"And God gave Solomon wisdom and understanding beyond measure, and largeness of mind like the sand on the seashore...." - 1 Kings 4:29-34 RSV.
Having gotten involved in giving as a fan more than a player, I have often wondered why anyone pays me any attention whatsoever. Reading Joel Orosz's book on Effective Foundation Management helped me see that even at the highest levels philanthropy is still an amateur activity. Joel is helping to professionalize grantmaking with his new Grantmaking School. More schools are offering business degrees for nonprofit managers. But I keep thinking of Leslie Fiedler who years ago caused a stir among English Professors by suggesting that literary criticism is best done by talented amateurs. I wonder if giving will be more effective when handled by the pros? Will we lose anything by seeing giving as an "area of expertise," rather than as an obligation or privilege of engaged citizenship? Maybe it depends what goes into professionalism. Could it include readings in moral and political philosophy? Literature? History? How will we develop what was once called "largeness of mind" in philanthropists and philanthropoids, or will it always be about expertise narrowly conceived as "techne," as tools and techniques and measuring and managing? Who teaches wisdom, and how without it will expertise be of value?
Joel himself is a wise and cultured man. I note his Ph.D. is in American History. William Schambra shares, I believe, some of these sentiments. I note that his Ph.D. is in Political Science. His colleague, Amy Kass, at Hudson, author of The Ultimate Gift: The Philanthropic Imagination in Poetry and Prose, is a Professor at the University of Chicago, a gifted teacher of the liberal arts. I hope as giving becomes more and more a profession that it raises the general level of philanthropic culture. As Seneca said, "Behold! death comes, which makes us all equal. While we are in this mortal life, let us cultivate humanity." Part of cultivating humanity is the learning the art of generosity, or magnanimity. It is a part of our noble nature, one that the basest peasant can embody, as did the widow with her mite in the Bible.
What does that mean to 'professionalize' grantmaking? What and who distinguishes it from 'amateur' and what kind of 'frame' exists that 'frames' the current stage as 'amateur'. - I understand whores are professional sex providers, undoubtedly they start as amateurs. What was it that 'professinalized' what they do as 'amateurs' and distinguished them ... do we not portray them in cultured 'those who long to be loved for who they are and no only for they provide with their bodies'....
Since you started talking about 'professionalizing' grantmaking, how would pimps look in this industry?
Posted by: Kombinat! | October 23, 2007 at 01:21 AM
The Happy Tutor is a pimp as well as a direct provider. He has much to say about the field, as you know.
An amateur in foundation work might be a college president who gets hired to run a big foundation, with no knowledge of the issue areas the foundation addresses, or the CEO might be a former congressman. A professional might be an advanced degree in the craft of grantmaking, how to make good grants, how to measure their effectiveness.
Since I am not in the grantmaking field my understanding comes from reading Albert Ruesga at White Courtesy Telephone, and reading Joel, and other books about the field.
Posted by: Phil | October 23, 2007 at 08:36 AM