If community-based philanthropy ran like Carnegie-rooted philanthropy

One of the concepts that's taken root in our sector is the “Culture of Philanthropy,” which I wrote about here. In short, I don’t like it. Mainly because the Culture of Philanthropy seems to mostly be a "culture of everyone fundraising," since our field often conflates fundraising and philanthropy.  

But also, the concept of philanthropy itself has been warped. What many of us think of “philanthropy” is what I would call Carnegie-Rooted and Affected Philanthropy, since a lot of it is based on Carnegie's toxic, capitalism-affirming Gospel of Wealth. It has some key elements:  

·       People acquire wealth, often through inequitable means

·       Those with more money give a bit to those who have less, often with tax benefits  

·       In return, they are showered with appreciation

·       With donors of smaller amounts, they may get a nice thank-you note and their name on a wall or a brick or something.

·       With donors of larger amounts, they get to undemocratically dictate which issues are tackled and even in how people go about addressing those issues, and maybe their names on buildings

·       Families and corporations may build up so much wealth that they start foundations, further consolidating their power and influence on the rest of society.

This contrasts with what Dana R.H. Doan describes in this article as “community philanthropy,” which is rooted in "reciprocity, solidarity, transparency, obligation, and trust." It operates very differently from the Carnegian form, to the point that people may not even think of it as “philanthropy” and more of as just “community” and the responsibility of existing in community. Here are some examples:  

·       When someone dies, neighbors chip in to pay for the funeral.

·       When there are floods or other natural disasters, villagers collect money to help one another rebuild

·       Community members pool their funds to repair roads or support the village kids’ education.

. Neighbors set up fridges and pantries in their neighborhoods that anyone can access

·       Lending circles, often among groups of women, provide capital for members to start small businesses

·       Young couples getting married get money from the village to pay for the wedding and maybe even have a bit left over to start their new life together.

A lot of those examples are things I saw while growing up in Vietnam, and I’m sure they happen everywhere, including in the US. As Dana Doan in the above article says, this form of philanthropy is “present in traditional practices from around the world, such as South Africa – Ubuntu; Kenya – Harambee; Ireland – Meitheal; the People’s Republic of China – Renqing; and a number of Latin American countries – Buen Vivir. And, in North America, Native American tribes have long practiced mutual aid, regularly engaging in the practice of pooling and reinvesting their resources to protect and strengthen their communities.”

Over time, though, and not in small part due to our sector’s involvement, when people hear “philanthropy,” they automatically think of the first kind, with its top-down, donor-focused approach. No wonder so many people have become so jaded about philanthropy.

We should be aware of the differences of these forms of philanthropy, because the Carnegie model is so prevalent, it could affect community philanthropy. Can you imagine:

·       Someone in the community dies. There is a silent auction of the deceased’s things to help pay for the funeral. The family sells the naming rights to the coffin and tombstone.  

·       A flood destroys several houses. Neighbors form a group and ask people to contribute to the rebuilding fund, with those who contribute at a higher level geting invited to an exclusive event with tiny foods.

. A community fridge is set up. Someone gets offended. “The last time I donated some apples from my tree, I didn't even get a handwritten thank-you note!" They decided not to contribute to the fridge anymore.

·       Women’s lending circles exist, but instead of taking turns on a rotating basis to receive the pooled funds, members who have the strongest relationships with and can show how "innovative" and "scalable" they are always get the money.

·       A young couple gets married. They apply for grants from the various rich families in the community to pay for the wedding. They must write a theory of change and logic model explaining how their marriage would lead to positive outcomes for the village.

I’m mostly being facetious, but I have seen examples of community philanthropy being affected by Carnegian philanthropy.

Like the time I lived in Vietnam for a year after grad school and encountered a group of well-meaning neighbors bringing a camera and videotaping this teenager who lived under the stilts of someone else’s house, without the kid's consent. The young man was just minding his business when they barged in on him unannounced and started filming. A woman on the video gestured at him, saying, “Look at this, look how pitiful he is, how ragged his clothes are! He's sleeping on straw, next to the house owner's animals!”

I learned they planned to put on some event and needed the video to get people to donate, and they were leaning heavily into hero-savior/heartstring-tugging tactics.

Anyway, when we say “philanthropy” and “culture of philanthropy,” let’s be more aware of what we mean. And when possible, let’s push back against Carnegian philanthropy and lift up community philanthropy, and maybe let that be what we base the culture of philanthropy on.

Because, the word philanthropy means “love of humanity,” and neighbors looking out for one another without expectation of overt gratitude, public recognition, and tax benefits seems much more closely aligned with that definition.

--

Thank you to monthly Patreon supporters and Ghost subscribers for keeping these posts ad-free and open to everyone...and not written with AI (Please ignore the typos, run-on sentences, nonsensical metaphors, and other human errors).