Bill Schambra touting small philanthropy and looking askance at the radicals at Gates Foundation.
But if the American people come to believe that their largest philanthropic enterprise has drifted carelessly and inadvertently into such a revolutionary undertaking, without subjecting its premises to constant self-criticism, then they may not be so complaisant about philanthropy's license.
Passionate, well-debated, response from Albert Ruesga here.
What I don't get is why big philanthropy has not embraced social justice, as in Occupy Wall Street? Drifting carelessly and inadvertently into social jsutice would do an aphorist like Oscar Wilde proud. I don't believe we can suggest Gates Foundation has done that, Bill. They love power in their own hands, as do your funders. Capitalists are safe with Philanthrocapitalists no less than with Hudson.
I'm sure most progressive foundations are steering clear of the protestors because they don't have a well articulated theory of change. That human microphone thing means their equipment costs are pretty much covered.
Posted by: Curator | November 02, 2011 at 02:36 PM
The strange manifestation of all sorts of unclassifiable humans taking to the streets of over 1000 cities worldwide presents something that challenges philanthropy as much as every other business as usual, no? Part of the power of this phenomenon is that it has no "spokesman," no easily assimilable countenance. The media had no idea what to do with it, nor do the politicos. Why should something so firmly embedded in the cultural norms of the day as is Philanthropy be any different?
Posted by: tm | November 02, 2011 at 09:24 PM