Appreciate this interview. I will put the book on hold, it’s very relevant to my work.
I do want to say that I think a lot of the “average” employees (midlevel, low level, and even some c-suite!) at philanthropic and nonprofits organizations do think about these issues and have been talking about these things for a while. (Folks should check out Vu Le’s amazing Nonprofit AF blog — he would be a great interview for culture study!)… the forces that we who envision a different way forward are working against, though, are as is illustrated in this interview, systemic and hard to move the needle on.
And I appreciate the point about Mackenzie Scott’s efforts not moving the needle on public policy or systemic change, but philanthropists and organizations also come in for criticism when they try to do that (for example, the Red campaign and related One campaign are about advancing funding and advocacy for policies to end poverty and HIV, ultimately working towards achieving certain sustainable development goals)…. So it can feel like there is no winning.
I don’t know. I got into this work because I was once a bright eyed, bushy tailed college grad who wanted to do work that aligned with my values. In some ways it’s never felt like a more hopeless time for those of us in these fields — individual giving is decreasing, governmental support for global health and development causes is shrinking as resources are redirected domestically and also to global conflicts… the author is right that things are not working. But it can be hard to keep your head up sometimes as we try to work towards a better system!
Definitely agree re: these conversations are happening within non-profits — when I was reading the book, my sense that the implicit intended audience is actually normal people outside the organizations (and, well, the CEOs.....who often but not always have an.....INTERESTING posture towards all of this stuff). And I'm a huge fan of Vu Le! He (rightly) has rates for things like speaking gigs but I keep dreaming I can get him in the newsletter or on the pod.
If MacKenzie Scott built a network of public buildings/institutions across the U.S, like Carnegie’s libraries, wouldn’t she be criticized for deciding what communities need, versus supporting the local communities in their existing infrastructures and deciding for themselves where money should go? I don’t run to defend billionaires from critique, but I do sometimes feel like no matter what MacKenzie Scott does with her money someone somewhere will go “aha! here’s why it’s wrong though!” It’s hard for me to imagine her saying “I’m going to give cities these big buildings that will be a positive value-add because they’re publicly accessible and beautiful” and people not thinking that’d be wrong. I think she’s operating in such a wildly broken system (capitalism in the U.S) and doing something really powerful and positive with her totally unearned privilege. People should get universal basic income, and have enough food to eat without individuals donating to food banks, and everyone should have free healthcare, and everyone should have safe homes to live in. Dogs shouldn’t be euthanized in overcrowded shelters made of concrete. Our government fails us. Billionaires shouldn’t exist. I think Scott giving away her money no strings attached is the best thing she can do.
Edit: an additional thought is that I think it’s a really bizarre argument to make that Carnegie’s outcome/impact was superior to what Scott’s may be, after just critiquing the very cold hard metrics of movements like effective altruism. Do we really want to measure philanthropy by outcome and not by process? It is Scott’s process that has been so revolutionary in philanthropy. This critique grounded in the comparison to Carnegie just feels really reaching to me.
I was the lead human in my org applying for Scott's Open Call this year, so it feels particularly personal reading about these arguments. From that end, the process has been one of the simpler applications we've filled out for any amount of money over $5,000, and that's really appreciated. AHP's point that interrogating Scott's current process is important, and I do think there's room for Scott to push for system reforms as well (whether at the level of funding strike funds or literal policy change e.g. livable minimum wages and/or UBI).
Asking for myself: why is it so hard to sit with the tension of "this is better than we've ever seen from the tech billionaires! And it could be better!" instead of trying to choose one argument or the other?
I definitely think all things philanthropy could and should be better, primarily because I don’t believe philanthropy should be needed — I think the health and safety of humans, animals, and planet should be funded through public means and I think the arts should be as well! I’m mostly flummoxed by the Carnegie comparison.
Agree — I think this is why Amy frames this as one of the riskier/controversial arguments in the book, because I think a lot of people agree that what Scott is doing has been very thought-through (and far less ego-driven than a lot of her tech money peers). This is sometimes the challenge with an argument — yes, she would be criticized no matter what she does, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't also interrogate the current choice.
Sure, I agree the choice is worth interrogating. But I guess it just seems like it’s been interrogated a lot, by a lot of different people and groups, and this particular line of inquiry landing on a position of “Carnegie‘s libraries may have had a bigger impact than Scott’s no strings attached redistribution of her wealth” just strikes me as really bizarre.
And also, by noting that the argument is riskier/controversial, I’m also just wondering what is the point of the argument? How does that help us expand our understanding of philanthropy and/or inequality? Like what’s the goal of the argument? Like, for me, this is where I come back to that feeling of is the point just to go “a-ha! here’s where there’s opportunity to criticize! I found it!”
I don’t think any of us need to praise a billionaire for not holding onto her billions, but I also think she is doing the right thing giving it away in the least fucked up way possible, and I’m just not clear if we’re supposed to think she should’ve done what Andrew Carnegie did instead of what she is doing now...
I agree with your line of questioning here! I was wrestling with these exact thoughts during the Scott v Carnegie part of the interview.
I’m not sure that I needed the comparison (or perhaps just the verdict that Carnegie “did it better”) to be able to grasp the point that freely giving no strings attached money does not in and of itself help to dismantle power structures in a lasting way. I LOVED the point she was making on that front and it was not a distinction I’ve personally thought through or grasped before. So, because that’s the part where I learned something new, that was the point of the argument (to me). I’m not sure I enjoyed it being framed as “this guy did it better” and “she is doing it worse,” though.
I think it might have felt more inquisitive and encouraging if the argument had been framed like “there are different ways to go about this, let’s look at two examples, examine why they’re different, and then use that examination to point out why the long-term dismantling of power structures might be a more meaningful or lasting way to approach giving our time and money.” Like, I think I care less about criticizing Scott and more about better understanding or examining my own relationship with donating money...and I ended up feeling a little unnecessarily lost in the Scott criticism.
I haven’t read the actual book though so perhaps the argument unfolds in a different way given the longer format of a full chapter.
Totally agree. And many of the recipients do take on big capital projects - like beautiful public buildings! - or it provides them unrestricted cash that they can then use to engage in policy advocacy or other upstream, systems work that’s hard to get funding for. Or that’s been my limited understanding having talked to staff of organizations who are Scott grant recipients. It’s meant to be a transformational gift and many organizations also re-grant some of the funds to other more proximate, locally-rooted organizations or organizers.
Right! Andrew Carnegie has had over a century for his philanthropic projects to shake out, and we remember his association with the libraries in part because *they're all named for him*.
Who knows what lasting, transformative things will be done with the kind of money Mackenzie Scott is splashing around?
I have a related rant about the obsession with nonprofits' CEO pay and/or "overhead." We've so obviously been conditioned to treat our giving as consumption, there's an element of rather mindless entitlement there. "I want my gift to go to the people who need it" - and be administered by whoever will take a poverty wage?
I'm looking forward to reading the book! I think a lot about the difference between charity and solidarity and how it actually plays out in a world that's invested in dividing us from each other. The thesis that philanthropy should serve a different purpose from government funds is really interesting!
This thinking is also predicated on the old understanding that anyone who did philanthropy work "didn't need the money" — aka, they were already rich and/or they were married to someone who's rich. The endurance of that thinking has limited the pool of people who can do the work today in meaningful and fucked up ways....and when it hasn't limited, it's just made the people who do this work poor, in debt, and in many cases reliant on social services. It pisses me off beyond measure.
Yes! And it reveals so much about what we think the job *is.* not "do vital work at a high level of professionalism" but some of the consumables pointed out here: make me feel smart/savvy, assuage my conscience (or keep these problems out of sight), or do care work which equals women's work which equals unskilled labor. Or something the wealthy are uniquely equipped to do: interpret these issues/ groups of people to me in a way that makes me comfortable.
Also, my husband pointed out how being a public schoolteacher has also become a "job for the wealthy" here in the South, and it also has observable weird/ bad effects on the quality and culture of schools.
Part of my "if I were a zillionaire" fantasy is giving gobs of cash to nonprofits with the only condition being that everyone gets a raise and, like, you can upgrade the HVAC in your office or replace that wobbly conference table.
Definitely part of the appeal of mutual aid / gofundme giving (at the much smaller scale my actual non-zillionaire self gives at) is that I don't have to worry about the admin/working conditions side of what I'm supporting.
What a dreamy fantasy 😆 i think this is how one of those giant nonprofits (Charity:Water maybe?) works - their operating expenses are pledged by major donors so they can tell everyone else that every dollar goes directly to some tangible thing (wells?).
In one of my NPO jobs, I learned that a lot of people in that town assumed that all people who worked for nonprofits were VOLUNTEERS. It absolutely blew my mind.
I've been in this sector (specifically working as a grant professional) for nearly 20 years--the most batshit and unhinged things that have ever been said to me or about me have exclusively been said by board members or donors (same same, due to their social strata). Many of those batshit things have been along the lines of "you are lucky to receive any pay for this work" etc. I agree thoroughly, it is mind-blowing.
On a similar note, it used to drive me nuts when people would commonly say “well you don’t do it for the pay!” and it’s like yeah that’s why we have such a high rate of turnover
I sort of meant to say I also thinks this points to the dehumanization thing - like, you want "the people who need it" to have to interact with a dysfunctional organization and falling-apart infrastructure. Cool cool cool.
Also, in some sectors, the people who staff the organizations are often from the communities being served. I’m thinking specifically about Planned Parenthood. They often pay their reproductive health assistants absolute shit, and those are the people who are serving patients directly, and are often members of the community they are serving themselves. So it’s a shitty experience for everyone in the room.
Specifically, the info they link to about accurate overhead/admin rates of the most "effective" and "successful" NGOs being closer to 30% instead of the 5% or 10% we're supposed to aim for! As someone that works for a nonprofit doing lots of admin tasks, it was so validating for me to read that.
(And I'm also annoyed that the goal is for NGOs to be optimally "effective," whatever that means! But that's another rant.)
I’ve done some research and writing on Cincinnati’s Carnegie Libraries (one of the medium size cities with the most surviving Carnegie libraries to this day). One thing that’s worth pointing out is that Andrew Carnegie required communities to pledge 10% of the donation amount he’d give to the maintenance, operations, and staffing of the library. He also moved away from funding major central libraries to small community/neighborhood libraries very early in his library philanthropy.
A lot of people have probably seen images of the famous old Cincinnati Library with levels and levels of books and pages retrieving them (don’t romanticize it! It was a death trap!) and the library trustees were constantly badgering Carnegie (well, his secretary who handled most of the applications) for funding to replace the main location. But the Carnegie staffers were adamant that they felt several neighborhood libraries would do more good than one major library. Was this an example of philanthropic arrogance? Maybe. Did it turn out to be the right call? Probably, because those several neighborhood libraries formed the backbone of what is now the country’s second largest public library system by holdings (only after NYPL).
YES. YES! In my career in fundraising I’ve started to see some of these exact problems, and only recently have begun to clarify my thoughts about what is bad about them. For me, thinking about how modern fundraising tactics harm the public’s ability to develop virtuous habits of philanthropy was a helpful framework. I especially worry that AI and algorithmic enhanced digital fundraising seeks to remove all thoughtfulness out of giving and just make it a quick and brainless process, and it’s impossible to develop virtues of charity, kindness, and justice that way.
I’m presenting at a philosophy conference in February on the topic, so now I need to read this book ASAP and update my talk with what I’m sure are going to be amazing insights! Thank you so much for this!!!!
This is really interesting! I can't wait to read the book. It makes me wonder about Philanthropy in context of grass roots Mutual Aid and even Reparations and how those all get conflated and how giving has changed since or because of Covid and the ease of sending someone a Venmo or Cash App payment.
Furthermore, I am an artist and folks in my professional circle have very little capital or income. My Instagram feed is full of pleas for "my dog needs emergency surgery, please buy my painting at 50% off so I can pay for it" and "I had a health crisis and no savinga or healthcare, but a print for $10 to help pay my $10,000 hospital bill". I wonder about the prevalence of regular individuals needing more income, and just by absorbing enough marketing in their lifetime, their ability to ask for money or market their cause on social media.
What I am ultimately saying is I am really struggling with how to give my $25, $100 here and there. Do I Venmo it to a stranger on the Internet? Do I buy a friends art? Do I give to my church, kids school, neighborhood charity, global charity, NPR, public television, political campaigns, etc. I carry a lot of privilege and live simply (and I would hope generously!) but I don't have much excess cash nor do I really understand the tax benefits of giving/ I'm not giving enough to make it worth it. I know Mutual Aid/ Venmo/ Go Fund Me is not tax deductible.
Ok there are my thoughts for the moment, someone else can pick apart the threads.
P.S. I regularly go to a Carnegie library in my neighborhood (looks like the picture!) and it's the bomb. I attend a church (built in 1893) with a Carnegie pipe organ. While beautiful, it hasn't aged quite as well. It is a very *specific* sound and style of music. The one guy who played it sometimes for fun died.
As a fundraiser this really spoke to me and I can’t wait to read this book and dive deeper. On a related subject, as an arts fundraiser myself, I’d love to see a future Culture Study interview about how the culture of philanthropy (and the broken nonprofit arts model) has regional arts organizations in a chokehold, and how almost every mid-to large-sized regional arts organization is absolutely beholden to their donors to continue operating (esp. following the initial impact of the pandemic, and as costs to produce art rise combined with more unpredictable purchasing behaviour from patrons), and what that does in terms of limiting the kinds of art we see in our cities (because what ends up happening is that organizations can’t produce “risky” art at a large scale if donors don’t want to fund it).
(im also an arts fundraiser?? How are there so many of us here, haha) yes to all this - or - bad behavior from a few anointed founders is tolerated due to donor reverence and obliviousness. I wish I thought this was an oddly specific comment, but, I think it’s a enough of a pattern to pop up in many scenes, disciplines and places.
Would love to read this! I live in Cincinnati which has a phenomenal local culture of arts philanthropy and really punches above its weight for a Midwest city our size. I also know what we have here is very much outside the norm. I feel so strongly that arts and culture has to be supported outside major cities and would LOVE to read or listen to more about this topic.
I’m going to request this book... from my public library ;)
Short plug for giving circles:
There’s huge power in ordinary citizens banding together in our communities to give no-strings-attached grants/funding. I’m the Dean of my local chapter of The Awesome Foundation ($1,000 grants given by a circle of 10 folks). One of our criteria is: ‘does this project make our city more awesome?’
Thinking about ‘awesomeness’ is similar to LeBron James’s ‘freedom’ for kids: it’s not quantifiable, but it sure adds quality to a lot of lives.
Great interview! Anyone interested in this area should check out Emma Saunders-Hastings's book "Private Virtues, Public Vices: Philanthropy and Democratic Equality", which critiques the entire concept of philanthropy. It's an academic book, so it's a bit harder to get into, but the quality of argument is impeccable and wide-ranging: https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/P/bo125362811.html
YES YES YES. All of this. Just ordered the book! Currently, I am facing a huge push at work from the executive suite to raise more $ and an internal power vacuum that is causing all of the fundraising departments to be placed in some sort of Thunderdome-esque battle. My main issue is that we are forgetting the humanity of philanthropy. Donors are not ATMs. Donors are passionate about their causes and give when it is personally meaningful to them, their lives, and their families. Most donors (at least in my current field of public media and past field of performing arts) are not moved by arbitrary days like Giving Tuesday. They are moved by stories, by impact, by a feeling. Sure, we can measure effectiveness of a campaign, or that someone clicked through a link in an email versus a link on a website, but in the end it is still about people. I am increasingly frustrated by the outsized focus on ROI, testing, and AI (all important tools) and the decrease in focus on the WHY of donor behavior.
I would LOVE to read this but I am in charge of email appeals for my organization, trying to wrap up so I can actually take some of my vacation days this year, and might be too triggered right now to read this and get everything done too (because I can already tell I 100% agree even from within the trenches)
This is the book that I now do not have to write! And now I will go out and get it! I've worked in philanthropy most of my career and have investigated and interrogated so many of the dynamics laid out in this interview, and I assume, the book. I was having a conversation (with a donor no less) about this very topic yesterday. So long as human beings love money, power, and king-ship, we will have issues like this--this is my great fear. So many gems in this piece.
"The cash giving operates as a settlement. It alleviates damage, but doesn’t create new centers of power. " Yes. And why would power cede power? (rhetorical, cynical)
I've struggled for many years with this career, in no small part because in the nonprofit world it compensates reasonably well, and gives the feeling (at least the illusion) of doing some good in the world. But I can see into all the places that Schiller lists (and as another commenter mentioned Vu Le of NonProfitAF also notes) and feel kind of hopeless.
What to do? Read the book, push for change and try to operate in my field with the ethics and morals required to do as little harm (and as much good) as possible.
I've been working in fundraising for about a decade at this point and this interview really speaks to me. I often think about how in many ways the ideal outcome of my work is that we'd redistribute enough wealth that my job would no longer need to exist. I know this won't happen in my lifetime - and may not ever happen - but we can dream.
You are onto something with this line of thinking! There are two popular schools of thought on advocacy / organizing in the U.S. the first is Rules for Radicals - which I could never get through and the other is The MidWest Academy Organizing for Social Change. In the latter they note the goal of organizing/advocacy work should be to put yourself out of a job. The ultimate success is that either the community you have been working with is empowered to do this work on their own or whatever problem the organization is addressing has been resolved. The work is not easy but it is often rewarding to sit at the leading edge of change. I no longer work in the non-profit sector bc it stopped feeling like place to bring about real change, however I do bring these same tactics into the for-profit sector to build the right thing that enables tech to improve people's lives. It is not easy in either sector, however the community you can build along the way and the impact you can have is worth it.
I used to work in non-profit and snarkily refer to it as "morality washing for billionaires."
It is so so so demoralizing to work for pennies, each one fought for from people who have more money than they could use in several lifetimes. Like maybe instead of having a foundation pay all your taxes.
I saw a tiktok recently that was like non-profit math is making non profits have 15% or less overhead when a foundation is 100% overhead because they don't do anything and where is the lie.
I'm a former nonprofit fundraiser and executive director and I cannot wait to read this book. There's so much to unpack with philanthropy and the way we do social justice and human services (these were my areas) in this country. I read Anand Giridharadas's book Winners Take All when it came out, and it felt like he gave voice to the nagging feelings I'd had over my 20-year career soliciting donations from extremely wealthy individuals. I'm so interested to dig in to Amy's book, especially since it sounds like she is looking at small-donor philanthropy, too, and not just the mega-rich. I would so love to dive deep into discussions on these topics with other current/former nonprofit folks.
One important aspect of the donor experience the interview glanced over is philanthropic numbness. I'm not proud to admit it, but I think addressing what's causing this apathy is critical to figuring out what's wrong with modern philosophy. I also suspect many others might feel the same.
Over the past year, I've just stopped opening all the dozen or so donation request letters I get per month from various charities. I think this numbness originates from a couple of places.
One, I already donate to a few of my favorite charities each month, so seeing other charities begging for more donations feels a bit overwhelming. It makes me feel that no matter how many causes or underprivileged groups I support, it's not enough to appease the world's need for philanthropy. The vexation I feel towards this aspect of the issue is kind of akin to decision paralysis--where people who are presented with too many choices end up choosing nothing at all.
Two, given the volume and frequency that the same charities request donations, the whole process feels increasingly impersonal each time I see their letters. It makes me feel like I'm just another individual they have to target in order to meet their monthly quota of donation requests (which is probably not that far from the truth).
Three--and this is sad to say--seeing the same formulaic pleads ("donate $5 to save X number of children from going hungry") and the same type of pictures (starving child, usually African) plastered across envelopes numbs you to the desperation that the charities are trying to convey. I don't mean the issues these charities support aren't legitimate. I just mean my brain only has so much capacity to focus on these pleads before needing to move on to other, also pertinent, daily tasks.
This was just my rant against mail-based donation requests. Add in all the requests you see from the internet and social media and well...the hailstorm is even bigger.
I really like this quote from the interview, "this activity that literally means love of humanity has, in some ways, dehumanized others"; however, I'd go one step further and argue that modern philanthropy not only dehumanizes those it tries to help but also those from whom they try ask for help. I'm not sure if there is a solution for people on either side of the coin, but I do think encouraging people to become more conscious of this issue is a promising start. Thanks for spurring this conversation today, Dr. Petersen. :)
Appreciate this interview. I will put the book on hold, it’s very relevant to my work.
I do want to say that I think a lot of the “average” employees (midlevel, low level, and even some c-suite!) at philanthropic and nonprofits organizations do think about these issues and have been talking about these things for a while. (Folks should check out Vu Le’s amazing Nonprofit AF blog — he would be a great interview for culture study!)… the forces that we who envision a different way forward are working against, though, are as is illustrated in this interview, systemic and hard to move the needle on.
And I appreciate the point about Mackenzie Scott’s efforts not moving the needle on public policy or systemic change, but philanthropists and organizations also come in for criticism when they try to do that (for example, the Red campaign and related One campaign are about advancing funding and advocacy for policies to end poverty and HIV, ultimately working towards achieving certain sustainable development goals)…. So it can feel like there is no winning.
I don’t know. I got into this work because I was once a bright eyed, bushy tailed college grad who wanted to do work that aligned with my values. In some ways it’s never felt like a more hopeless time for those of us in these fields — individual giving is decreasing, governmental support for global health and development causes is shrinking as resources are redirected domestically and also to global conflicts… the author is right that things are not working. But it can be hard to keep your head up sometimes as we try to work towards a better system!
Definitely agree re: these conversations are happening within non-profits — when I was reading the book, my sense that the implicit intended audience is actually normal people outside the organizations (and, well, the CEOs.....who often but not always have an.....INTERESTING posture towards all of this stuff). And I'm a huge fan of Vu Le! He (rightly) has rates for things like speaking gigs but I keep dreaming I can get him in the newsletter or on the pod.
Seconding the suggestion for Vu Le!
Came here to say this. All this.
If MacKenzie Scott built a network of public buildings/institutions across the U.S, like Carnegie’s libraries, wouldn’t she be criticized for deciding what communities need, versus supporting the local communities in their existing infrastructures and deciding for themselves where money should go? I don’t run to defend billionaires from critique, but I do sometimes feel like no matter what MacKenzie Scott does with her money someone somewhere will go “aha! here’s why it’s wrong though!” It’s hard for me to imagine her saying “I’m going to give cities these big buildings that will be a positive value-add because they’re publicly accessible and beautiful” and people not thinking that’d be wrong. I think she’s operating in such a wildly broken system (capitalism in the U.S) and doing something really powerful and positive with her totally unearned privilege. People should get universal basic income, and have enough food to eat without individuals donating to food banks, and everyone should have free healthcare, and everyone should have safe homes to live in. Dogs shouldn’t be euthanized in overcrowded shelters made of concrete. Our government fails us. Billionaires shouldn’t exist. I think Scott giving away her money no strings attached is the best thing she can do.
Edit: an additional thought is that I think it’s a really bizarre argument to make that Carnegie’s outcome/impact was superior to what Scott’s may be, after just critiquing the very cold hard metrics of movements like effective altruism. Do we really want to measure philanthropy by outcome and not by process? It is Scott’s process that has been so revolutionary in philanthropy. This critique grounded in the comparison to Carnegie just feels really reaching to me.
I was the lead human in my org applying for Scott's Open Call this year, so it feels particularly personal reading about these arguments. From that end, the process has been one of the simpler applications we've filled out for any amount of money over $5,000, and that's really appreciated. AHP's point that interrogating Scott's current process is important, and I do think there's room for Scott to push for system reforms as well (whether at the level of funding strike funds or literal policy change e.g. livable minimum wages and/or UBI).
Asking for myself: why is it so hard to sit with the tension of "this is better than we've ever seen from the tech billionaires! And it could be better!" instead of trying to choose one argument or the other?
I definitely think all things philanthropy could and should be better, primarily because I don’t believe philanthropy should be needed — I think the health and safety of humans, animals, and planet should be funded through public means and I think the arts should be as well! I’m mostly flummoxed by the Carnegie comparison.
Agree — I think this is why Amy frames this as one of the riskier/controversial arguments in the book, because I think a lot of people agree that what Scott is doing has been very thought-through (and far less ego-driven than a lot of her tech money peers). This is sometimes the challenge with an argument — yes, she would be criticized no matter what she does, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't also interrogate the current choice.
Sure, I agree the choice is worth interrogating. But I guess it just seems like it’s been interrogated a lot, by a lot of different people and groups, and this particular line of inquiry landing on a position of “Carnegie‘s libraries may have had a bigger impact than Scott’s no strings attached redistribution of her wealth” just strikes me as really bizarre.
And also, by noting that the argument is riskier/controversial, I’m also just wondering what is the point of the argument? How does that help us expand our understanding of philanthropy and/or inequality? Like what’s the goal of the argument? Like, for me, this is where I come back to that feeling of is the point just to go “a-ha! here’s where there’s opportunity to criticize! I found it!”
I don’t think any of us need to praise a billionaire for not holding onto her billions, but I also think she is doing the right thing giving it away in the least fucked up way possible, and I’m just not clear if we’re supposed to think she should’ve done what Andrew Carnegie did instead of what she is doing now...
I agree with your line of questioning here! I was wrestling with these exact thoughts during the Scott v Carnegie part of the interview.
I’m not sure that I needed the comparison (or perhaps just the verdict that Carnegie “did it better”) to be able to grasp the point that freely giving no strings attached money does not in and of itself help to dismantle power structures in a lasting way. I LOVED the point she was making on that front and it was not a distinction I’ve personally thought through or grasped before. So, because that’s the part where I learned something new, that was the point of the argument (to me). I’m not sure I enjoyed it being framed as “this guy did it better” and “she is doing it worse,” though.
I think it might have felt more inquisitive and encouraging if the argument had been framed like “there are different ways to go about this, let’s look at two examples, examine why they’re different, and then use that examination to point out why the long-term dismantling of power structures might be a more meaningful or lasting way to approach giving our time and money.” Like, I think I care less about criticizing Scott and more about better understanding or examining my own relationship with donating money...and I ended up feeling a little unnecessarily lost in the Scott criticism.
I haven’t read the actual book though so perhaps the argument unfolds in a different way given the longer format of a full chapter.
Totally agree. And many of the recipients do take on big capital projects - like beautiful public buildings! - or it provides them unrestricted cash that they can then use to engage in policy advocacy or other upstream, systems work that’s hard to get funding for. Or that’s been my limited understanding having talked to staff of organizations who are Scott grant recipients. It’s meant to be a transformational gift and many organizations also re-grant some of the funds to other more proximate, locally-rooted organizations or organizers.
Agree. I also think the entire argument is premature.
Right! Andrew Carnegie has had over a century for his philanthropic projects to shake out, and we remember his association with the libraries in part because *they're all named for him*.
Who knows what lasting, transformative things will be done with the kind of money Mackenzie Scott is splashing around?
I have a related rant about the obsession with nonprofits' CEO pay and/or "overhead." We've so obviously been conditioned to treat our giving as consumption, there's an element of rather mindless entitlement there. "I want my gift to go to the people who need it" - and be administered by whoever will take a poverty wage?
I'm looking forward to reading the book! I think a lot about the difference between charity and solidarity and how it actually plays out in a world that's invested in dividing us from each other. The thesis that philanthropy should serve a different purpose from government funds is really interesting!
This thinking is also predicated on the old understanding that anyone who did philanthropy work "didn't need the money" — aka, they were already rich and/or they were married to someone who's rich. The endurance of that thinking has limited the pool of people who can do the work today in meaningful and fucked up ways....and when it hasn't limited, it's just made the people who do this work poor, in debt, and in many cases reliant on social services. It pisses me off beyond measure.
Yes! And it reveals so much about what we think the job *is.* not "do vital work at a high level of professionalism" but some of the consumables pointed out here: make me feel smart/savvy, assuage my conscience (or keep these problems out of sight), or do care work which equals women's work which equals unskilled labor. Or something the wealthy are uniquely equipped to do: interpret these issues/ groups of people to me in a way that makes me comfortable.
Also, my husband pointed out how being a public schoolteacher has also become a "job for the wealthy" here in the South, and it also has observable weird/ bad effects on the quality and culture of schools.
Yes, yes, all of this!
Part of my "if I were a zillionaire" fantasy is giving gobs of cash to nonprofits with the only condition being that everyone gets a raise and, like, you can upgrade the HVAC in your office or replace that wobbly conference table.
Definitely part of the appeal of mutual aid / gofundme giving (at the much smaller scale my actual non-zillionaire self gives at) is that I don't have to worry about the admin/working conditions side of what I'm supporting.
Vu Le calls this MYGOD money: multi-year general operating dollars.
What a dreamy fantasy 😆 i think this is how one of those giant nonprofits (Charity:Water maybe?) works - their operating expenses are pledged by major donors so they can tell everyone else that every dollar goes directly to some tangible thing (wells?).
In one of my NPO jobs, I learned that a lot of people in that town assumed that all people who worked for nonprofits were VOLUNTEERS. It absolutely blew my mind.
I've been in this sector (specifically working as a grant professional) for nearly 20 years--the most batshit and unhinged things that have ever been said to me or about me have exclusively been said by board members or donors (same same, due to their social strata). Many of those batshit things have been along the lines of "you are lucky to receive any pay for this work" etc. I agree thoroughly, it is mind-blowing.
On a similar note, it used to drive me nuts when people would commonly say “well you don’t do it for the pay!” and it’s like yeah that’s why we have such a high rate of turnover
I DO, actually, do it for the pay though.
Exactly! It’s such a disrespectful thing to say to someone as commentary about them being underpaid!
Like, my landlord doesn't take "good intentions" when the rent is due.
I was on the review committee for a local community foundation this fall and the group discussion about pay was certainly something to behold.
I sort of meant to say I also thinks this points to the dehumanization thing - like, you want "the people who need it" to have to interact with a dysfunctional organization and falling-apart infrastructure. Cool cool cool.
Also, in some sectors, the people who staff the organizations are often from the communities being served. I’m thinking specifically about Planned Parenthood. They often pay their reproductive health assistants absolute shit, and those are the people who are serving patients directly, and are often members of the community they are serving themselves. So it’s a shitty experience for everyone in the room.
Absolutely, when your employees are poor enough to qualify for your services, an organization has to ask itself WTF it's actually doing.
Someone recently pointed me to this website: https://www.fundingforrealchange.com/practices-to-fund-real-change
Specifically, the info they link to about accurate overhead/admin rates of the most "effective" and "successful" NGOs being closer to 30% instead of the 5% or 10% we're supposed to aim for! As someone that works for a nonprofit doing lots of admin tasks, it was so validating for me to read that.
(And I'm also annoyed that the goal is for NGOs to be optimally "effective," whatever that means! But that's another rant.)
I’ve done some research and writing on Cincinnati’s Carnegie Libraries (one of the medium size cities with the most surviving Carnegie libraries to this day). One thing that’s worth pointing out is that Andrew Carnegie required communities to pledge 10% of the donation amount he’d give to the maintenance, operations, and staffing of the library. He also moved away from funding major central libraries to small community/neighborhood libraries very early in his library philanthropy.
A lot of people have probably seen images of the famous old Cincinnati Library with levels and levels of books and pages retrieving them (don’t romanticize it! It was a death trap!) and the library trustees were constantly badgering Carnegie (well, his secretary who handled most of the applications) for funding to replace the main location. But the Carnegie staffers were adamant that they felt several neighborhood libraries would do more good than one major library. Was this an example of philanthropic arrogance? Maybe. Did it turn out to be the right call? Probably, because those several neighborhood libraries formed the backbone of what is now the country’s second largest public library system by holdings (only after NYPL).
YES. YES! In my career in fundraising I’ve started to see some of these exact problems, and only recently have begun to clarify my thoughts about what is bad about them. For me, thinking about how modern fundraising tactics harm the public’s ability to develop virtuous habits of philanthropy was a helpful framework. I especially worry that AI and algorithmic enhanced digital fundraising seeks to remove all thoughtfulness out of giving and just make it a quick and brainless process, and it’s impossible to develop virtues of charity, kindness, and justice that way.
I’m presenting at a philosophy conference in February on the topic, so now I need to read this book ASAP and update my talk with what I’m sure are going to be amazing insights! Thank you so much for this!!!!
This is really interesting! I can't wait to read the book. It makes me wonder about Philanthropy in context of grass roots Mutual Aid and even Reparations and how those all get conflated and how giving has changed since or because of Covid and the ease of sending someone a Venmo or Cash App payment.
Furthermore, I am an artist and folks in my professional circle have very little capital or income. My Instagram feed is full of pleas for "my dog needs emergency surgery, please buy my painting at 50% off so I can pay for it" and "I had a health crisis and no savinga or healthcare, but a print for $10 to help pay my $10,000 hospital bill". I wonder about the prevalence of regular individuals needing more income, and just by absorbing enough marketing in their lifetime, their ability to ask for money or market their cause on social media.
What I am ultimately saying is I am really struggling with how to give my $25, $100 here and there. Do I Venmo it to a stranger on the Internet? Do I buy a friends art? Do I give to my church, kids school, neighborhood charity, global charity, NPR, public television, political campaigns, etc. I carry a lot of privilege and live simply (and I would hope generously!) but I don't have much excess cash nor do I really understand the tax benefits of giving/ I'm not giving enough to make it worth it. I know Mutual Aid/ Venmo/ Go Fund Me is not tax deductible.
Ok there are my thoughts for the moment, someone else can pick apart the threads.
P.S. I regularly go to a Carnegie library in my neighborhood (looks like the picture!) and it's the bomb. I attend a church (built in 1893) with a Carnegie pipe organ. While beautiful, it hasn't aged quite as well. It is a very *specific* sound and style of music. The one guy who played it sometimes for fun died.
As a fundraiser this really spoke to me and I can’t wait to read this book and dive deeper. On a related subject, as an arts fundraiser myself, I’d love to see a future Culture Study interview about how the culture of philanthropy (and the broken nonprofit arts model) has regional arts organizations in a chokehold, and how almost every mid-to large-sized regional arts organization is absolutely beholden to their donors to continue operating (esp. following the initial impact of the pandemic, and as costs to produce art rise combined with more unpredictable purchasing behaviour from patrons), and what that does in terms of limiting the kinds of art we see in our cities (because what ends up happening is that organizations can’t produce “risky” art at a large scale if donors don’t want to fund it).
(im also an arts fundraiser?? How are there so many of us here, haha) yes to all this - or - bad behavior from a few anointed founders is tolerated due to donor reverence and obliviousness. I wish I thought this was an oddly specific comment, but, I think it’s a enough of a pattern to pop up in many scenes, disciplines and places.
Would love to read this! I live in Cincinnati which has a phenomenal local culture of arts philanthropy and really punches above its weight for a Midwest city our size. I also know what we have here is very much outside the norm. I feel so strongly that arts and culture has to be supported outside major cities and would LOVE to read or listen to more about this topic.
arts fundraiser here. Yes yes yes. So many thoughts on this.
I’m going to request this book... from my public library ;)
Short plug for giving circles:
There’s huge power in ordinary citizens banding together in our communities to give no-strings-attached grants/funding. I’m the Dean of my local chapter of The Awesome Foundation ($1,000 grants given by a circle of 10 folks). One of our criteria is: ‘does this project make our city more awesome?’
Thinking about ‘awesomeness’ is similar to LeBron James’s ‘freedom’ for kids: it’s not quantifiable, but it sure adds quality to a lot of lives.
More info: www.awesomefoundation.org
I was about to type THIS SOUNDS AWESOME!!! and then chuckled to myself and thought better and then shook my head and decided THIS IS INDEED AWESOME
Hehe, it’s so hard not to use that word when I tell people about it!
You should start a Lummi Island chapter of The Awesome Foundation with all that spare time you have ;)
Great interview! Anyone interested in this area should check out Emma Saunders-Hastings's book "Private Virtues, Public Vices: Philanthropy and Democratic Equality", which critiques the entire concept of philanthropy. It's an academic book, so it's a bit harder to get into, but the quality of argument is impeccable and wide-ranging: https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/P/bo125362811.html
YES YES YES. All of this. Just ordered the book! Currently, I am facing a huge push at work from the executive suite to raise more $ and an internal power vacuum that is causing all of the fundraising departments to be placed in some sort of Thunderdome-esque battle. My main issue is that we are forgetting the humanity of philanthropy. Donors are not ATMs. Donors are passionate about their causes and give when it is personally meaningful to them, their lives, and their families. Most donors (at least in my current field of public media and past field of performing arts) are not moved by arbitrary days like Giving Tuesday. They are moved by stories, by impact, by a feeling. Sure, we can measure effectiveness of a campaign, or that someone clicked through a link in an email versus a link on a website, but in the end it is still about people. I am increasingly frustrated by the outsized focus on ROI, testing, and AI (all important tools) and the decrease in focus on the WHY of donor behavior.
I would LOVE to read this but I am in charge of email appeals for my organization, trying to wrap up so I can actually take some of my vacation days this year, and might be too triggered right now to read this and get everything done too (because I can already tell I 100% agree even from within the trenches)
This is the book that I now do not have to write! And now I will go out and get it! I've worked in philanthropy most of my career and have investigated and interrogated so many of the dynamics laid out in this interview, and I assume, the book. I was having a conversation (with a donor no less) about this very topic yesterday. So long as human beings love money, power, and king-ship, we will have issues like this--this is my great fear. So many gems in this piece.
"The cash giving operates as a settlement. It alleviates damage, but doesn’t create new centers of power. " Yes. And why would power cede power? (rhetorical, cynical)
I've struggled for many years with this career, in no small part because in the nonprofit world it compensates reasonably well, and gives the feeling (at least the illusion) of doing some good in the world. But I can see into all the places that Schiller lists (and as another commenter mentioned Vu Le of NonProfitAF also notes) and feel kind of hopeless.
What to do? Read the book, push for change and try to operate in my field with the ethics and morals required to do as little harm (and as much good) as possible.
What a way to wake up this morning!
I've been working in fundraising for about a decade at this point and this interview really speaks to me. I often think about how in many ways the ideal outcome of my work is that we'd redistribute enough wealth that my job would no longer need to exist. I know this won't happen in my lifetime - and may not ever happen - but we can dream.
You are onto something with this line of thinking! There are two popular schools of thought on advocacy / organizing in the U.S. the first is Rules for Radicals - which I could never get through and the other is The MidWest Academy Organizing for Social Change. In the latter they note the goal of organizing/advocacy work should be to put yourself out of a job. The ultimate success is that either the community you have been working with is empowered to do this work on their own or whatever problem the organization is addressing has been resolved. The work is not easy but it is often rewarding to sit at the leading edge of change. I no longer work in the non-profit sector bc it stopped feeling like place to bring about real change, however I do bring these same tactics into the for-profit sector to build the right thing that enables tech to improve people's lives. It is not easy in either sector, however the community you can build along the way and the impact you can have is worth it.
I used to work in non-profit and snarkily refer to it as "morality washing for billionaires."
It is so so so demoralizing to work for pennies, each one fought for from people who have more money than they could use in several lifetimes. Like maybe instead of having a foundation pay all your taxes.
I saw a tiktok recently that was like non-profit math is making non profits have 15% or less overhead when a foundation is 100% overhead because they don't do anything and where is the lie.
I'm a former nonprofit fundraiser and executive director and I cannot wait to read this book. There's so much to unpack with philanthropy and the way we do social justice and human services (these were my areas) in this country. I read Anand Giridharadas's book Winners Take All when it came out, and it felt like he gave voice to the nagging feelings I'd had over my 20-year career soliciting donations from extremely wealthy individuals. I'm so interested to dig in to Amy's book, especially since it sounds like she is looking at small-donor philanthropy, too, and not just the mega-rich. I would so love to dive deep into discussions on these topics with other current/former nonprofit folks.
One important aspect of the donor experience the interview glanced over is philanthropic numbness. I'm not proud to admit it, but I think addressing what's causing this apathy is critical to figuring out what's wrong with modern philosophy. I also suspect many others might feel the same.
Over the past year, I've just stopped opening all the dozen or so donation request letters I get per month from various charities. I think this numbness originates from a couple of places.
One, I already donate to a few of my favorite charities each month, so seeing other charities begging for more donations feels a bit overwhelming. It makes me feel that no matter how many causes or underprivileged groups I support, it's not enough to appease the world's need for philanthropy. The vexation I feel towards this aspect of the issue is kind of akin to decision paralysis--where people who are presented with too many choices end up choosing nothing at all.
Two, given the volume and frequency that the same charities request donations, the whole process feels increasingly impersonal each time I see their letters. It makes me feel like I'm just another individual they have to target in order to meet their monthly quota of donation requests (which is probably not that far from the truth).
Three--and this is sad to say--seeing the same formulaic pleads ("donate $5 to save X number of children from going hungry") and the same type of pictures (starving child, usually African) plastered across envelopes numbs you to the desperation that the charities are trying to convey. I don't mean the issues these charities support aren't legitimate. I just mean my brain only has so much capacity to focus on these pleads before needing to move on to other, also pertinent, daily tasks.
This was just my rant against mail-based donation requests. Add in all the requests you see from the internet and social media and well...the hailstorm is even bigger.
I really like this quote from the interview, "this activity that literally means love of humanity has, in some ways, dehumanized others"; however, I'd go one step further and argue that modern philanthropy not only dehumanizes those it tries to help but also those from whom they try ask for help. I'm not sure if there is a solution for people on either side of the coin, but I do think encouraging people to become more conscious of this issue is a promising start. Thanks for spurring this conversation today, Dr. Petersen. :)