Written by EDGE Senior Advisor Amanda Mercedes Gigler 

As part of the consulting I’m doing with EDGE over the next months, I’ll be writing a few blogs about my learnings and reflections as I contribute to developing EDGE’s work in three programmes on economic justice, gender justice and climate justice.

It was hard for me to figure out where to start my reflections for this first blog. I am in the middle of conversations with EDGE members, with the team, and with activists from movement organisations involved in these three programmes. At this point I have more questions and open ends than answers and proposals. But I am observing that there are clearly some 1. linkages to build upon and 2. tensions to (continue to) address.

Here are a few of the common threads, comments and questions that have come up in many of my conversations with funders, activists, advisors and consultants engaged in EDGE’s work over the past two months:

This list makes me curious, sceptical and determined. There is sense-making and analysis to be done of the current patterns people and institutions in social justice philanthropy fall into. But this can’t be a purely intellectual exercise. We live in a material world, where our bodies and experiences inform how and why we make decisions and in what ways we carry them out in our work and lives. I find myself in the position of wanting to pose questions about these six points as a way to test and chart a few paths forward for use to both physically and intellectually organise EDGE’s work.

On number 1: 

Why do we keep siloing issues? I have heard from movement people, as well as from intermediary funders, about the dangers of channelling large pools of money into targeted, thematic grantmaking programmes. This often results in social movement organisations 1. building up and deepening those areas and becoming dependent on that type of funding; and/or 2. framing their fundraising asks along the funder’s thematic lines and then having to do reporting acrobatics to meet a funder’s expectations and needs, usually at the risk of under-resourcing their own work. What happens – and who is held accountable – when foundations shut down those programmes with insufficient warning to the groups and movements and lives that have been built up around them? At the same time, some funders, many of them EDGE members, do have the intention and practice of supporting movements that are working more broadly across or between movements and issues. How can these practices and politics be uplifted and inspire others in philanthropy?

There is clearly an opportunity for funders to broaden their conversations across “issue areas” and perhaps to fund in relation to a vision or a broad set of objectives, along the lines of systemic change analysis rather than thematic programmes. And there is a need for funders that are already doing this to share their experiences, especially their mistakes, with other grantmakers and with movements.

On numbers 2, 3 and 4:

Systemic change work is intersectional work. There is no one way of doing this work; there are many entry points and the variety of ways and differences are what make systemic change work work. Conversations amongst funders that aim to share learnings and improve grantmaking are always opportunities to recognise and explore how human and planetary life are impacted by various factors. I think organising around a certain topic or issue that people are excited about is needed – that excitement is important. But sometimes we get too comfortable talking about a topic that we know about, that we’ve worked on, written papers about, debated for years with colleagues who are also steeped in that same topic. How refreshing and uncomfortable it is when someone who is passionate about a different issue brings their ideas, criticism and proposal into “our” space. This may come off as simplistic, but I think we need both the vertical and the horizontal – or the 3D and the quantum, let’s not silo our metaphors. We need the topic-specific spaces that include intersectionality and the generalist spaces that include a systemic analysis that get us specific and complex. Spaces facilitated by EDGE provide opportunities to learn, be inspired and build forward. But again, I recognise it’s not that simple and there are deep conversations and debates to be had about different worldviews, priorities and ideas about how complex systemic change happens.

On numbers 5:

Number 5 is a double edged blade. Funders should be learning from movements, and recognising the histories and experiences that went into developing those learnings. And compensating people for sharing that knowledge. At the same time, let’s be real about the differences between doing the deep work to build the knowledge, and then gathering it and presenting it. I think the intention of funders to learn from movements begs questions like: why do you want to learn? To what end? What and how much do you need to learn in order to make good grants? I think there are lessons to be uplifted around funders’ political education. And this work is being done by some activists, also by funders and by (and facilitated by) various funder networks. This work requires resourcing, and my sense is that it requires more resourcing.

On numbers 6:

What else can I write about the 6th point? Funders: stop creating hyper-focused thematic grantmaking portfolios. This resonates a lot with other points about siloing issues, and it’s close to my heart. I’ve rarely been on the grantmaking side of things. I spent most of my life mobilising and influencing funding and often performing a balancing act between, on the one hand, trying to fit my organisation’s strategic plan, theory of change or programme objectives into a funder’s new framework and, on the other, trying to show funders why this exercise was a poor use of my time and theirs. Criticism is only helpful to a point, so what are the ways forward? How can programme directors and programme officers work to shift their own institutions away from specificity and toward broader grantmaking visions? Initiatives like the Feminist Framework for Funders, the Thousand Currents Academy, the Global Engagement Lab and networks like Resource Generation, Resource Movement and Resource Justice work in different ways to organise and build political knowledge among people in philanthropy. Perhaps more, more connected, or better resourced initiatives like these could contribute to professional philanthropy working from a place of the politics of justice rather than the logic of control.

Final thoughts:

There will be many ways and many answers to the various questions I’ve shared in this short blog. And perhaps more relevant to this moment I’m in – in the midst of different conversations with people who do different things, have different motivations and visions, and who may actually want different things – is what EDGE can be doing. And by EDGE, I don’t just mean the small and mighty secretariat, I also mean the members, committees, steering groups and other cohorts in this motley crew of funders trying to organise, learn, share and change philanthropy and, ultimately, the world we live in.

Contact Amanda with any questions, connect with Amanda through Twitter (@amandagig) or LinkedIn. 

If you would like to learn more about the EDGE Funders Network or be a part of our community, reach out to contactus@edgefunders.org.