Where are they, all the giving blogs? was once the question. Now we have a more interesting question: Why do those who start blogs on philanthropy either say next to nothing (as if posts were reviewed by an immediate superior or run by an internal censor) or fall silent? "What should we talk about?" asks Lucy Berholz, and then falls silent. Philanthropybeat "is an online journal that covers the institutional philanthropy and private foundations," but has no posts as far as I can tell.
I wish Lenore Ealy could get a team of conservative thinkers, like Bill Schambra and Amy Kass to blog with her. At a recent conference, Amy told me, about a particular point, "You are completely wrong." And she was right. How can we get that conversational spirit, of heated disgreement, with respect for truth, going in our staid field as we await the talking points from Headquarters? I mean, if you can't blog in your own name without permission get a pseud and speak in parables. Over at Wealth Bondage they always have an opening for a well-bred Professional. If you want to make a Fool of yourself with impunity, I am sure Candidia can put you to work blogging for hire as a public service. You would think that blogs being "voluntary action in a public space" would be a natural fit with those interested in promoting civil society and citizen engagement. Instead, mostly silence. I should probably take the hint myself and write about, say, spaniels.
Spaniels are beautiful dogs. :)
A very informative Blog, I invite you to check out my blog.
Empathy
http://e-m-p-a-t-h-y.blogspot.com
Thank you,
Matt
Posted by: Matt | January 05, 2006 at 07:31 PM
Nice. Thanks for the heads up.
Posted by: Phil | January 05, 2006 at 07:37 PM
Good question. I stopped blogging to meet work and family commitments. It is, as you well know, hard to write something interesting every day. Especially about philanthropy, a field that moves glacially.
BTW, your comment on getting some controversial discussions going is right on - that would be a way that blogs (which are all about timeliness) could mesh with philanthropy (which isn't exactly all about speed and debate)
Posted by: Lucy Bernholz | March 09, 2006 at 01:24 PM
Thanks, Lucy. There is plenty to discuss, it is just that to do it in public is to take a risk. Giving is a great topic, one of the seminal topics - What is it to be human? What is it to be happy or successful? To what extent are we economic creatures? What is the order of the flesh or market and the order of love or spirit? To which does giving belong? What is the role of giving and quid pro quo and reciprocity and logrolling in political philanthropy? To what extent are lobbying dollars and foundation dollars fungible in ideology creation and deployment? What is the role of giving in creating and upending hegemonic elites? Surely, these are lively questions? But they are mostly off limits, since someone might be offended. And that someone might be a significant donor, board member, client, customer, colleague, or supervisor. Blogging is one arena where the accepted norms allow for a free debate and give and take, or even vitriol. Let's take advantage of that and speak in human voices of what is for us a besetting passion. Sure would like to hear what your own unselfconcious voice sounds like when you are writing for or speaking to your fellow citizens, not just as philanthopy wonk, but as an informed person committed to a better world. Time is hard to find. But blogging is like thinking, you can do it off and on all day long.
Think, write, post. Respond to comments. Think, write, post. Hope you will take that risk on good days and bad.
Posted by: phil | March 09, 2006 at 04:03 PM