I have been introduced via email to Dick Wagner (though I had known his work) through friends at the Open Space Giving Conference. He is a distinguished person in my area of interest, as can be seen from my brief write-up in an earlier post. As these conversational threads spin from friend to friends of friends, I hope others will make contacts that can help them advance their work in giving. People talk about markets for giving, and reputation systems, and trust (as it were a trademarked concept) but in the end, isn't it these personal introductions that are the most useful and (to use and old term) "civilized" way to build a network for giving?
Reflecting on my introduction to Dick and how characteristic that is of working in the elite markets with the best people, I am driven to ask how networks are kept open, or closed. So often these civilized "letters of introduction," or personal referrals within an elite (whether a profession, like planning, or whether among wealthy people, or among those with celebrity, or political power, or artistic renown, or recognized expertise) can serve to confirm and isolate an ingroup, or network, or hierarchy of networks. (I remember carrying to Oxford a letter of introduction to W.H. Auden from an American poet, William Meredith. How nice, but also how self-enclosed a bubble. I also remember how I could not attend Council on Foundations as a philanthropic advisor, until I was invited to speak. I am also reminded of the phrase, "safe places" so important to people of wealth, meaning places sequestered from the importunate.) Maybe excellence, and time control, maybe sanity itself, requires these closed loops, and doors with rites of passage, but giving, if it is to offset the market and provide us a respite from the ideology of winners and losers, has to unite us from top to bottom and side to side, as citizens, human beings, and children of God. "Many are called," I guess, "and few are chosen." There is no pleasure sweater on Heaven or on earth than shutting the door in an inferiors face. Yet, I still feel, that from friend to friend of friend the network of caritas has to grow (per no less an authority than Christ) until all are included, at least provisionally until they screw up, and damn themselves, somewhere in the net of reciprocity, else the gift confirms the very thing it denies. At the very least let's make these networks through which wealth, knowledge, power and influence flow more open and more transparent than they currently are. Let us err on the side of democracy.
I would like to see this concept carried a bit further. I would like to see those who are fortunate enough to be in conversations with the powerful act as an intermediary who leads their network of friends through portals that provide information on where they are needed, why they are needed and how they can apply their resources as reinforcments in places where good work is being done, but reinforcements of people, dollars, ideas, technology, etc. are needed.
While I'm sure this is happening all the time, I'm not sure that many portals use maps of geographic areas to show where need for a particular type of social enterprise is most needed, or to show what enterprises are already operating within specific areas.
Without the map it is too easy for a powerful person or organization to make a significant impact in one location and feel the job is done. With the map one can quickly see that such impact is needed in many locations.
I'd also like to see visual charts that illustrate the timeline needed to accomplish a goal. Such charts would help the powerful see that short-term involvement usually does little to have an impact on complicated issues.
I don't need to be in the conversation with the wealthy if someone who is in that conversation is drawing the wealthy and powerful through a portal that shows them the battlfield and where they are needed.
At www.tutormentorexchange.net you can see maps of Chicago that illustrate where poverty and poorly performing schools are concentrated. This is our battlefield. You can find links to dozens of organizations working in Chicago and other cities to mentor and tutor kids. Each needs a more consistent flow of volunteers, dollars and technology.
For those in conversations with the wealthy and powerful, this is a portal that you can use to bring your friends to this effort.
While I use my own work to demonstrate the point, I beleive that maps and visual roadmaps could be used effectively by many causes in many cities to connect those who can help with those who need help.
Posted by: Daniel F. Bassill | August 22, 2004 at 01:43 PM
Your site is an excellent resource. Very well done. "Drawing the wealthy through a portal..." At Dallas Social Venture Partners we do a "Venture Van" to take partners to areas of need. I wonder if something like that is being done in Chicago through the community foundations.
Posted by: Phil | August 22, 2004 at 02:38 PM
I wonder if any Prince Gautamas climb aboard these vans.
Posted by: Harry | August 22, 2004 at 05:16 PM
Go here for Guatama's awakening
http://mcel.pacificu.edu/mcel/omm/B1261.htm
Posted by: Phil | August 22, 2004 at 08:48 PM
To the elite, the competent or successful, is there anything more aggravating than the tyranny imposed by the feckless? There are people who have suffered misfortune; they brought it down on themselves and some odd neurosis inspires them to spread their mediocrity. Our goodwill towards mankind is their lever. Isn't it better for all concerned that the door be slammed in their faces?
They destroy morale, undercut the performance of their betters and every so often you can see the smug, satisfied hatred for excellence shining out of their eyes as they contemplate the ruin they have made of others' painstaking efforts.
Dealing with them becomes a serious problem if they are members of our subtribe. We are all inclined to draw talent from the pool we know best, who speak the language we know, whose first premises so nearly match our own. It's a reasonably sound practice. The learning curve is less steep for them and we imagine, rightly or wrongly, that backgound will determine performance. If nothing else, they know what is expected and the basic desire not to disappoint will inspire a certain amount of effort. Bringing shame and failure to the subtribe is anti-survival.
These are the people who must not be cut any slack at all. They will fail their way upwards, given half a chance, and become entrenched in decision making positions; attempting to create a safe niche for them within an organization is a terrible mistake.
How much better off would everyone be if the young man who had displayed cowardice, a fondness for drugs and liquor, lack of empathy or understanding and an inability to perform the simplest tasks set for him had faced society's prescribed justice? Giving that young man the opportunity to find redemption through honest physical labor and counseling, should he show the ability to benefit thereby, is better for all, I think. Elevating him to high office -- the highest office, perhaps -- is a slap in the face to all who have done more starting from less fortunate first circumstances. But I digress.
Situations must be found for people who, for one reason or another, have displayed an inability to cope. This could be called nannyism, accurately, for their basic problems almost always include some degree of immaturity.
It's even better to forestall failure by early mentoring. A problem caught before it's compounded by repeated errors bears no burden of opprobrium and shattered sense of self-worth. Mentoring can benefit people who show the will to improve. There's nobility to nurturing that spark. I would also argue that meeting the basic survival needs of the wholly unsalvageable has secondary benefits. If nothing else, it's cheaper than prison.
Posted by: Harry | August 23, 2004 at 07:49 AM
Harry, would you like brandy and a cigar? A little philanthropy, a little brie? Seriously, get out of that over-stuffed wingback chair. We are there to clean the common roon, not make policy.
Posted by: Phil Cubeta | August 23, 2004 at 05:38 PM
Oops! I thought I was posting to Wealth Bondage. Too much brandy. . .
Posted by: Harry | August 23, 2004 at 05:47 PM
Istiophorus platypterus
has unmatched velocity.
Damn the obstreperous,
who tear the nets of reciprocity.
Posted by: klaius | August 25, 2004 at 11:39 PM
Klaius, building bonds of reciprocity goes best sans poetry? I mean, if we want a comprehensive, all-inclusive, network. Poetry would drastically limit our chances.
Posted by: Phil Cubeta | August 26, 2004 at 03:42 PM