AN OXYMORON GIVEN PHILANTHROPY’S SYSTEMIC CONTRADICTIONS?

Written by Mark Randazzo, EDGE Funders Alliance

Or is it just… complicated?

In partnering with movements at the frontlines of social change EDGE advocates and works towards philanthropy’s own shift from transactional to more hopeful, transformational grantmaking strategies and approaches. Along with others, we seek a philanthropy engaged with and willing to support work that addresses fundamental root causes of the global crisis. At this year’s annual conference in New Orleans we were confronted with the fact that at least for some of our movement partners, the experience of engaging with EDGE is not always as transformational as it should be.

As at all EDGE annual gatherings, grantees invited by our members and funder allies were encouraged to participate fully in all conference activities and related events, within an implicit agreement that in return for their contributions of time, thought and energy they have opportunities to learn from organizations and struggles in different parts of the world, gain exposure for their own perspectives and initiatives, and engage with progressive philanthropy in ways that contribute to a shared goal of shifting more funding to social movement organizing over the long term.

This year’s event exposed some amount of dissatisfaction from movement partners who felt that too much time and commitment was being asked of them, that their roles were unclear, and that they were somewhat instrumentalized by the conference process. EDGE was criticized for following the pattern of foundations who convene in a particular place without providing sufficient exposure to local struggles and organizing. We were taken to task for failing to commit fully to changes in philanthropic practice that our own rhetoric calls for¹.

The issues raised in New Orleans and similar ones expressed at last year’s conference in Barcelona have provoked useful reflection within EDGE. For me, these discussions challenge us to think about what kind of positive role – if any – philanthropy can play in supporting movements for systemic change.

~

Since deepening philanthropy’s collective understanding of global social change processes, identifying the essential elements of actually-existing systemic alternatives, and developing philanthropic strategies for supporting movements for change are at the center of our work, these issues aren’t without merit or consequence – for EDGE and for the emergence of any kind of “systemic change philanthropy” at all.

And while we can be more thoughtful of funder-movement dynamics moving forward, it seems we along with social movement partners confront a number of interrelated structural challenges worth considering as well. Some that most immediately come to mind are:

• On the nature of philanthropy ~ We of course need to start with the fact that philanthropy is embedded within processes of wealth extraction and accumulation we’re trying to change, and ideological constraints are likely to impose structural limitations on many funders’ ability to support initiatives that stray outside political-economic orthodoxies. While donors have at times made significant and useful shifts in how grants and even endowments are deployed, our sector’s historical inability to support social change movements with clarity and consistency at a scale that matters remains a core challenge.

• On the diversity of philanthropic actors and institutions ~ Individual EDGE members broadly share progressive values and commitments with social movement allies. They work, however, within different types of grantmaking organizations ranging from single-donor advised funds and pooled-funds to large multinational foundations, within extremely diverse institutional and cultural settings. Members often have specific areas of expertise, focus on different issues using a variety of strategic approaches, with diverse sets of grantees. They manage grant portfolios ranging in size from tens of thousands to millions of dollars annually. While commitments and values are shared, how they are managed and operationalized often differ.

• On the complexities of moving from awareness to action ~ More grantmakers today embrace the need for deep transformation, and support notions of systemic change in principle. Converting individual understanding into institutional action however can depend on specific mandates and levels of influence held by each grantmaker within her or his organization. Personal commitments don’t necessarily translate into concrete commitments in funding, which is often frustrating for grantmakers and their partners alike. Moving from theory to practice is complicated by uneven capacities for institutional change within individual foundations and within the sector itself. In the end, building broader cultural shifts within the philanthropic field is needed if increasingly aware and committed funders are to contribute to the enormous shifts required.

• On achieving local/global balance ~ Even though only a small number of funders are likely to be working in those specific places EDGE meets, lifting up local realities, struggles and initiatives during conferences and other convenings is important for the deeper and more contextualized layers of understanding it can provide. For EDGE, our interest in local sense-of-place exists alongside a commitment to highlighting global processes, impacts and movement building. It is balanced, too, by our interest in seeing more resources move to local place-based organizing wherever our members and other funders are active and engaged. Achieving the right balance among global, translocal and local contexts, for a geographically diverse membership within a too limited timeframe is a challenge we’re not always able to manage well, or in ways that work effectively for all.

While EDGE has been committed for many years to partnering with movements at the frontlines of progressive change, and while we’ve drawn much of our understanding of the work from our organizational and network allies around the world, we remain a network of foundations with a mission to organize within philanthropy. In the end lies what is perhaps the greatest challenge of all, which might be characterized as being:

• On the trade-offs between “walking our talk” and “moving the money”  ~ We seek to transform philanthropy structurally over time, and also to increase resources going to social change movements now. The challenge for EDGE but also for movements seeking philanthropic support lies in the fact that sometimes those who can move the most money operate within structures least amenable to institutional change; sometimes those least able to support systemic change principles formally, fully or openly can move the most funding to organizations working on systemic alternatives informally, subtly and quietly. While a number of funders can do both, some are better positioned than others to walk the talk, some better able to move money.

Given the nature and institutional constraints within the philanthropic process underscored above, it seems most useful for EDGE to continue engaging with the spectrum of grantmakers interested in these issues – remaining as principled and as strategic as we can, seeking to help shift the field (including ourselves) over time while supporting shifts in grantmaking in the meantime.

The tensions between theory and praxis, and gaps between intentions and implementation, can be disconcerting to social movement allies who correctly observe that funders (and EDGE itself) too often extract elements of their larger visions and strategies, without committing fully and unreservedly to the changes in philanthropic practice that our own rhetoric and stated values call for. Such tensions may be fairly inevitable due to the realities and constraints mentioned above. But they are worth acknowledging and addressing as best we can.

In our engagement with movement allies, at the conference and generally, we can indeed be more explicit about these and related challenges, and more consciously aware of them ourselves. At a practical level EDGE can develop and share materials for our gatherings, and clarify what we’re asking of non-funder partners in terms of their time, insights, content and contacts. We can better orient and prepare those thinking about participating with us, and be more forthcoming on what we expect in terms of how they can strategically contribute to conference objectives and to our overall mission.

We can commit to greater transparency in these areas, and to helping EDGE members better understand and negotiate conditions for engaging with movements in our convening spaces, and in their own.

~

As we have learned from movement allies, our fundamental responsibility is not only to convey the nature and contours of the crises and help funders learn from worldwide struggles for people and planet, but to enhance and support roles grantmakers can play as donors and activist organizers within philanthropy – in shifting their own portfolios, and in helping shift the understanding and actions of their colleagues and of the field as a whole.

The question remains, is “systemic change philanthropy” an oxymoron? Given the political, structural and institutional limitations noted above (and others that can be added in), perhaps it is.

In the end though, because of the stakes involved and because of the resources needed by growing numbers of enormously creative and diverse sets of systemic change thinkers and organizers at all levels of society everywhere, what else should a progressive funder be part of, if not some part of a philanthropy for systemic change?

Even if it is (and it surely is) complicated.

¹See, for example, EDGE’s “Barcelona Commitment on Reorganizing Philanthropy for Systemic Change”