WINGS Forum, Nairobi - Some Reflections

?

Now that a couple of weeks have elapsed since the WINGS Forum, permit a few thoughts and reactions to that very packed and fruitful few days.? While I have taught and spoken on both the north and south ends of the African continent before, this was my first visit to the sub-Saharan region. I learned a great deal and was unequivocally glad I went – even though, as you will see, it left me with a series of interesting open questions.

?For those of you who are not familiar with WINGS, it is the only truly international network in the philanthropy world.? In the years since its most recent in-person international gathering, 2017 Mexico City, which I also attended, the organization has grown substantially, and it has become much more ambitious in its goal to both amplify and transform the role of philanthropy in the world. It has been my pleasure to have been an active member during these years, participating on several committees/task forces/international meetings.? On a very personal level, it has led to some cherished friendships and collegial connections.

?

A great advantage of having the meeting in Africa was that attendance from Kenya and throughout the continent was higher than it would have been if the meeting had been elsewhere.? Appropriately, there was a proportionally greater focus on philanthropic developments there, although by no means was that the exclusive purview of the extensive conference programming.? There are rarely new questions in our field, but how and when they arise and are addressed are radically informed by history, culture, region, religion, and politics.? The broad scope of presentations from African funders and organizations provided me with a much more robust understanding.

?

At the end of the day, though, it was an international gathering where the vocabulary – and jargon – of our field was on full display.? What follows is an exploration of where that vocabulary can mean quite different things and what the implications may be.

?

1.????? ?Transformation:? The subtitle of the conference was “transform” – a mandate to our field.? What quickly became clear was that it meant two different things.

a.????? To transform philanthropic behavior.? This reading of the word emphasizes that traditional behaviors of the philanthropy/nfp/ngo sector needs to continue its evolution.? In many places the conversation about "trust based” or “participatory”? or other ways of giving greater power and authenticity to grantee “partners” is well underway. [it is still an open question how widespread the adoption of these changes is even in those places, but the discussion is on the table.]?? In listening to many of the presentations and comments from the floor, it was clear to me that those discussions and practices are not yet on the agenda in too much of the world.?? So, when those folks talked about “transformation” they were talking about best practices and “transformed” relationships between funder and grantee.

b.????? To transform the underlying economic system within which philanthropy operates.? There were speakers and attendees for whom transformation meant something much more systemic.? The concentration of wealth that leads to the great chasm between rich and poor is unconscionable and not sustainable.? Philanthropy cannot correct for this ethical discrepancy – only by changing tax systems and enfranchising citizens everywhere can this be addressed.? The extractive practices that have led to climate degradation have short- and long-term implications for the entire world. Philanthropy cannot correct this existential challenge to economies, migrations, and human existence.? Only by a concerted commitment by every sector will we begin to limit the already unleashed destructions.?

In this view, philanthropy has a unique imperative.? Our independence, our influence, and our values underpinnings should lead to a coordinated effort to bring about urgent changes.? While alone our sector cannot correct for those profound challenges, we are also not exempt or innocent.??

Of course, there is no inherent contradiction between a and b, but it was very striking to observe how differently the word was used or understood.? Our field must embrace both if we truly want to transform our practice and our impact.

?

2.????? Philanthropy:? The word clearly has different connotations depending where one is in the world, and where one is in the continuum of organizational role.? In much of the world, philanthropy is understood as the inclusive definition of all voluntary utilization of private resources for public good.? For others, it connotes a limited number of ultra wealthy multinational funders – and only those.

?

This became especially clear when numerous attendees asked publicly why the funders weren’t in the room.? I surely didn’t know every one of the several hundred attendees, but I know enough to know that at least half of us were funders in some way.?? What they meant, it seemed, were that the big, famous, multinational household-names superwealthy weren’t visible to them.? Implicitly, they were dismissing the majority of funders in the world and in their own communities as “philanthropy.” ?That connotation is why there is resistance to using the word to describe our field. ?Whether “generosity” or “voluntarism” are sufficiently descriptive alternatives is an open question, but the differing understandings of what our field is and who it describes was on full display in Nairobi.

?

[When I teach courses for philanthropists and foundation professionals, I always begin by rejecting what I call “voyeuristic history”? - the story of the charitable behaviors of the super-rich.? There have always been oligarchs, aristocrats, royalty whose wealth is legendary.?? But to truly understand the way in which philanthropy works is to study the practices and institutions of the everyday rich and local communities.? Our field does itself a disservice if it views the overwhelming majority of funders as “also-rans” when in fact it is the comparatively few ultrarich who are the exceptions.? Many of our colleagues in many parts of the world need to be reminded of this.]

?

3.????? Localism vs. Regionalism:? If there has been a trend in our field in the recent past, it is the recognition that too many philanthropic and development decisions have been top-down.? In addition to creating needless and counterproductive bureaucratic systems, it often limits the intended impact.? After all, if a project, program, intervention, or initiative has been developed from afar, and does not account for place-based implementation, it is highly likely to fall short of its intended goals.

?

USAID, the UN, the big philanthropy players, and many others have all come to this conclusion.? Too many years of flawed approaches, or inadequate implementation have finally convinced these players that what happens on the ground must influence decisions at the decision level.?? By all means, this has been a welcome trend in our field, and it is being seen in many corners of the globe.

?

At the same time, there is a countervailing trend as well.? Not very long ago, many argued, for example, that the concept of “Asian philanthropy” was an inconceivable fiction. After all, the argument went, China, Korea, Singapore, India, Japan, and Vietnam are all in the same continent.? Yet their laws, traditions, and philanthropy practices differ widely.? Indeed, I saw this myself when I was approached to develop an educational program under the auspices of a central player in the Asian philanthropy system.? When doing pre-interviews with people in different countries, each emphasized how different their culture and practice was from another.

?

Yet, low and behold, in recent months there have been publications and conferences espousing the idea of “Asian Philanthropy.”? Similar movements have taken place in Africa, and, while the history and the situation are somewhat different, the emergence of Philea in Europe suggests a similar direction.

?

Now, I am sure that all would argue that regional commonality does not require the elimination of individual and local realities, but it is striking to see both phenomena emerge at the same time.? I would have loved to have opportunity to explore these seemingly incompatible developments in more depth. There wasn’t occasion to do so in Nairobi, but perhaps the “Cultures of Giving” Task Force, which I have the honor to co-chair, will add this to our agenda.

?

4.????? Decolonization and Intersectionality:? If there was one discordant note for me personally it was an exchange I had with a fellow attendee following the conclusion of the WINGS Forum.? This person had taken umbrage at my comments about the challenges of applying Decolonization in a variety of settings around the world.? I will take full blame for a clumsy articulation of my understanding, but I do think that this is a complicated challenge for philanthropy.? At issue is how particular the application of the term.?? There is no doubt that there are particular populations that were exploited, displaced, or enslaved in much of the world and throughout history. And, as suggested in #1 above, the concentration of wealth which makes the most visible philanthropy possible is certainly derivative.?

?

The challenge for us is that one of the techniques of the colonizers was to cynically set groups against one another.? Nations, people, tribes, ethnic groups, religions were often parallel victims.? While history allows some genuine distinctions, as a category it falls short.? [For those that see this as exclusively a Western phenomenon, I commend the tome “Judgement at Tokyo: World War II on Trial and the Making of Modern Asia” by Gary Bass. The complexity deriving from colonization is surely a universal one.]

?

Many years ago, I learned from my involvement in working to ameliorate intergroup tensions that the first instinct of many is to establish a hierarchy of suffering – how many millions were killed, displaced, enslaved….? Quickly we learned that no one wins that competition since it would imply that one suffering, one fear, one fragility, one vulnerability is less real than another. Yes, there is sometimes more immediacy to the sense of vulnerability but no hierarchy of suffering.?When it argues for a long overdue corrective, built on the nuances and complexities of competing claims, it is on target.? When decolonization delegitimates the painful history of another group, it is an insufficient category.

?

Similarly, intersectionality is subject to the same problem.? We can all agree that to solve deep seated systemic issues, to redress racism, xenophobia, antisemitism, Islamophobia, gender bias, and so much more requires that sectors and interest groups must align.? We all recognize that social, economic, and political considerations are interwoven.? But it is also crucial to acknowledge that individuals have multiple identities and at any given time any one of them may claim primacy.?? Here, as with decolonization, if intersectionality requires that one must surrender all of one’s identity to a particular perspective, it is inadequate.

?

Why do I feel so strongly that these are our issues?? Philanthropy needs to be an advocate for addressing and redressing these deep and abiding historical claims, adding a perspective that allows for nuanced distinctions, and mediates between ?competing claims of legitimacy. It is our unique attribute to be able to look at the most complex issues of our time and help to see alternative paths. We don’t always do so well, and we certainly don’t always succeed, but it is one of our distinct strengths.

?

Given the world as it is today, that role may seem too idealistic.? But let’s remember that France and Germany were enemies for many generations and are allies today.? Ireland was hopelessly divided until one day it wasn’t.? ??History does not only give examples of failure but also some that can give hope.? We in philanthropy must use our precious resources, only some of which are financial, to reinforce that hope.

?

This will not be an easy future agenda for WINGS or for anyone else in our philanthropy world. It is one that deserves to be on our table.

?

?

Addendum:

?

My report about my time in Nairobi would be incomplete without serendipity that fits perfectly with how we in our field can use our financial resources.? I am sure that few readers will be surprised to learn that Mirele and I have a [modest] impact investment in Gigawatt Global, a company that is developing solar fields in Africa. By pure coincidence, overlapping our WINGS conference was an African solar industry conference.? Some notable solar projects were honored there, one of which was Gigawatt Global’ s successful solar project in Burundi.? ?What a treat to represent the investors along with the Kenya based staff in accepting that award prior to heading home.? It was a fitting capstone to a content filled week.

Also #464 on the Institute for Wise Philanthropy blog

?