Does philanthropy still have radical potential? OccupyPhilanthropy: A Radical Imagination or Business-as-usual

1

Sara Shroff New School for Public Engagement

Qualitative Research Proposal December 11, 2013

Does philanthropy still have radical potential? OccupyPhilanthropy: A Radical Imagination or Business-‐as-‐usual

OVERVIEW

“Early on in our philanthropic journey, my wife and I became aware of something I started to call Philanthropic Colonialism. I noticed that a donor had the urge to “save the day” in some fashion. People

(including me) who had very little knowledge of a particular place would think that they could solve a local problem. Whether it involved farming methods, education practices, job training or business development, over and over I would hear people discuss transplanting what worked in one setting directly into another

with little regard for culture, geography or societal norms... But this just keeps the existing structure of inequality in place. ….I’m really not calling for an end to

capitalism; I’m calling for humanism.”

Peter Buffet, Chairman of NoVo Foundation. Excerpt from “The Charitable Industrial Complex”

New York Times on July 26, 2013.

My research sits at the intersection of philanthropy and its engagement with social justice. My broader research agenda is in studying revolutionary movements, radicalism and dissent and how they engage and negotiate the structural and systemic power structures of wealth and philanthropy. As Peter Buffet words in the excerpt above suggest, philanthropy can be defined as a liberal democratic project situated at the epicenter of capitalism, even as it is being catalyzed in the name of equality, social justice and social change. Given the ways race, ethnicity, religion, class, gender and sexuality are shifting in contemporary field of power and inequality, I want to ask: does philanthropy still have radical potential? If so, how does this radical imagination map out in praxis? Are there movements or contemporary moments that have tried to radicalize the liberal hiatus in philanthropy?

In 2010, philanthropy in American was estimated at $286.91 billion (Giving USA 2011) with merely $3 billion (Jagpal & Laskowki 2012) going towards “social justice philanthropy”. By 2050, approximately $55 Trillion (Study of High Net Worth Philanthropy 2010) in philanthropy is forecasted, so it does matter if these resources are being used to address symptoms of injustice and equality or being invested in transforming the systems and structures that cause these symptoms in the first place. For the purposes of this project, I will focus on closely examining a movement that sought to transform philanthropy to invest in systemic and structural issues. OccupyPhilanthropy is an offshoot of the larger Occupy movement and serves as a moment of radical imagination of the American philanthropic project and offer alternatives to contemporary capitalist developments. OccupyPhilanthropy was an informal effort in 2012 by philanthropic organizations to mobilize and support organizing and movement building at local, national, and international levels. Indeed, OccupyPhilanthropy is a puzzling project, as it seeks to transform philanthropy from within through institutional practice while critiquing the system of capitalism. As a site of counter-‐hegemonic discourse and philanthropic practice, is the OccupyPhilanthropy movement a manifestation of that radical imagination?

The Occupy movement is an unparalleled global counter-‐hegemonic disruptive force, which sought to challenge an inequitable system of corporatism, injustice, and financial irresponsibility. For the philanthropic and social change sector already working on issues of economic justice, Occupy is a chance to not only engage in amplifying and expanding this effort but also to examine the philanthropic predicament. The predicament being that philanthropy is the privatization of wealth, which in turn is being used for public interest and welfare. Philanthropy is positioned as the charitable arm for capitalism. Given that philanthropy generally operates within organized and well-‐established systems of power, this moment was unprecedented within the philanthropic community.

2

WORKING DEFINITION AND HISTORICAL CONTEXT:

Progressive, Social Change or Social Justice Philanthropy are terms used synonymously to reflect funding towards social change and social justice. Social justice philanthropy by a cohort of activists engaged in the practice of social justice philanthropy define it as “supporting work that is linked to social transformation, equal access to human and civil rights, redistribution of all aspects of well-‐-‐being, and respect of all beings; and promoting diversity and equity across categories of gender, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, culture, and disability status” (Ruesga & Puntenney 2010). I will use this working definition when referring to progressive or social justice philanthropy throughout this proposal. Progressive and social justice philanthropy is not a new phenomenon. The movement can trace its emergence to the Commission on Private Philanthropy and Public Needs, better known as the Filter Commission and the role of the Donee Group, which later became the watchdog for the foundation sector and is now known as National Committee on Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP).

In 1973, the Filter Commission was formed as a privately supported citizen board to study philanthropy, the role of the private sector in American society, and then to recommend measures to increase voluntary giving. Donee Group, a coalition “composed of voluntary action, environmental action, public interest law, housing, women’s rights, community organizing, service to the handicapped, children’s rights, social service, consumer rights and citizen participation activities” provided consultation and additional research which ultimately asked the questions “how will philanthropy serve progressive movements for social change? (Stanmeyer 1978, King and Osayande 2007, Smith 2007) Simultaneously 1960s experienced the growth of radical and progressive social movements in the US that challenged the status quo which revolved around class, race, gender, and sexuality inequities while third world liberation movements were rebelling against imperialist and colonial forms of oppression and domination. Many of these movements were being funded by progressive philanthropy to assist with organizing social protest without challenging the dominant status quo of capitalism and structural issues. This convergence provides the historical backing of the inherently paradoxical and apprehensive relationship of philanthropy to social justice (Smith 2007). OCCUPYPHILANTHROPY

The challenge for institutional philanthropy and the Occupy Wall Street movement may come down to the internal contradiction of the nonprofit sector’s organizational and financing structure. Can philanthropy established by the very wealthy with investments in the stock market, hedge funds, and offshore investments support a movement that challenges the very capitalist economic system that sustains it? In March 2012, 62 individuals largely from progressive philanthropy organizations and foundations signed a letter on behalf of the nascent OccupyPhilanthropy movement calling on institutional funders to provide financial support to the Occupy movement. In collaboration with eight philanthropic organizations, Funders Network on Trade and Globalization (now part of EDGE Funders Alliance) launched OccupyPhilanthropy to provide a space for donors and funders to share and develop strategies to support Occupy and related organizing efforts, and to move philanthropy towards being more responsive to calls for social and economic justice articulated by the Occupy moment. The allied organizations include Resource Generation, Wealth for the Common Good, Bay Area Justice Funders Network, Funders Collaborative on Youth Organizing, Grantmakers Without Borders, National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, International Human Rights Funders Group and Funding Exchange. The OccupyPhilanthropy website offers several ways for leaders in philanthropy to support the Occupy Movement including signing the “open letter to our colleagues in philanthropy,” (2012) joining a funder listserv, and learning about opportunities to support Occupy and long-‐term efforts to promote sustainability, equality of opportunity and social justice. The letter stated:

“We in the philanthropic community cannot let this moment pass. We have for so long wanted this kind of mass mobilization for justice. We have held conferences, gatherings, phone meetings, and spent countless

sums in an effort to support the creation of a movement that is broad based in scope and calling for

3

systemic change. Occupy presents a unique opportunity for the philanthropic community to creatively respond to these efforts and to the long standing and prior work of community organizations and leaders

to promote economic equality for the 99%.”

The Occupy Movement is the first major radical response to the economic crisis of 2008. Occupy Wall Street (OWS), popularly known as Occupy, is the name given to a protest movement that began on September 17, 2011, in Zuccotti Park, located in New York City's Wall Street financial district. It began as a revolt against austerity, bank bailouts and governments that only sought to protect finance capitalism, but it has since evolved and become a catalyst for other struggles. Slavok Zizek speech at the Occupy protest on October 9, 2011 stated that: “The problem is not corruption or greed. The problem is the system. It forces you to be corrupt. Beware not only of the enemies, but also of false friends who are already working to dilute this process. In the same way you get coffee without caffeine, beer without alcohol, ice cream without fat, they will try to make this

into a harmless, moral protest. A decaffienated protest.”

The Occupy movement is an international protest against social and economic inequality. The primary goal of the movement was to make the economic and political relations in all societies less vertically hierarchical and more flatly distributed. Since then many notable intellectuals have published books on the movement. In 2012, Occupy by Noam Chomsky was published which consisted of various speeches and lectures he gave pertaining to Occupy. "It's a difficult business…creating a new, alternative civilization." writes David Graeber (2013), the intellectual that coined the slogan “We are the 99%” and is considered the anti-‐leader leader of the Occupy Movement. In his new book the Democracy Project, he makes a case for revolution and attempts to rehabilitate anarchism. The movement did create its own media that included occupywallst.org and occupytogether.org. OccupyPhilanthropy, OccupySandy, OccupyUniversity, OccupyUnionSquare are examples of spin-‐off movements inspired by the Occupy moment. Occupy is now an umbrella of protests, it incorporates perspectives from different social movements, all unified under the brand “Occupy” that a better and different world is possible. TOPIC, PURPOSE AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS

This study is about the OccupyPhilanthropy movement and the individuals and institutions that initiated the movement. The movement inspired by the Occupy moment constructed a philanthropic response to the frustrations with the dominant discourse on capitalism and philanthropy. OccupyPhilanthropy, inspired by the Occupy movement, sought to create a space for knowledge sharing; provide financial support to the Occupy Movement and related efforts, and to provoke philanthropy as a collective to be more responsive to the call for social and economic justice. Given that the Occupy movement challenges large corporations and the global financial systems’ control at the core, which creates social and economic inequality, the study seeks to understand OccupyPhilanthropy. By employing a Gramsician (1977) understanding of how hegemony and counterhegemony mapped out and how organic intellectuals were developed or nurtured, I am interested in understanding if and how OccupyPhilanthropy influenced philanthropy as a result of the Occupy Moment.

The research project seeks to examine the dominant and contentious discourse of philanthropy through engaging activists and funders behind the OccupyPhilanthropy project. There have been many studies and books on the Occupy Movement, but very little work has looked at this offshoot and marginal movement that sought to reimagine philanthropy. I would like to understand if and how OccupyPhilanthropy worked against the status quo, towards repurposing and visioning philanthropy as new reality of addressing structural and systemic injustices. This research project adds a critical and contemporary dimension to existing conversations on social justice and how it is engaging, negotiating and ultimately changing philanthropy.

Using the OccupyPhilanthropy movement/moment, this project seeks to study politics of philanthropy and social justice by exploring the following key questions:

1. How are notions of capitalism being challenged and considered through OccupyPhilanthropy? 2. Is OccupyPhilanthropy challenging philanthropy at large? If so, how?

4

3. Does OccupyPhilanthropy radically reimagine philanthropy’s role in society? If so, how? PERSONAL BIOGRAPHY

As a scholar, I embark on this study from three distinct perspectives, which often maps out in complementary, contradictory and complex ways. My personal journey as a feminist and woman of color (within some vectors of privilege, outside others) living on the borderlands of Pakistan and America has deeply influenced the questions I ask and seek to answer around social justice. As a practitioner in the field of social justice, development and philanthropy, I have often been involved in philanthropic decisions, and I am committed to adding a critical voice to those conversations, within the limitations and potential of my own subject positioning. In addition, as a professional, I have conducted many qualitative studies for client ranging from governments, corporations, foundations, and non-‐profits and that experience will supplement my research.

Having worked in and with major philanthropic foundations, corporations, western governments, non-‐profit/non-‐governmental organizations, social enterprises and public-‐private partnerships I have seen how power, capital and justice often maps out or is ignored. Thus, my research agenda is driven by my commitment to understand how individuals and institutions in philanthropy and radical social justice understand and negotiate power and possibility. Finally, as an activist scholar, I am most interested in scholarship as empowerment and emancipation and not simply as a space for critique, passivity and quiet resistance. Scholarship, like all forms of knowledge, is and always will be political. I will have to aware of my political ideologies and my insider status within philanthropy as I embark upon this ambitious and exciting research project. I will engage my academic mentors to guide and advise me especially as I switch gears from being a critical practitioner to becoming an activist scholar. RELEVANCE AND CONTRIBUTION

Restructuring Power: This study seeks to contribute to the discussion of how aspects of power map out in social justice philanthropy and consider these implications within the larger philanthropy field. The project contributes to current critical philanthropy studies, which are trying to understand philanthropy as disruptive, collaborative, and a cooptation of social justice struggles by the wealthy and elite under the guise of both benevolence and empowerment. Even though this research will focus on studying one contemporary philanthropic movement, I want to make a case that activists working for structural and systemic change are engaging and negotiating with the politics of philanthropy and wealth. Therefore, I am interested in studying the politics and power of philanthropy outside the notion of enabler and oppressor. I am interested in going beyond the binary approach and examining alternatives that are being tried and tested inside and outside existing framework of social movements. This research will contribute to a more nuanced understanding of philanthropy and social justice where relationship of power are being negotiated and executed to offer alternative to create what I am calling a counter-‐hegemonic philanthropy movement. Unprecedented Moment in Philanthropy: There is a lot of literature available on critiquing philanthropy, however, OccupyPhilanthropy has not been studied yet. The project seeks to understand how social justice and philanthropy are engaging and negotiating with its inherent contradictions and imperfections. I would like to further problematize the space, while offering a nuanced reading of a contemporary movement of social justice philanthropy that might add a valuable departure to current critical philanthropic studies. Policy Implications: Increasingly the language and practice of philanthropy is emerging in public policy discussions in areas of regulation, governance and voluntary guidelines. Understanding its policy limitations and suggesting opportunities for social justice philanthropy goes beyond local or national agenda and should be understood through examination of global drivers and reward systems of capitalism and philanthropy at large. Public policy discussions around philanthropy and structural and systemic social injustice must return to the intellectual and ideological frameworks first to offer practical steps with radical visions of alternatives. This dynamic exercise of understanding how radical social movement function at the margins of this well-‐established structure of capitalism and philanthropy will help us

5

understand if and how they are reshaping development and social change at the core.

CONCEPTS AND CRITIQUES

Critics have suggested that ideologies, structures, policies and practices within the philanthropic sector, whether corporate foundations, large foundations, small foundations, individual giving by wealthy donors, and the non-‐profit model itself are taken for granted, without questioning the politics of hierarchy, capital and power at play. These prevailing theories suggest that progressive or social justice philanthropy prevents or inhibits more radical, structural change. Most of the scholarship that aligns to my understanding of the politics of philanthropy positions philanthropy as a protective layer of capitalism and embodies an authoritarian relationship to social justice.

In Foundations and Public Policy: The Mask of Pluralism, Joan Roelofs challenges us to think critically about devising an effective counterhegemonic movement within progressive philanthropy. Roelofs documents how even progressive foundations service the political and capitalist status quo, have a depoliticizing effect, and preserve the hegemony of neoliberal institutions. She uses Antonio Gramsci’s theory of hegemony to demonstrate how foundations fund “civil society” to appease societal consent and how their influence over intellectuals and institutions shapes culture and governmental policies. Roelofs also point out that in addition to coopting social movements, philanthropy has also played a role in articulating their own version of identity politics, which has served to promote fragmentation between complementary radical social movements. She characterizes identity politics as an amalgamation of ethnic particularism, race consciousness, sexual politics, and radical feminism, preventing the development of a unified class struggle against neo-‐liberalism (2003).

Madonna Thunder Hawk, a veteran of Native American activism suggests, “the non-‐profit structure supports a paternalistic relationship in which non-‐profits from outside our Communities fund their own hand-‐picked organizers, rather than funding us to do the work ourselves" (2007 p. 105). Hawk also critiques the myopic scope of most activists’ work often resulting in turf battles "previously, organizers would lay down their issue when necessary and support another issue. Now, most organizers are very specialized, and cannot do anything unless they have a budget first” (2007, 106). Given the historical overview of liberal foundations and their arrangement with social justice, it would be suffice to say that philanthropists, who are part of the elite or ruling class, will generally not facilitate the massive radical social changes that will encourage the global adoption of participatory democracy. “Philanthropy is not progressive and never has been. Philanthropy never intends to fund revolutionary struggle that demands the just seizure of wealth, resources, and power that has been gained by exploiting

bodies, lives and lands of people of color worldwide.” (King and Osayande, 2007 p. 88)

Activists of color, and postcolonial and feminist writers, at large, see philanthropy, as a cooptation and institutionalization of “public money” through various policy and tax regulations resulting in perpetual funding cycles. Andrea Smith (2007), Ruth Wilson Gilmore (2007) and Dylan Rodriguez (2007), have theorized the dangers of what they term the non-‐profit industrial complex (NPIC) – a rich, nuanced and multi-‐dimensional concept that traces the precarious relationship between activism through the non-‐profit model and philanthropy. Dylan Rodriguez defines NPIC “as a set of symbiotic relationships that link political and financial technologies of state and owning class control with surveillance over public political ideology, including and especially emergent progressive and leftist social movements since about the mid-‐1970s” (2007 p. 21-‐22). Ruth Wilson Gilmore calls the NPIC a shadow state, an instrument whose continuation allows government to relinquish its responsibility for basic social services. Gilmore and Rodriguez argue that NPIC functions as “a ̳shadow state constituted by a network of institutions that do much of what government agencies are supposed to do with tax money in the areas of education and social services. The NPIC functions as an alibi that allows government to wage war, [expand punitive forms of surveillance on particular populations], and proliferate market economies under the veil of partnership between the public and private sectors (Smith 2007 p. 9, Gilmore 2007).

The NPIC has also fostered a competitive culture and systemization that looks similar to the corporate culture within the non-‐profit sector. This ‘market’ for organizing or movements encourages

6

non-‐profits to focus on building and expanding their own work, which often creates an awkward and competitive rapport between complementary organizations, dramatically contrasting from the values of a movement-‐building culture. Foundation are generally interested in the neat packaging and production of success stories and measurable outcomes to illustrate impact. Non-‐profits therefore must embrace and engage in the organizing or movement ‘market’ to compete for foundation funding (Perez 2007).

Christine E. Ahn suggests that philanthropic foundations serve as an extension of capitalism, while legitimizing capitalism through philanthropy as a corrective notion of the inevitable and expected troubles of capitalism “Americans are seduced by the idea that piecemeal voluntary efforts can somehow replace a systemic public approach to eliminating poverty … based on the inherent falsehood that scarcity—rather than inequality—is at the root of these persisting social and economic problems” (2007 p.63). Smith further speaks to the limitation of social movements that function inside the NPIC and questions the problematic permanence of the institutionalization of disenfranchisement through the non-‐profit model, “the NPIC promotes a social movement culture that is non-‐collaborative, narrowly focused, and competitive….to radically change society, we must build mass movements that can topple systems of domination, such as capitalism…. consequently, we become inflexible rather than fluid and ever changing in our strategies, which is what a movement for social transformation really requires.” With the NPIC, non-‐profits are highly dependent on support from foundations as they are constantly searching for funding. Grassroots organizations and social movements must submit to the demands of foundations in order to receive the resources they need. Through foundations, the rich have become the “controllers of social justice struggles.” (2007 p. 10)

Robert Arnove’s Philanthropy and Cultural Imperialism provides a critical analysis of ideological and cultural hegemony within philanthropy through a Gramscian understanding. How people understand power within their world often plays out at the detriment of the subaltern groups but in favor of dominant groups that maintain or further the status quo. He suggests that “[Foundations] serve as 'cooling-‐out' agencies, delaying and preventing more radical, structural change. They help maintain an economic and political order, international in scope, which benefits the ruling-‐class interests of philanthropists and philanthropoids” (1980 p. 1). Indeed, Arnove asserts that major foundations and philanthropists could be classified as contemporary imperialists. Arnove’s analysis is valuable in understanding how the subaltern and the dominant group understand power within hegemony of philanthropy and capitalism. Foundations, and much of nonprofit funding, is money that would have been public money but is now maintained and controlled privately by philanthropy. Daniel Faber and Deborah McCarthy in Foundations for Social Change: Critical Perspectives on Philanthropy and Popular Movements (2005) demonstrate how large philanthropic foundations in the U.S. direct their funding towards mainstream institutions that do not rock the boat and limit their resource allocation towards organizations that actually service the marginal and vulnerable communities. Faber and McCarthy suggest that foundations engage in “philanthropic exclusion” by funding handpicked organizations within popular movements; and they engage in “philanthropic colonization” of radical groups and movements.

Philanthrocapitalism is a recent phenomenon within philanthropy studies that merges philanthropy and capitalism. The most prominent speakers of this movement are Matthew Bishop and Michael Green, authors of Philanthrocapitalism: How the Rich Can Save the World. This book is a promising reflection on the future of American philanthropy and reveals an innovative wave of philanthropy with a new vocabulary and renewed promise. “The past couple of decades have been a golden age for capitalism, and today’s new philanthropists are trying to apply the secrets behind that money-‐making success to their giving” (2008 p. 2-‐3). Philanthrocapitalism is the utilization of market forces to advance greater social good. These blurring lines and muddled motivations of philanthropy and capitalism suggests a precarious shift of power, allowing corporations and philanthropies to lead, shift and steer markets, policy making, social investment and welfare, under the purview of the government and civil society.

Philanthrocapitalism today has emerged as the popular, uncontested and naive response to the perceived failures and limitations of global development, public policy and social justice. Michael Edwards (2008), a prominent critic of philanthrocapitalism provides a useful understanding of the term and its limitations. He breaks the phenomenon down into three broad categories; social enterprise, social entrepreneurship; venture philanthropy and corporate social responsibility, and I would add here, responsible investing and impact investing. Edwards and other critics of philanthrocapitalism suggest that it celebrates the very public concentration of wealth, celebrity and status. This new notion is positioning

7

philanthropy not as a social or humanitarian practice but as an integrated part of present day creative capitalism which is having a direct relation to the growing inequality associated with it. Players in philanthrocapitalism are being positioned as celebratory players for society’s welfare and corporations are being positioned as growth and capital engines. However, this suggested expansion of capitalism comes at the expense of the overall welfare of society in terms of social, economic, environmental and governance challenges. Robin Rogers (2013) argues that philanthrocapitalim and billionaire philanthropy needs to be engaged by both social movements and policy makers. She suggests that philanthrocapitalism requires checks and balances. Critical segments in global development including global health and agriculture sectors are already dominated by billionaire philanthropy when it comes to funding and steering policy. “The way to balance the great power of philanthrocapitalism is not to stop innovations in charitable giving but to build new institutions of banking, taxation, science and civic participation that support this new philanthropy without giving it unfettered power.” It is only through policy changes and a new system of accountability for philanthrocapitalism and the super-‐elite that government, civil society and philanthropy can engage in a constructive and collaborative ways. Lastly, Slavoj Zizek (2009) suggests that philanthrocapitalism should not be examined merely as an appendix or supplement to capitalism, or as an inconsequential advertising hoax, but as a fully integrated part of the way in which capitalism is operating and legitimizing itself at present. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

The concepts and critiques above provide a valuable and expansive understanding of how philanthropy and the non-‐profit model are considered to be an ideological contraption, serving the interests of the wealthy and contributing to the reproduction of the existing social order mired in inequalities and power-‐relations. Research that sheds a light on instances when radical movements and philanthropy do engage and negotiate will provide a deeper understanding of how cycles of systemic and structural are being broken down and reconfigured. Most critics provide a thorough understanding of the historical and contemporary realities and limitations of philanthropy, however, do account for how the contradictory relationship between philanthropy and radicalism is reshaping philanthropy and the non-‐profit sector. Previous research focuses on explaining philanthropy through the lens of power as domination without investigating power as tool to build capacity, which is what is increasingly a site of praxis in social justice and progressive philanthropy. Lastly, the unit of analysis in most of the scholarship is organizations usually foundations and non-‐profits but here is limited scholarship that analyzes the work of ‘activists’ and “philanthropists’ engaged in philanthropy.

My work lies at the intersection of feminist theory, Marxist theory, poststructural theory, and postcolonialism theory. The conceptual foundation will examine OccupyPhilanthropy through a Gramscian (1973, 1977) reading of ‘organic crisis’, ‘hegemony’, ‘counter hegemony’ and ‘organic intellectuals’ to understand how notions of social justice and philanthropy are being constructed and negotiated to eventually form a new counter-‐hegemonic understanding of social justice philanthropy. My examination will add a nuanced and complex understanding to how radical imagination is understood, performed and sustained outside the traditional notion of movements or organizational frameworks.

Progressive or social justice philanthropy is perhaps going through what Antonio Gramsci calls an “organic crisis” as experienced through the failures of the ruling class on economic, social, ecological and political fronts in the U.S. This crisis therefore goes well beyond questions of wealth accumulation and poses fundamental questions concerning the way power and capital is produced and reproduced through philanthropy. Discussions of social justice and philanthropy, vis-‐à-‐vis, OccupyPhilanthropy would benefit from Gramsician understanding of how ‘organic intellectuals’ are disrupting the philanthropic ‘hegemony’ to construct a bourgeoning ‘counter-‐hegemony’ movement within social justice philanthropy while co-‐constructing power.

Recognizing that philanthropy and social justice involves the application and illustration of multiple forms of power in the pursuit of resolving pressing social and economic problems while disrupting the system, Gramsci’s writings on organic crisis, hegemony, counter-‐hegemony and organic intellectuals will serve as my core framework in mapping out the OccupyPhilanthropy movement. Gramsci, recognized organic crisis as a necessary condition for unraveling the dominant discourse, which is the most significant characteristic of hegemony. According to his interpretation, organic crisis is a vital element in imagining or

8

creating something new. During an organic crisis, the structures and practices that constitute and reproduce a hegemonic order fall into chronic and noticeable disorder and dismay, creating a new topography of political and cultural conflict, and thus arises the possibility of social transformation or radical reimagination. This could be emblematic of what progressive and social justice philanthropy is experiencing given our discussion earlier on the inability to engage the dominant discourse given its soft-‐coercive mechanisms and prevailing ideologies. According to Gramsci the situations suggest a crisis of authority:

If the ruling class has lost its consensus, i.e., is no longer ‘leading’ but only ‘dominant’, exercising coercive force alone, this means precisely that the great masses have become detached from their traditional

ideologies…. The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear (1977 p. 275-‐6).

Hegemony, according to Antonio Gramsci refers to a type of cultural leadership exercised by the

ruling class over the masses. Hegemony can utilize executive or legislative powers or policing, institutionalized repression or surveillance to maintain the order of the dominant elite. According to Gramsci, intellectuals sustain the dominant order by creating and popularizing a worldview that convinces the oppressed that their subordination is inevitable. In this manner, the masses are socialized to believe that their political situation cannot be altered and should not be opposed. Hence, a key modality of hegemony is that oppressed groups often participate in their own oppression. In contrast, Gramsci’s counter hegemony is a notion that describes the way people develop discourse to challenge dominant assumptions, beliefs, ideologies and customary patterns of behavior. In the context of philanthropy, counter hegemony is employed to explain some of the criticism of, and mobilization against, the non-‐profit industrial complex and philanthrocapitalism. It serves as a valuable theory in understanding the social justice philanthropy movement as an anti-‐philanthropy movement. Gramsci sets forth the notion of counter-‐hegemony as a revolutionary, cultural ideology created by intellectuals from the exploited and marginal class in order to overturn the standing capitalist order and replace it with democratic socialism. He argues that these ideologues or organic intellectuals have to create a counter-‐hegemonic vision through anti-‐ruling class institutions and lead the masses in staging a universal revolution through cultural subversion as opposed to violence.

In Gramsci's view, intellectuals produce both hegemony and counter-‐hegemony. "Traditional intellectuals" create and popularize hegemony through their influence in institutions. In philanthropy, funders and activists produce a certain mainstream identity and shape popular culture in a manner that validates the dominant political order or in the case of philanthropy, traditional, mainstream philanthropy. Alternatively, ‘organic intellectuals’ develop from within the subordinated class and create counter-‐hegemonic ideology as a revolutionary activity. They build philosophically radical institutions that challenge the authority of the ruling elite, and, as politically and socially aware individuals, they invest their intelligence in the consciousness and awareness nurturing of the masses. Gramsci insists that a revolution can only occur when the common people have been converted to a counter-‐hegemonic ideology that inspires them to demand a foundational change in popular philosophy. Traditional and organic intellectuals function as rival ideologies: while traditional ideologues justify the capitalist system, their organic counterparts seek to destroy it. The OccupyPhilanthropy funders and activists will be examined through Gramscian understanding of what constitutes a traditional and organic intellectual. DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY I am claiming that philanthropy and radical social justice do and can co-‐exist however the coexistence is one that is contradictory, nuanced and problematic. My research design and methodology will pursue a deep and complex understanding of how individuals working in social justice philanthropy especially those that organized OccupyPhilanthropy questioned, negotiated, compromised to rethink systems and structural issues of injustice. In order to study OccupyPhilanthropy as a recent articulation of a social justice philanthropic imagination of the Occupy moment and how it has organized the social justice philanthropy community would be most appropriately studied through a combination of research methodologies for inclusive data collection and methods.

9

1) Critical discourse analysis – Archival document analysis and document review to understand how radical social justice formations are articulated. I will study the construction of identity, usage of language and messaging, and literature pertaining to the OccupyPhilanthropy movement and social justice philanthropy during and post Occupy movement. Fundamental to my research is studying the complex stories of individuals behind the movements and their struggles as well as how language is constructed and often coopted. 2) Narrative Analysis -‐ My research is studying the stories of individuals behind social justice philanthropy and activism and their articulation of the struggle. To capture lived perceptions, identities and experienced I will conduct the semi-‐structured interviews with long-‐time community organizers, and funders that were part of the nine philanthropic organizations that co-‐founded the OccupyPhilanthropy movement. I will begin with the nine founding members and expand the list of OccupyPhilanthropy supporters. The founding list of organizations include:

1. Funders Network on Transforming the Global Economy (now part of EDGE Funders Alliance)

2. Resource Generation 3. Wealth for the Common Good 4. Bay Area Justice Funders Network 5. Funders Collaborative on Youth Organizing 6. Grantmakers Without Borders 7. National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy 8. International Human Rights Funders Group 9. Funding Exchange

3) Action research or participatory action research -‐ Given my own experience and relationship to the field of social justice philanthropy as a critique and activist, I am already a participant in this research. This research will include site-‐visits and participant observation at OccupyPhilanthropy as well as other social justice philanthropy conferences and events in order to actually experience and participate in network analysis and collective identity formation analysis.

10

RESEARCH DESIGN AND DATA COLLECTION METHODS Perceptions: Social Justice Philanthropy and Radicalism

Questions Anticipated data Methods How do funders and activists articulate and understand social justice philanthropy? Radical social justice? What are the dominant perceptions? How do they perceive success? How do they identify success or “deliverables”? How is power being produced and re-‐produced?

- Funders and activists understanding and articulation of philanthropy and structural and systemic injustice and inequality.

- Articulation of power - Identification of organizational frameworks being used

- Ideas, language/messaging and theories being used

Archival Research: organizational/project-‐framing documents if possible/website and articles

Discourse Analysis: philanthropy and radical social justice related literature

Interviews: Interviews with funders and activists involved with the OccupyPhilanthopy movement.

Literature Review: review of professional as well as academic materials and ideas referenced by individuals that are part of the movement

Observation/participation: attendance at conferences, meetings and related events.

Practices: Social Justice Philanthropy and Radicalism

Questions Anticipated data Methods How is social justice philanthropy practiced? Can you share a moment/ give me an example of how OccupyPhilanthropy has been effective? Can you share a moment/give me an example of how OccupyPhilanthropy could be more effective? How did Occupy and related efforts react to funding?

- Funders decisions to engage in projects that address systemic and structural issues

- Identification of decision-‐makers and decision-‐making processes

- Dynamics of relationships

- Identification of projects/movements that are/were funded and the rationale behind those decisions

Archival Research: project and organizational reports. Funding proposals.



Observation/participation: attendance at conferences, meetings and related events.

Mapping: chart funded projects by OccupyPhilanthropy

Renovation: Social Justice Philanthropy and Radicalism

Questions Anticipated data Methods Was OccupyPhilanthropy transformative? How? Does OccupyPhilanthropy challenge the dominant view? Can you give me an example of how OccupyPhilanthropy has changed the way philanthropy views social justice and systemic and structural radical social change? Is power being re-‐constructed? How are power and control being re-‐constructed?

- Identification of changes in systemic and structural issues, if any

- Examination of dynamics of power and control

- Identification of dynamics of relationships

- Exploration of alternative views

- Identification of radical departures


Observation: attendance at conferences, meetings and related events.


11

REFERENCES

Ahn, Christine E. (2007) “Democratizing American Philanthropy” In: INCITE! Women of Color Against Violence (eds.) The Revolution Will Not Be Funded: Beyond The Non-‐Profit Industrial Complex. Cambridge, MA. South End Press p. 63-‐76

Arnove, Robert, ed. (1980). Philanthropy and Cultural Imperialism. Boston: G.K. Hall.

Bishop, Michael and Green, Michael (2008). Philanthrocapitalism: How The Rich Save the World. London, New York, Sydney and New Delhi: Bloomsbury Press. Buffet, Peter (2013, July 26) The Charitable Industrial Complex. New York Times. Chomsky, Noam (2012) Occupy. Brooklyn, New York: Zuccotti Park Press. Edwards, Michael (2008) Just Another Emperor: The Myths and Realities of Philanthrocapitalism. Demos Faber, Daniel Faber & Deborah McCarthy (2005). Foundations for Social Change: Critical Perspectives on Philanthropy and Popular Movements. Rowman & Littlefield Gilmore, Ruth Wilson (2007). “In the Shadow of the Shadow State” In: INCITE! Women of Color Against

Violence (eds.) The Revolution Will Not Be Funded: Beyond The Non-‐Profit Industrial Complex. Cambridge, MA. South End Press, p.41-‐52

Giving USA Foundation (2011). Giving USA 2011: The Annual Report on Philanthropy for the Year 2010. Retrieved from www.givingusareports.org. Graeber, David (2013) Democracy Project: A History, a Crisis, a Movement. New York. Spiegel & Grau Gramsci, Antonio (1971) Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. New York: International Publishers Gramsci, Antonio (1977) Selections from Political Writings, 1910-‐1920. New York: International Publishers Hawk, Madonna Thunder (2007) “Native Organizing Before the Non-‐Profit Industrial Complex” In: INCITE! Women of Color Against Violence (eds.) The Revolution Will Not Be Funded: Beyond The Non-‐

Profit Industrial Complex . Cambridge, MA. South End Press, p 101-‐106 King, Tiffany Lethabo and Osayande, Ewuare (2007). 'The Filth on Philanthropy: Progressive Philanthropy

Agenda to Misdirect Social Movements', In: INCITE! Women of Color Against Violence (eds.) The Revolution Will Not Be Funded: Beyond The Non-‐Profit Industrial Complex. Cambridge, MA. South End Press. p.79-‐89

Jagpal Niki and Laskowki, Kevin (2012, November). The Philanthropic Landscape: The State of Social Justice Philanthropy 2008-‐2010. National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy Occupy Philanthropy Website. http://occupyphilanthropy.org/allied-‐philanthropic-‐organizations.

Accessed November 28, 2013 Open Letter to Our Colleagues in Philanthropy. http://occupyphilanthropy.org/letter/ March 12, 2013.

Accessed November 15, 2013.

12

Perez, Amara H -‐ Sister in Action for Power (2007) “Between Radical Theory and Community Praxis:

Reflections on Organizing and the Non-‐Profit Industrial Complex.” In: INCITE! Women of Color Against Violence (eds.) The Revolution Will Not Be Funded: Beyond The Non-‐Profit Industrial Complex. Cambridge, MA. South End Press p. 91-‐100

Roelofs, Joan (2003) Foundations and Public Policy: The Mask of Pluralism. Albany: State University of New York Press Rodriguez, Dylan (2007) “The Political Logic of Non-‐profit Industrial Complex” In: INCITE! Women of Color Against Violence (eds.) The Revolution Will Not Be Funded: Beyond The Non-‐Profit Industrial Complex. Cambridge, MA. South End Press, p.21-‐40 Rogers, Robin (2012, January 22) Hidden Daners of Million-‐Dollar Philanthropic Donations.

http://bit.ly/1gtFIWU. Accessed November 11, 2013 Ruesga, G. Albert and Puntenney ,Deborah. (2010, March 1). Social Justice Philanthropy An Initial

Framework for Positioning This Work. Working Group on Philanthropy for Social Justice and Peace.

Smith, Andrea (2007) 'Introduction: The Revolution Will Not Be Funded', In: INCITE! Women of Color

Against Violence (eds.) The Revolution Will Not Be Funded: Beyond The Non-‐Profit Industrial Complex. Cambridge, MA. South End Press, p.1-‐18

Stanmeyer, William (1979) Institutional analysis for National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy Washington, DC

Study of High Net Worth Philanthropy, 2010. Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University. November

2010 Žižek, Slavoj (2009) First as tragedy, then as farce. London and New York: Verso Slavoj Žižek, Speaks at Occupy Wall street: Transcript

http://www.imposemagazine.com/bytes/slavojzizek-‐at-‐occupy-‐wall-‐street-‐transcript. Posted October 10, 2011. Accessed November 25, 2013.

Documents

Does philanthropy still have radical potential? OccupyPhilanthropy: A Radical Imagination or Business-as-usual