meaningful giving that does not create social change.
Looking forward:
1.
What is meaningful giving to you?
2.
What kind of giving do you believe to be better?
3.
How do you feel about the relationship between
philanthropy and social change?
4.
Would society be better off if philanthropists
that were high-power company owners created better opportunities for workers
than if they donated their profits once passing?
Gilda Goldental-Stoecker
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading your article, I reflected on the four questions you posed. I would like to focus on the first one, so others can make comments about the others. Firstly, I do agree that the consequences of giving have an appeal to ethics- which is what makes it meaningful to most. But using a more holistic approach, I believe that meaningful giving is considered to be something that not only changes an individual's life or even a group of individuals lives for that matter. More importantly, it makes an impact on the long term. Remember the quote said in class, "You can give a man a fish or teach him how to fish." Ultimately, I would want to make a difference that has significance now, but is also seen for years to come. A great example of this is in the NY Times reading about meaningful giving. Dr. Michelson, a surgeon, donated $50,000 to a public community college where some students couldn't afford textbooks. Yes, this greatly made a difference in many students lives (and checkbooks), and Dr. Michelson felt a sense of pride in amplifying the initial $500 donation, but he even said he "only fed a hungry man a fish." He is now starting a nonprofit to digitize textbooks to make a more permanent solution and lessen the cost of textbooks. This, in turn, will decrease the number of students who to decide to end their education because of the inflated price of books. All in all, I know as a class we will make a good decision in how to disperse our grants, and the outcome will fit everyone's personal opinions on what is meaningful to them.
ReplyDeleteThank you for sharing this blog post, I found your ideas to be both insightful and intriguing. After reading your post, I have a couple questions for you. In your first paragraph, you mention how you disagree with the idea that some giving is not meaningful, that you believe any action that promotes the well being of others is meaningful. While I agree that helping others is always meaningful, I wanted to know if you believe that there are varying degrees of meaningfulness? I'll use an arbitrary example, if two charities build houses and charity A can build 5 houses with $100,000 and charity B can build 10 houses of the same quality, would it not be more meaningful to give $100,000 to charity B? Again I agree that giving that money is meaningful regardless, but I wanted to know if you think some forms of giving can be more meaningful than others?
ReplyDeleteMoving on, I think you made an excellent point about the coordinated efforts of different organizations. On hunger, you are fighting a losing battle if you simply solve peoples short term problem without providing them a means to feed themselves. On the reverse of that, it is nearly impossible for a starving person to find a job in order to sustain himself. So I definitely agree that is important to treat problems in as many ways as possible in order to try and eradicate them. Again, great post, it made for an enjoyable read.