Read more

Read on to find out….

For You: Today’s Main Course

I love humans.

I especially love humans in community.

I love the magic that happens when people gather together, and care about each other, and work together to help each other and be helped, and prioritize their collective well-being.

There is nothing else quite as lovely as the experience of being in community — feeling your heart, mind, and whole being tune into the joy of connection and care within a group, a sense that is as much about receiving as it is about giving.

This is philanthropy.

The roots of the word philanthropy are Greek: philos, meaning love (think Philadelphia, the “City of Brotherly Love”), and anthropos, meaning humanity (think anthropology, or the scientific study of humanity).

Yet, in the many years that I’ve worked in the field of professionalized philanthropy, I’ve observed that there is very little love, or humanity, in the prevailing practice of “philanthropy” today.

We’ve come to think of “philanthropy” as big money given in “charity” — and “fundraising” as the way we attract and direct that big money to specific “nonprofit” organizations. And this whole process has morphed — as it’s been professionalized and scaled up exponentially — in ways our ancestors wouldn’t recognize.

Donors are feeling like ATMs…

… fundraisers are feeling like cogs in a machine….

… communities are being commodified….

… which means everyone is feeling de-humanized.

And all the work we’ve been doing in this field — over many decades — hasn’t really changed many of the problems we’re addressing.

So what are we really doing here?

I think it’s time to return…

… to where philanthropy started.

Before foundations… or corporate giving programs… or donor-advised funds (DAFs)… or “major gifts”… or “annual giving”… or “planned giving”… or donor acquisition mailings… or “appeal” letters… or CRMs… or galas… or “donor lifetime value” (DLV)… or Return on Investment (ROI)… or endowments… or stock gifts… and certainly before AI and crypto, the most recent trends on the scene…

… “philanthropy” was just neighbors helping neighbors, in solidarity.

Everyone came together and helped, if someone needed to raise a barn, or if someone’s house was on fire. If people noticed someone in their community was hungry, they’d feed them. Or if someone needed a place to stay, they’d be invited into others’ homes.

And in the earliest days of humanity, “philanthropy” would have likely been even more natural and daily:

Think about a time, very long ago, before they started building buildings like we have today. They would have lived in close relationship with the natural world. (That would have been the only option!) The natural world would have been their “floor,” their “ceiling,” and the “walls” around them.

Beyond their connection to the natural world, there are likely many more things we can assume about our ancestors who lived in such a time.

We can assume that they would have known exactly where their food came from, as they would have been directly involved in every stage of its path to their mouths. Or that they would have gone to bed with the sunset… and awoken with the sunrise, as there were no lights to turn on, to illuminate the night, or shades to draw down, to allow for morning snoozes amidst the sunshine.

Given how closely people would have lived together in a time like that, and how precarious survival would have been, people would likely have understood how much supporting and caring for each other was essential to human life.

Yes?

Surviving without that sense of mutual care and responsibility for each other would have been next-to-impossible, I imagine.

How do we recover the purity of neighbors simply helping neighbors — without any middlemen or overly complex processes?

How do we counter-act current trends causing ballooning monetary wealth in the top 5% of the population, accompanied by ever-increasing poverty for the majority of the population… which, in our current model of “philanthropy” means that there will be fewer and fewer able to give.. and more and more in need?

How do we seed and grow more of the the powerful mutual aid networks that rose up in Minneapolis earlier this year… and inspired the world?

How do we humanize donors… fundraisers… and whole communities who are being de-humanized by our current processes?

I got you.

This is not as big and hard as we might make it.

We know the way.

Our ancestors have been there.

All we have to do is remember… and return.

Philanthropy Of The People — a new section of this Substack publication launching today — will focus on the process of getting where we need to go.

Together.

➡️ From narrow, hierarchical giving… to collective giving.

➡️ From mechanization… to humanization.

➡️ From corporate… to community-centric.

➡️ From professionalization… to democratization.

➡️ From fewer and fewer participating… to more and more participants.

The heart and soul of Philanthropy Of The People will be talking about, providing inspiration for, and giving practical support for Collective Giving.

Giving Circles.

Collaborative Funds.

Crowdfunding.

Mutual Aid.

Giving Projects.

Donor Organizing.

… and more.

I lean heavily on the expertise and passion of the good folks at Philanthropy Together in generating this list, and I encourage you to plug into their great programming and educational offerings too.

Because we need all the help we can get…

… to turn the Titanic.

Collective Giving is not the model that the massive, worldwide nonprofit and philanthropic industrial complex has predominantly been using… right?

Our current world of philanthropy, fundraising, and nonprofits is quite siloed, hierarchical, corporatized, individualized, professionalized, and — all these things considered — broadly de-humanizing.

Moving to a model of Collective Giving is the antidote to all of these toxins, and I truly believe that this is the future of fundraising and philanthropy.

To that end, when I work 1:1 with organizations going forward, I will be prioritizing helping them develop Collective Giving as their model for mobilizing all the resources they need.

I can’t wait to really dig into this!

As I talk about it, this is the process of transforming fundraising…

… into philanthropy.

Think about it.

If you could shift your focus from “raising money”…

… to mobilizing collective resources out of love for humanity…

… wouldn’t you want to?

I sure would.

So I’m going to.

Will you join me?

Subscribe now

Conversation: Your Response

I really want to know your more detailed and nuanced thoughts, too. Let’s start a conversation on this topic. Visit the comments section!

Leave a comment

Practice: Make It Yours

Find a quiet place where you can be alone for a few minutes.

First, take some deep breaths, to settle your nervous system…

… and then, reflect on this question:

If I could personally start a collective giving circle… who would I invite? And who do I believe we would most likely give to?

Write down your answers.

And let yourself start to dream about how you might actually do it!

Subscribe now

Inspiration: Something to Mull Over

Giving circles are a great way for people to use all of their five T’s [time, talent, treasure, ties, testimony] in order to make their communities more free, more fair, more joyful, more opportunity-equal for all.

Do we want to move all of our five T’s towards our communities… or do we want to move [them] towards these three billionaires who are currently running amok through our federal public goods and services in order to enrich themselves and their billionaire friends?

- Hali Lee, author of The Big We: How Giving Circles Unlock Generosity, Strengthen Community, and Make Change

Thanks for reading For the Love of Humanity! Spread love for humanity by sharing this post with others who you think would appreciate it.

Share

Settle …

Read more

Read more

We’re talking about a new kind o…

Read more

Read more

Read more

Read on….

For You: Today’s Main Course

Time to slow our roll, my fellow nonprofiteers.

The fact that nonprofits are so readily embracing AI these days shows us how little humanity we’ve maintained in our work.

We’re getting caught up in the competition, essentially — i.e. not wanting to be left behind while our peers charge ahead — and only thinking about that, acting far more like corporations… than community-based orgs.

➡️ What about ethical concerns?

➡️ What about harms to the natural world? To people?

➡️ Why aren’t we being more cautious and critical, determined to deeply vet this brand-new, powerful, broadly disruptive technology… and use it only in the most necessary/meaningful ways, if at all?

Essentially, it’s not exactly surprising that we’re responding this way to a disruptive new technology that brings many potential downsides…

… because we’ve already been creeping down this path for decades now.

We treat program outcomes like widgets on a factory line. The fact that we routinely use logic models doesn’t help this reality, but we genuinely act like you can just systematically and repeatedly input certain variables into our programs and, like clockwork, the desired outcomes will output on the other end. As if humans aren’t involved. As if anything involving humans isn’t, by nature, unpredictable and messy.

We chew up and spit out staff. We’ve now widely accepted that 18 months is the norm for longevity of development staff (as if someone hasn’t just learned the ropes at that point, let alone been able to grow meaningful relationships or achieve any significant successes — which always take time). Tenures of program staff are often just as tenuous, which boggles the mind, given the fact that their work is quite literally the bread and butter of the org’s whole purpose.

We prioritize speed over connection. On our staffs, people resign, are fired, or are laid off… and the work just churns on, with barely a blip. Or our fundraisers and program staff are always looking for more ways to squeeze more work into less time, because their plates are always over-full — which means efficiency becomes a priority over slowing down to make real, meaningful connections with donors and clients.

We accept calendars and timelines like they’re gods. So many orgs have cultures where people can schedule time on others’ calendars without asking them — meaning that whatever that person’s human needs are, they need to be subjugated for whatever meeting was deemed more important. Meetings are scheduled at all hours, regardless of the needs of the humans involved. People are supposed to bend over backward to adapt to calendars and timelines… rather than the other way around.

We leave little room to breathe. So often, peoples’ schedules involve back-to-back meetings with no breaks. Or the next proposal gets started immediately after one is submitted. Or a big event or project wraps up and, without any kind of celebration, or a chance to rest a bit, we’re on to the next thing. Machines don’t need breathing room. People do. But you wouldn’t know that, given how little breathing room we give the humans that work in our organizations.

We abhor a mess. Perfectionism runs rampant in many nonprofits. Mistakes are not welcome. Failure is to be avoided at all costs. None of that is human. Heck, even machines often can’t maintain those standards!

We avoid conflict at almost all costs. Ohhhh there could be a whole post on this one. Or probably a book! Feelings and conflict get stuffed and ignored. The work must continue! Unabated! As though real humans aren’t involved! And then, when conflict inevitably spills out into the open and creates some chaos… that chaos gets locked down (forget genuine resolution and repair!) as quickly as possible.

We act like there are single ways to do something “right.” Boy do we love a “best practice” in nonprofits, don’t we? Whenever we’re about to do something new-to-us, it seems our first impulse is to look around and see what other nonprofits are doing. Because of course, the machinery of a nonprofit should function exactly the same no matter which nonprofit, nor where it is, nor what its mission is, now what its business model is, nor who it serves, etc… right?

We treat an organization like a hunk of metal, vs. a living breathing growing organism. Rigid. Maybe a bend here or there, to try to make something work. But mostly static. Repetitive. Predictable. Operating “the way we’ve always done it.” Versus recognizing the reality that an organization should be allowed to be an organism. Dynamic. Evolving. Flexible. Always growing and changing.

We don’t acknowledge the ecosystem we’re a part of. Machines don’t exist within ecosystems. But organisms do. And, given how mechanically we usually do business within nonprofits, we don’t function like part of an interdependent, mutually-giving-and-receiving ecosystem, like exists all around us in the natural world — even though that is actually the more appropriate way for nonprofits to function.

We avoid depth. Machines don’t have feelings. Machines repeatedly, consistently perform tasks, with no reason to stop unless there’s a mechanical breakdown. Humans, in contrast, need regular rest and breathing room and deep intra- and inter-personal connection on the regular, in order to experience a sense of belonging and meaning, which all humans need. Going deeper together is the way to get there. But going deeper is a very rare thing in this work.

We treat donors like customers. We “plug” prospective donors into “acquisition” machines modeled after commercial direct marketing. Annual and major donors get plugged into processes that are modeled after commercial sales machines. Development processes usually function like a well-oiled if/then computer program, ideally as efficiently as possible. And we do our best to keep donors happy, because they (the customer) are always right… right?

In a work culture like this…

… a new tool that can make everything quicker, and more efficient, and flatten out all the human foibles and hiccups and problems… is a slam dunk. Sign us up, right?!

That certainly seems to be the overwhelming response I’ve seen.

And I’m just watching…

… and wondering…

… how this can — or even very likely will — drain even more humanity from our work, work that always should have been very human, given its reality… but somehow has seemed to get less and less so over time.

Before we entangle ourselves in the AI machine…

… don’t you think we might first consider the ways we want to disentangle ourselves from the machinery we’ve already accepted as our norm? Especially because that machinery seems fairly antithetical to most of what we say we’re about, when we’re talking about our work?

Subscribe now

Conversation: Your Response

I really want to know your more detailed thoughts, too. Got more to say? Visit the comments section!

Leave a comment

Practice: Make It Yours

Find yourself a quiet place where you won’t be interrupted.

Have something to take notes.

Sit with yourself for at least ten minutes, reviewing your most recent week at work. If it helps you remember, you can look at your calendar for reminders of what happened.

Go day by day, reviewing how you spent them.

Remember how they felt especially.

Remember where you felt less human.

Remember where you felt like you had to act like a machine.

Take notes on these things.

Then, choose at least one of these things — but ideally more than one! — to bring back to work and talk to your colleagues about.

Your goal is to explore how you can change things at work, materially…

… to be more human than machine-like.

Subscribe now

Inspiration: Something to Mull Over

So in the interests of survival, they trained themselves to be agreeing machines instead of thinking machines.

All their minds had to do was to discover what other people were thinking, and then they thought that, too.

― Kurt Vonnegut, Breakfast of Champions

Read more

Read more

With Love,

Cecelia 💗

PS: I’d love to be in conversation …

Read more

Read more

… so we’re keeping this one short and swe…

Read more

Keep reading to find out what I mean….

For You: Today’s Main Course

Most of this won’t be earth-shattering — or at all new — for many of you.

You know these things.

You’ve experienced them.

Or you’ve witnessed them.

But I think it’s worth laying out these truths in one place… before I tell you why we all urgently need to start transforming our fundraising… into philanthropy.

Here’s a summary of the current state of affairs in nonprofits:

Most Donors…

• Feel like ATMs (a.k.a are de-humanized). Sure, we fundraisers talk a good game about not treating donors like ATMs… but everything about the “best practices” we learn and perpetuate actually does this. We set dollar goals and pull out all the stops to meet them (thus prioritizing the money). We use commercial marketing and sales as the tactical and strategic models we teach and learn (since they were first adopted decades ago under the paternalistic assumption that nonprofits “need to run more like businesses”). We organize and relate to donors according to how much money they give annually. If donors have something that comes up in their lives so they cannot give that year, we often stop relating to them at all… unless it’s to send a “lapsed donor” message. There really is no relationship with them unless it’s about money — either an immediate exchange of it or strategically working towards it. All of these things and more show donors that their money is what we’re relating to and care about most.

• Don’t know what’s really happening in the orgs they give to. I can’t believe how common it is for donors to not even receive a thank you for their gifts! But beyond that, many nonprofits don’t ever send any updates to donors. And those that do send newsletters, e-news, or other updates? They’re almost always in “performance” mode, talking about how hunky-dory everything is and presenting as polished a face as possible. Messes? Problems? Real-life? What’s actually going on inside the org, day-to-day? Not-so-much.

• Don’t get more connected to their communities. Most nonprofits treat their donors as “their” donors. They see the relationship as discreet, focused. They relate to them like customers that they are keeping happy. They sometimes even see other nonprofits in the community as “competition.” And they don’t really tell donors anything about how their mission relates to the rest of their community… nor other missions… nor how the community relates to their mission. Usually the best donors can do is just understand the story of one nonprofit’s purpose — which is inherently wildly lacking in the true context of the mission.

• Don’t actually have real relationships with nonprofits. This is another one where we talk a good game about building relationships with donors… but in reality? In practice? Inside the typical day-to-day of nonprofits? “Relationships” with donors aren’t real. They lack soul. They’re hollow. Real relationships have authenticity. Mutuality. Accountability. Consistency. Proximity. Genuine care. Nonprofits’ relationships with donors rarely have any of these things.

Most Fundraisers…

• Feel like cogs in machines (a.k.a. are de-humanized). There’s pressure to meet dollar goals, on disembodied timelines — usually against their better judgement (i.e. asking donors for gifts before they sense donors are ready, because the calendar/goals are demanding it). There is rarely work/life harmony. Work-related emails, texts, and phone calls find them at home, when they’re with their family, when they’re trying to re-charge on evenings or weekends. Genuine, significant time off? Hardly knew her. Human relationships (by definition one of the messiest realities out there) are subjugated by spreadsheets, project plans, reminder pings from CRMs, in an effort to make them predictable (as if! again: we’re talking human beings, here [a.k.a. mess mongers]!).

• Sense the humanity lacking in their work. Trying to do what is essentially the most human work one can do… in a way that is most definitely not human (see above)… tends to create a lot of cognitive dissonance. A friend of mine has lately been talking and writing about moral injury for fundraisers… and that tracks, too. Folks are drawn to their work by something deep in their soul, often… and then sense their soul slowly being drained out of their body by the reality of the work, day by day, bit by bit. No time for tears, or joy. No chance to celebrate wins before it’s on to the next goal. No freedom to actually care for the people they’re in relationship with, both internally and externally… because caring takes time, and spending time on anything but bringing in dollars? That’s a no-no. And even if that’s never said explicitly, it’s always the implicit understanding.

• Mainline stress. Stress has become so normalized in the work of fundraising… that it has become like background wallpaper. People have stopped even clocking it, unless it gets turned up to the max. Grant deadlines with thousands-to-millions at stake. Over-stuffed workloads. Clashing personalities. Shuttle diplomacy. Absorbing dissonance — between internal and external expectations; between systems and individuals; between the mission and the actual work — into beings that thrive on harmony. Unrealistic demands. (All of this is of course layered with racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ablism, and other forms of violence for fundraisers who belong to marginalized groups.)

• Are dropping like flies. Given all of the above? We shouldn’t be surprised that fundraisers are dropping like flies! Fundraisers’ nervous systems are constantly on high alert. Eighteen months or less is now the standard job tenure for fundraisers. Burnout among fundraisers has become endemic. Not only is no one surprised when someone burns out, but the norm is — rather than actively helping that person recover — to replace them as quickly as possible, so as not to completely miss that year’s budget numbers. Is it any wonder people are being ground to a pulp by environments like this?! This isn’t how we humans were made to live or work.

Most Communities…

• Get commodified (a.k.a. de-humanized). Because of how fundraising repurposes commercial marketing and sales strategies and tactics (see above), communities in need of help get packaged and presented like commodities to be “purchased” with money, in order to achieve a personal glow of ego-satisfaction (I mean, don’t most of us want to be seen as generous and caring?). Is there a genuine, full-throated effort to end hunger? No. There’s an effort to “help the hungry.” End homelessness? Naw. Fund shelter for “the homeless.” People and whole communities with endless strengths and beauty… get reduced to problems and deficits, in order to inspire others to see them as worthy of funding.

• See the vastness of inequity only growing, not lessening. An under-discussed reality in the fields of fundraising and nonprofits — but something that is proven to be growing more year after year, in national studies — is that the number of total donors has been shrinking, while the total dollars raised have stayed the same or risen slightly. Practically, what does this mean? In short, nonprofits are now relying on more of their budgets… from fewer donors (which creates a significant risk to those budgets). The why, here? Of course, we could attribute this unfolding story to everything mentioned here. I do believe donors stop giving because of the reasons we’re discussing. And it is also true that “the income gap between the rich and everyone else has been growing markedly, by every major statistical measure, for more than 30 years.” So what? Why does this matter? A growing share of the population either can’t really afford to give philanthropically anymore… and/or needs philanthropic help themselves. And meanwhile, a steadily shrinking share of the population has the cash to share philanthropically, while either 1) they just don’t even give; or 2) they do give, and the power their wealth gives them over the work often sets the work off the course it would be on, if it were purely responding to a community in need.

• Lack truly collaborative leadership. Many start nonprofits because they have a personal connection to a mission. Rarely do they survey the landscape before they do so, the desire to start “their own” thing is so strong. Relatedly, long-established nonprofits rarely collaborate effectively with other orgs working on similar missions. “Collaboration” is often in name only, consists of a meeting here or there, or is mostly trading Letters of Support back-and-forth for each others’ grant proposals. Powerfully bringing a whole community together to address (and end, for all) an issue like homelessness? Not-so-much. That kind of thing just doesn’t happen. And what a shame!

• Suffer under the weight of the same problems, year after year. The end result of all of the above? Nothing changes. New nonprofits are constantly being started. Long-existing nonprofits continue to persist. But the actual problems those nonprofits are addressing? Mostly the same. A bit of a change here or there, maybe. But… mostly the same.

What We All Need Instead

All of that is depressing as all get-out, isn’t it?

I mean, so much good energy and effort is going into “doing good” and “helping our communities,” day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year…

… and not only are our communities being just marginally helped… but many involved in the effort are being harmed in the process.

Does this sound like a love of humanity to you?

Not to me, that’s for sure.

What would a love of humanity actually look like?

What would it look like to transform fundraising… into philanthropy?

Something like this:

• The well-being of all of the humans involved in the process is centered and prioritized at every step of the way. Something de-humanizes a staffer or donor? No more. Stopped. Staffers are over-worked? Everyone 1) stops to re-prioritize together; 2) removes de-prioritized work from plates; 3) takes a break before getting back to it. Potential donors are being cavalierly talked about as “prospects”? Everyone stops to remember the story of the org’s founding and mission… and how the life stories of potential donors might weave into it. A tactic to bring in funds commodifies the community? As soon as it’s recognized, it gets pointed out and stopped. Immediately.

• Conversations with donors go deep and bring forth the shared humanity of everyone involved. We aim to develop real relationships with donors. Ones that are honest. That talk about hard things. That hold each other accountable. That are mutually nourishing. That shoulder a shared sense of responsibility. That go to the heart of giving — centering our values, our love for each other and our fellow humans, our desires to serve and help. That honor our shared mortality and our desires to leave a positive legacy behind when we’re gone from this Earth. That acknowledge how inescapably, interdependently we are all connected to each other. And that, because of that reality, seek justice and our collective liberation from struggle and inequity.

• Staffers live in community with each other, truly mutually supporting each other in every way they can. Staffers aren’t colleagues first. They are humans first. Each one’s human needs are prioritized by the others. And each does everything they can to help others meet those needs. This could be as simple as re-scheduling a meeting readily and amicably. Or showing up for a Meal Train if there’s a new baby, or a sickness. Or not making unnecessary demands of each other. Or refusing to gossip about each other. Or talking directly to each other to resolve any conflict. Or giving each other flexibility wherever possible… and lovingly holding each other accountable to expectations where necessary. Or being honest and direct with each other. Or having each others’ back, if someone is struggling… or harmed by someone else.

• Money is secondary to the humanity of everyone involved. Money is no longer used to sort people, nor is it used to characterize the types of relationships we have with them. Volunteers are valued as much as donors (since they’re giving of their very life’s energy, the most precious and nonrenewable resource we all have). Relationships with volunteers and donors are prioritized above what those individuals are or are not giving to the org in the moment — meaning they continue to exist whether or not the volunteering or giving continues, with the understanding that either or both will resume whenever they can. Donors are sorted and related to in categories like their giving priorities; the longitude of their relationship with the org; or qualities of who they are as human beings, rather than simply how much money they give. Efforts are made to build community among the org’s donors, rather than the org simply having individualized relationships with each donor.

• Communities aim to collaboratively, actually end their collective problems. Individual egos, and orgs, are set aside to focus on solving problems in whatever way(s) are best for communities. Individuals and orgs readily give up opportunities, and/or funding, if other individuals or orgs would benefit more or are better fits. Ongoing, regular communication streams are designed to help orgs and their workers actively collaborate with each other (think shared Slack workspaces or the like). Regular meetings not just between executives, but elevating and prioritizing and listening to frontline staff and community members being served, are scheduled and held as sacred on everyones’ calendars. Perhaps individual nonprofits are deemed unnecessary (can you imagine?)… and workers and resources organize into pods focused on different aspects of an issue/mission… that are fiscally sponsored by the same org… and thus share their administrative support. This could both increase efficiencies and collaboration.

What else?

What other things seem essential to transforming fundraising… into philanthropy?

Conversation: Your Response

I really want to know your more detailed thoughts, too. Got more to say? Visit the comments section!

Leave a comment

Practice: Make It Yours

Pause first, the next time you’re working to help an individual or your community, in any way — whether as a staffer or as a volunteer.

Forget your to-do list. Forget whatever activities you’re about to do. Forget whatever ideas you have about the work.

Just pause.

Take three deep breaths, followed by looooong out-breaths.

Drop your consciousness down into your chest, where the energy center of your heart, your feelings, resides.

Tune in.

Tune into why you’re doing what you’re doing. Tune into how you’ll do what you’re doing. Tune into why it matters to you. Tune into the people you’ll be with, and what seems to motivate and matter to them.

Then, and only then, you can start the work.

BONUS: gather and pause with your colleagues or fellow volunteers first, to share with each other what you experienced during this tuning-in exercise.

Inspiration: Wisdom to Mull Over

Ei…

Read more

Read more

Read more

Read more

Read on….

For You: Today’s Main Course

We live in an upside-down world.

And a lot of the flip happens in our march from childhood to adulthood.

As kids, we’re told to tell the truth. Then, when we’re adults, we realize that those finding success and accolades consistently lie.

As kids, we’re taught to share. Then, as adults, we see that those celebrated in magazines and on television are those who hoard everything for themselves.

As kids, we’re punished for being mean. Then, as we acclimate to adulthood, we realize that the meanies are dominating almost every collective we’re a part of.

Our caregivers used to extoll integrity, compassion, empathy, and kindness… and now, as adults, we see that our adult peers leading governments and workplaces seem to lack all of these qualities.

We start wars in other countries — killing countless innocents, no less — while our own children starve. Professional athletes earn orders-of-magnitude more than those professionals who care for our elders. Raising up the next generation as a daycare provider or teacher is seen as a mostly “cute” endeavor, while trading stocks on the stock market (not unlike trading baseball cards) is seen as the “serious” endeavor.

As we choose our careers, we realize that, if we want to live a life that is comfortable and less of a struggle to meet our basic needs, we’ll need to avoid careers that help people, teach them, or care for them.

And what is the lesson there?

As a collective, we’ve decided that we value these things most:

• dropping bombs;

• killing innocents;

• playing sports;

• stripping our shared Earth-home of the resources it freely gives us all, and then hoarding them;

• playing number and trading games to siphon excessive, individual profit off of our shared economy;

• being in movies or on TV;

• being “famous” in any number of ways;

• and the like.

You may balk at this list.

You may say “I don’t value those things!”

But look around us.

Aren’t those the sorts of things that currently get people the most money, in our world as it is?

And wouldn’t you say that money is literally how we indicate what we value the most, as we use it as a tool to trade one thing of value for other things of value?

In a conversation with colleagues this week, I off-handedly said, “It’s really hard to make money unless you’re screwing people over.”

And I meant it.

Because I’ve experienced that.

But why is that true?!

How have we collectively built a world, over the generations, that rewards duplicity, selfishness, individuality, greed, dishonesty, power moves, pride, arrogance, fear, anxiety, and prioritizing money above all else…

… rather than rewarding compassion, care, empathy, honesty, humility, collaboration, generosity, cooperation, trust, or integrity?

This discussion is largely about depth.

And depth is something our dominant culture studiously avoids.

Because of this tendency, we’ve collectively lost the spiritual sight to really see people, and thus we get snowed by whatever façade they’ve decided to present to us.

This is also a big part of why I say that fundraising requires inner work.

And it’s also why I say that systems change will be within us.

And it’s also why I say that “philanthropy” is currently lost… and that we need to go deeper to find it again.

But even more?

I’m saying here that, to inspire our fellow humans in this world-as-it-is to freely give their money away — especially to causes that take care of people, seek justice, require empathy or compassion, or prioritize those who have been marginalized by a dominant culture that gleefully chooses winners and losers — is a steep uphill climb.

Look at the big picture.

When you do, you’ll see how much we’re going against the grain.

Now, don’t misunderstand me.

I’m not saying that humans aren’t wired to care for each other and help each other. Quite the contrary! We are wired to do those things, and yet all of the conditioning and incentives around us train us to do otherwise. So to be truly philanthropic in this world is going against the grain in a way that is often quite a challenge.

As fundraisers, we do our darnedest to help folks get there.

But if we see our work as merely focusing on the newest tactics?

Or we’re just going through the motions at our job, checking off boxes on the to-do lists we’ve made?

Or we simply repeat the “best practices” we’ve been taught without any questions, or any examination of the values and priorities they reinforce?

We’ll struggle to overcome the many chips stacked against us.

Because the way to stop re-creating the world-as-it-is…

… is to go deeper.

Our work can become overwhelmingly meaningful, if we do this!

We can:

• Connect elders to the purest, most deeply human legacies they want to leave behind here, once they’re gone — legacies that are far beyond simply prioritizing their biological relatives.

• Help multiple generations within families come together and prioritize values like justice, empathy, and collective care together.

• Encourage and guide those who have spent much of their life’s energy focused on earning and stock-piling money… to start to question how much they value that money itself…and then deeply explore what is most important to them and, even more crucial, what their communities need… so that they can dedicate the money they’ve been hoarding to making those things possible.

• Have conversations with people that help them understand, if they don’t, how poverty is a policy choice (rather than any personal failing).

• Help people examine racists beliefs and tendencies they may have developed — over years of being both physically segregated from, and conditioned to believe prejudices that keep them emotionally distant from — others who look different than them.

• Start to disrupt the dominant culture’s conditioning that has convinced so many of us that we are independent individuals… and help others’ eyes open to the truth: that we are “in an inescapable network of mutuality,” as Dr. King tried to teach us decades ago.

• Live the lessons our caregivers taught us, prioritizing integrity, honesty, generosity, kindness, care, empathy, and compassion… not as “nice ideas,” but as character traits that we actively develop and embody, inspiring others to do the same.

Do you see where I’m going here?

A big, mostly unspoken reason why fundraising is hard… is because it is a practice of promoting starkly counter-dominant-cultural values.

And then, in addition to that, it’s because we’ve mostly repurposed elements of that dominant culture (like commercial sales and marketing tactics) to try to successfully achieve our counter-dominant-cultural goals.

Honestly, how have we imagined that that would work?

To counter-act the culture that is dominant all around us…

… we’ll need to flip it on its head.

We’ll need to turn the world upside-down again.

We’ll need to prioritize what isn’t usually prioritized.

We’ll need to value what isn’t usually valued.

We’ll need to inspire others to do the same.

Only then can the culture that will actually make our collective lives more meaningful, joyful, and worth living start to prevail:

• one that seeks justice, and equity;

• one that embodies collective interdependence and care;

• one that thrives through unshakeable solidarity among us.

We can do this, friends.

We know the way.

We just need to walk it.

Together.

You in?

Conversation: Your Response

Got more to say? Visit the comments section!

Leave a comment

Practice: Make It Yours

The reason why the dominant culture is so… dominant… is because it very insidiously seeps into everything we do, having been repeatedly conditioned into us, over decades, by everyone and everything around us.

I mean, how do you overcome something as powerful as that?!

How, indeed?

By becoming conscious of it.

Becoming more conscious… and thus minimizing the amount of your life that you’re living from an unconscious, simply knee-jerk place… is the key.

So.

Let’s raise our consciousness together:

• Pay attention to yourself, this week — especially in situations that you tend to do somewhat mindlessly.

• Drop into your body, taking deep breaths. Notice what you smell. Notice what your skin feels against it. Notice what you hear. Count ten things you see. Drop out of your mind, where many of us tend to live… and into your body.

• Grounded in your body, stay present.

• Notice what you’re feeling, from moment to moment. Notice when your feelings make you want to act or say something. If you can, don’t just automatically do or say those things, but pause. Ask yourself why you were about to do or say that thing… and whether that is actually what you want to do or say.

• Make an effort to do or say things only consciously — once you’ve actively decided to, with presence.

• And because this is not easy… you can also make a practice of noticing — even hours or days later — when you acted or spoke unconsciously. The practice of becoming more conscious is gradually bringing yourself closer and closer to in-the-moment awareness. You may start with quite-delayed awareness. But the more you practice this, the more aware-in-the-moment you will become. And getting there is key to everything we’re talking about today.

Inspiration: Wisdom to Mull Over

We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal." It was "illegal" to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany.

Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish siblings.

I must make two honest confessions to you, dear ones.

First, I must confess that over the past few years, I have been gravely disappointed with moderates. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the greatest stumbling block for those of us working towards our collective liberation is not MAGA or anti-woke-ness, but moderates:

...who are more devoted to "order" than to justice;
...who prefer a negative peace, which is the absence of tension, to a positive peace, which is the presence of justice;
...who constantly say to us, "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods;"
... who paternalistically believe they can set the timetable for others' freedom;
...who live by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advise us to wait for a "more convenient season."

Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

I had hoped that people would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that, when they fail in this purpose, they become the dangerously structured dams blocking the flow of social progress.

I had hoped that people would understand that the present tension is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace... to a substantive and positive peace, in which all human beings will respect the dignity and worth of every other human being.

Actually, we who engage in work for equity, justice, and collective liberation are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out into the open, where it can be seen and dealt with... and transformed.

Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up, but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed — even with all the tension its exposure creates — to the light of human conscience... and the air of national opinion... before it can be cured.

- Lightly adapted to speak to our present moment, from the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, Junior's Letter from Birmingham Jail

Do hard-to-acknowledge truths make you clutch your pearls? Just beware that you may feel that urge, as this discussion unfolds….

For You: Today’s Main Course

I’m not trying to be controversial with today’s title.

I do know it might attract eyeballs.

But really, I’m just saying something honestly that doesn’t ever get said honestly: foundations today exist to fuel capitalism.

This may sound controversial.

But if you look at the facts, it’s just true:

• Money placed into a foundation earns a tax break: this means that, right at the outset, money given to a foundation is starving the public sphere of a huge influx of resources that could be dedicated to the common good

• Foundations then invest millions, to billions, in the stock market: the essence of a foundation is its corpus, which is nothing more than money invested in for-profit ventures — primarily the stock market — even though it’s billed as “philanthropic dollars”

• The 5% law is treated as a ceiling, rather than a floor, by foundations: the Tax Reform Act of 1969 established that foundations needed to pay out a minimum of 5% of their investment corpus every year for “charitable” causes — a figure established as a floor, originally… but which, in practice, is now routinely and widely treated as a ceiling by foundations

• A foundation’s 5% spend includes the operating expenses of the foundation: all the operational expenses of a foundation are deemed “charitable” by law, which means that those expenses (or overhead) are counted as part of the 5% charitable spending minimum (while, interestingly, they often demand minimal-to-poverty-level amounts of operational overhead for the organizations they fund)

• SO: nearly 100% of the basis of a foundation’s existence is dedicated to fueling the stock market: given the above realities, a foundation is not even remotely about philanthropy (love of humanity), but instead about investing in, and fueling, a capitalism that extracts labor from humanity (for as little monetary and other compensation as possible); extracts resources from our shared Earth (while seeing any regulations aimed at protecting and sustaining those natural resources as speed bumps on their race to profit); and treats the accumulation of capital, monetary wealth as the ultimate good (rather than the well-being of the human and natural worlds that we all exist within, and that, frankly, enable any of it to exist at all)

• Trickles to the community are an effective and paper-thin mask: an organization avoiding tax (contributions to the public common good); fueling enterprises that extract-value-from-and-never-return-value-to humanity and the natural world; and valuing money above all else would not engender much good will; so somehow, foundations have managed to put on the paper-thin mask of “philanthropy” (or less than 5% of what they actually do with the resources under their stewardship)… and convince the world that the mask is who they are

Isn’t it so clear, when you look at it this way?

Foundations exist to underwrite and fuel capitalism.

And capitalism has never pretended to prioritize communities.

Inside capitalism, people and the natural world are only “resources” to be “used” — and drained of value — in order to create a profit for a corporation and its investors. Profit (or accumulation of excess money) is the ultimate good, in this world.

And thus, fully invested in capitalism as they are, we have to assume the following about foundations: excess money, extracted from and held apart from human and natural communities, is the ultimate good for foundations.

Even Their “Philanthropy” Doesn’t Serve Communities

As we’ve discussed before, even when foundations are purportedly “doing philanthropy,” there’s not much that is truly philanthropic in their actions.

At the end of February, as we here in Minneapolis were still in the thick of the trauma of Operation Metro Surge, I wrote this:

We’ve had the people of Minneapolis giving all they can for weeks now.

Giving all they can — perhaps from funds they used to use for going out to eat or other entertainment. Sacrificing some of their own needs to help their neighbors meet their needs. Emptying their savings to make sure their community can survive.

And it’s still not enough to meet the need.

Meanwhile, individuals and organizations sitting on literally billions worth of capital — people for whom meeting the actual monetary need in Minneapolis would probably seem like a drop in the bucket — are giving next-to-nothing.

Given that I’ve now spent nearly two decades working within the world of professionalized philanthropy, I’ve almost felt like I needed an interplanetary passport, to be embedded here in Minneapolis’ mutual aid networks.

The money just flowed — wherever it was needed.

From neighborhood to neighborhood, those of us in Minneapolis were living in deeply networked, interdependent, mutualistic, reciprocal, solidarity-driven, responsive community with each other.

An ask would come through via Signal. Sometimes it was directly from our own neighborhood, but even more often, it had been passed on from other neighborhoods.

✨I could almost see the asks flitting from phone to phone throughout the city, like glowing, magical fairies.✨

Those who received them usually either 1) contributed whatever funds they could, and/or 2) passed the requests on. And then, time after time after time, reports would work their way back through the networks: NEED MET! NEED MET! NEED MET! Again and again and again.

Do you see how the flow of attention and energy is completely flipped, in this model, from how foundations function?

Amidst Minneapolis’ mutual aid:

1. An individual or family in the community would have a need

2. That need would be communicated from them to those who could help

3. Those who could help would respond to the need

4. The need was met

In contrast, in the world of foundations:

1. A foundation determines what it will fund, often with extensive and (this is important to say) internally-focused strategic planning

2. The foundation then determines who will be eligible, and how they will prove their eligibility in order to even be considered for funding

3. Those seeking funding then have to spend many hours, and many dollars, jumping through the hoops the foundation has laid out

4. Those who are best at compliance with the foundation’s parameters will get funding (which, again, this is important to say, is usually whoever has the most ready resources of time and money to jump through said hoops)

5. Those best at compliance don’t necessarily have their needs met; they instead have some resources, with often massive amounts of red tape and limitations, that they need to try to manipulate somehow to at least partially meet their needs

6. Meanwhile, those who don’t excel at compliance are left in need

7. And the needs of the community are only marginally met, if at all

And having experienced both worlds, I can tell you this unequivocally:

Minneapolis’ mutual aid is philanthropy.

A foundation’s business is not.

Money Is Made to Move, Not Stagnate

As we’ve been discussing here, the whole purpose of money is to serve as an easier means of us trading value for value, in this world:

Money is just a tool we humans invented, at some point, so we didn’t have to carry around eggs or live animals or other large items, to trade with others to meet our needs. Money was supposed to make exchanges within our economies simpler.

Money is made to move.

In trade.

In exchange.

To help.

To compensate.

Money stands in for value, so that when we value something, we can trade money for that thing, and the person who we gave that money to now has something to trade for something else that they value.

Money in and of itself has no true value. Most money is compositions of relatively common papers or metals. And these days, money is more often simply a series of ones and zeroes on a screen.

And yet, somehow, we’ve managed to create a reality in which we think it’s normal to hoard that money in a corpus that is systematically stripping communities of all their most true and real value… and not actually returning any of that value to them.

The money just sits there — hoarded, stagnant.

But it’s not only just sitting there.

Even more, it’s primarily — and actually — fueling the machinery of capitalism that has been creating problems in communities for generations now…and has thus created the need for philanthropy in the first place.

So to recap, to make sure we’re all clear here: not only is institutional “philanthropy” not actually meeting community needs…

… but it is fueling the forces that continue to increase them.

Make it make sense.

If we want money to be the medicine that it has the potential to be, these foundations will need to stop hoarding it… and start moving it. Twenty-five percent of the corpus per year. Forty percent. Sixty percent. Even one hundred percent of the resources they’re stewarding should be divested from these investments… and re-deployed in ways that actually meet the needs of our communities.

This week, I met a foundation leader who is doing just that.

Glen Galaich of the Stupski Foundation, speaking at the We Give Summit brilliantly put on by Philanthropy Together, sounded like I’ve never heard a foundation leader sound.

He talked about breaking rules that were never real. He talked about completely re-deploying his foundation’s corpus into investments that were community-supporting. He talked about spending down the corpus. He talked about how much wealth insulates you from actually understanding community needs. He talked about how much CONTROL has been adopted as a primary tool of foundations’ “philanthropy.”

And his book by that name — CONTROL: Why Big Giving Falls Short — is on its way to me as we speak. I can’t wait to read it.

You can look forward to me discussing Glen’s writing and ideas more here, in the weeks and months to come.

And in the meantime…

… I’m asking you to reimagine your view of and relationship to money. Do you love it? Why? Do you hate it? Also why? Where do you want to hoard it? Where do you let it go maybe a bit too easily, for things that you don’t really value? How have you projected your own meaning onto money?

Consider these things.

Because we can’t change what we are not conscious of.

So.

Let’s get conscious.

Conversation: Your Response

Got more to say? Visit the comments section!

Leave a comment

Practice: Make It Yours

Let’s practice giving and receiving with FLOW, not control.

FIRST:

In the next week, pay extra-close attention to everyone around you. Be on the lookout for someone in need, in some way. As soon as you see a need, move to meet it. No second-guessing. No pause to reconsider. No “oh, someone else will help.” Just help. As soon as you know of the need. Then reflect on how that feels.

THEN:

This one is very likely the harder part. In this coming week, practice receiving help. And related to that, you may need to practice asking for help too. Actively nudge yourself out of the “I’m all good, no thanks” mode… and open yourself to the “Yes, that would be lovely” mode. Ask. Receive. And then reflect on how that feels.

If we all regularly practice both of these skills, we will be living in a whole different world together, mark my words.

Inspiration: Wisdom to Mull Over