Can Philanthropy Save Us?

This article was written but not published prior to the recent Council on Foundations conference which focused on many of these issues.? I was not present, so I don’t know if these questions were covered by various speakers. In any case, what follows are some of my thoughts.

?A few years ago, as part of our move from New York City to Washington, DC, we sold our Upper East Side Coop.? One of the bidders presented us with a decidedly low-ball offer.? It was far below the credible price.? We rejected the bid.? That bidder then returned with a follow up offer:? why don’t we just split the difference?? Of course, it was a classic ploy.? Given how low the first bid was, splitting the difference still would have left us way below a reasonable market price.? We rejected that as well.? We ended up selling the coop for a price that was consistent with what several other bidders offered.? ??That offer to “split the difference” was not a genuine attempt to find a win-win but rather to define things in such a way as there would have been a clear winner-loser reality.?

?I couldn’t help thinking of this as I have been reading about efforts by our philanthropy sector to provide a way out of the polarization and toxic civil discourse.? The Chronicle of Philanthropy and the Urban Institute recently offered a thoughtful webinar on what the sector may offer and how affirmation of a nuanced pluralism may be such an approach.?

?As one who has spent much of the volunteer part of my adult life engaged in many organizations and projects committed to intergroup understanding, begun long before I was fully in the foundation and philanthropy sector, I have deep personal investment in this. ??And with every bone in my body, I want to believe that there are ways we can get through this - that there are enough moderate forces that can counter the destructive voices and forces that dehumanize and delegitimatize.? That there really are enough commonalities [viz: The COP Commons] that we can create a counterforce that can restore reason, honesty, and affirmation.? I really, really want to align with those who want to be optimists.

?Yet so much of the discourse out there reminds me of that very simple example of our putative co-op bidder.? “I will be happy to negotiate with you if you accept that my win/reality is the only viable starting and end point.”???

?It was present when we heard those reject the “Black Live Matter” with the alternative “All Lives Matter.”?? On the surface, it may have seemed like a reasonable statement – but only if one chooses to deny the endemic racism in American history or believes that putative equality is the same as authentic equity.? It didn’t take long to realize that it was not truly intended as an affirmation of all but a rejection of the legitimate concerns of some.

?Along the same vein, the more contemporaneous political and social rejection of DEI initiatives strikes me [and many others] as nothing less than saying “your history and experience doesn’t count.”?? If the starting point of looking for common ground is to be forced to drop any claim of individual or group self-definition, it won’t – and shouldn’t – work. ??

?And, let’s be honest, what is the common ground between those who still seem to genuinely believe the lie that the past president was re-elected and those who believe what is true - that the current POTUS was duly elected?? If one cannot agree on facts, then what is the starting point?

?Lest you think I am only dubious of the Right; recent weeks have shown that the Left is not exempt.? When Jews are targeted for physical and verbal attacks as a surrogate for a political entity, accompanied by chants of “by any means necessary” and “from the river to the sea”, or when terrorism is dismissed as justifiable but military action is called genocide, it is hardly a basis for the commons. ?[These comments are not about my position on the Israel-Hamas war; they are about the public discourse surrounding it.]? And lest we forget, there are those all too willing to paint every Muslim as a terrorist or every immigrant as an invader.?

?Or when even the word “intersectionality” acquires political mandates of absolutist “insider/outsider”, it renders nuance null and void and dismisses historic alliances with the sweep of a phrase.

?

I am not the first, nor will I be the last to be a handwringer in the sense of foreboding this divide has brought about.? Nor am I the first nor will I be the last to attempt some paths forward, albeit with little confidence that I know how to get there. So before exploring whether our philanthropy sector can be the effective presence, voice, and influence to be the mediating and moderating center, permit some lessons I have learned from the last 50 years of active participation in intergroup dialogue.?

1.???? With few exceptions, those in the room are the ones willing to be in the room. ?We have no illusions that any of us speak for all of our own group, but only those who choose to participate acknowledge the legitimacy of the other.? Ater all, there are many within every one of our own groups who define such relationships as treasonous and disloyal.

?For but one example of many, in one such effort a couple of decades ago, a key member organization claimed to affirm the value of intergroup dialogue in principle, but proposed so many pre-conditions that it essentially ruled out any one from the other side who would be credible.? Fortunately, most of the participants outvoted those restrictions and some very productive dialogue ensued.?

?2.???? Effective relationship building does not require that we agree on beliefs, politics, or behaviors.? In fact, those that start with a facile common-humanity approach typically run into difficulties when it becomes clear that authenticity requires self-affirmation of one’s history, ethnicity, race, gender, belief system, and worldview. ??It is much healthier to start acknowledging the legitimacy of the other without asking them to be the same as us.

?3.???? Comparative tragedy is a no-win start.? How many of each group were enslaved, killed, discriminated against, and otherwise dehumanized over the centuries is guaranteed to lead to acrimony.? Our given shouldn’t be that “our suffering is/was greater than yours.”? Rather our starting point should be to clarify how that history informs our current fears, self-definition, and perspectives.? Our commonality is that we have those fears and insecurities, and pasts with pain.

?4.???? History has shown that disputation does not elucidate.? For example, it is quite appropriate that the 3 Abrahamic Traditions share how we use texts that define our belief and practice. ?And it is further instructive to see how those same texts can be read differently. It is highly inappropriate to then argue about who is correct.? Our respective traditions have hundreds of years of interpretation behind them.? Trying to dispute those interpretations is both offensive and counterproductive.

?5.???? Person-to-person is a necessary and indispensable starting point but an insufficient goal. Affirming the humanity of the one sitting next to you or across the table begins to open oneself to hearing them, sharing with them, and understanding them.? Those encounters can be beautiful, transformative, meaningful, and emotional. ?

?But it would be wrong to assume that such encounters are sufficient.? After all, real-world experience may include inequities, disenfranchisement, dislocation, and continuing inequalities. The challenge of true dialogue is what does/should one say or do when those inequities become clear. Successful dialogue can raise expectations of ally-ship or support. ??We don’t have to look much beyond the headlines of the last weeks and years to see how fragile that can be when identities are perceived to be antithetical to one’s own aspirations and affirmations. ?

?6.???? Institutional memory must be cultivated, not assumed.? The personal investment of time and psyche is not a one-and-done deal.? Every time there are new participants, or there is some external reality which challenges prior comfort levels, there is a renewed need to review what has been learned especially about the group culture, legitimate the learning curve of new participants, and recognize that dialogue, authentic dialogue, rarely means universal consensus or agreement.

?One example of many: All one needs do is examine the erosion of the Black-Jewish alliance of the Civil Rights era to see how that alliance became challenged by the BDEI movement and also in the response to the Israel-Hamas War. ??The relationships and years of mutual investments in dialogic relationship had either been taken for granted or usurped by other priorities by both communities. Older folks with personal memory bemoaned the loss – or felt abandoned, while younger folks on both sides didn’t experience that alliance and do not assume it is necessarily relevant for their own identities.

?

If these 6 are the conditions for effective bridge building, how does philanthropy stand up to the demands as an honest broker?? Let’s examine them seriatim.

1.???? ?The recognition that not everyone is prepared to “dialogue.”? ?The challenge in our deeply polarized reality is if the moderate middle is prepared to stand up to the predictable confrontations from either side. Can a committed “common” grow quickly enough to make a difference soon enough???? I confess that I have read commentators who are willing to posit an optimistic answer to that question, and those who see it as too little too late.??? Philanthropy itself is not a unified sector and, indeed, much of the support for partisan extremes comes from our sector, often in somewhat hidden ways.? Are enough of our colleagues willing to go public in their/our repudiation of or at least rebuttal of those partisan advocates?

?2.???? Acknowledging the “other”.? Our record in the funding world is mixed, and as we will see in #6, too often transient.? It is true that some funders have made major adjustments in enfranchisement, governance, and process in the last few years.? For some others, it was just another passing fad and those “commitments” have been as transient as their funding for the latest disaster.? No one assumes that everyone will be on one side or the other, but how funders perceive this kind of commitment will make a huge difference in its success or failure of our ability to bring about lasting change.?

?Moreover, for this effort to be successful, it will require profound self-searching about how our sector plays into long traditions of classism, elitism, and power.? The “other” must be someone whom we consider to be as legitimate as we.? Since so much of the affect of many funders is well intentioned benevolence, or perhaps paternalistic, some real self-awareness will be required for the field to play its desired role.

?3.???? Comparative suffering:? If funders can learn to be effective mediators and moderators [pun intended], there may well be a constructive role here.? But the challenge is to learn to play that role with the empathy it deserves – with some of the same caveats as in #2.?? After all, a mediator needs to make it safe for vulnerabilities to surface, and in a hyper partisan world, there are no shortages of vulnerabilities real and perceived, and no shortage of ways in which our affect can be counterproductive.

?4.???? Non-disputation:? We as funders make decisions.? We endorse particular approaches or programs or organizations which, by definition means that we don’t endorse other particular approaches programs and organizations. ?That is what we do.? Our funding decisions do endorse particular theories, methodologies, and ideologies.? Is the “common” a sufficient approach, program, and panoply of organizations that it can be both funded and endorsed? Will those endorsements be perceived as ideological rejections by partisans who then may refuse to participate in funded initiatives.? Perhaps this is where the “convener” role utilized so effectively by many in the funding world is particularly useful.

?5.???? Addressing the personal and the systemic:?? If the hurdles alluded to in 1-4 can be successfully overcome, I am quite sure that the person-to-person element of effective dialogue building can be implemented.? However, how will we respond when the dialogue proceeds to the systemic?? After all, our sector does represent “power” and most of our foundations and funder organizations exist as beneficiaries of a system that rewards some far more than others.? We have recently seen how quickly the sector mobilized and funded suggestions for some changes to the DAF system.? If those we are inviting into the “common” end up challenging our ofttimes distorted benefits, will the philanthropy sector recede into a self-preservation mode rather than a facilitative role?? Will our legal advisors suggest taking protective cover rather than acknowledging the work that really must be done?

?6.???? Institutional commitment:? As suggested in #2, our sector doesn’t have an impressive record of long-term memory.?? In order to repair the destructive partisan divide will require a long-term commitment to change the commonweal.? It will be crucial that this will not be the project of a particular set of CEO’s or Board Chairs, only to be shelved as they retire or finish their terms of office.

?

Can Philanthropy save us?? We certainly have the potential.? We are not accountable for quarterly reports, biennial elections, or other plebiscites so we can, and should, operate above the political fray. ??But operating above the political fray is different than avoiding it.? And autonomy needs to be a constructive privilege, not a self-serving one.?

As one who has devoted so much of my voluntary discretionary time and money to intergroup understanding and amity, I have no choice but to endorse the possibility that we can and should play a proactive role in the face of a destructive ethos.? But, in order for philanthropy to be the enabler, we must rise above our all too facile habits.

Also published as #480 on WisePhilanthropy.Institute