The increasingly dominant, or domineering, school of philanthropy says that it is all about getting results, or outcomes, with the most efficient application of resources. Essentially, this is this the philosophy of Jeremy Bentham, as interpreted through business and governmental logic. Charities must compete in a social capital market as vendors might in delivering a measurable service. Whether the money comes through government grants and contracts, or through vouchers, or through gifts (social investments), it is all about measurable results. That view leads to the professionalisation of nonprofits, as they attempt to "grow to scale" and be high performing and high impact in a world of paperwork, business plans, metrics.
Another view, though, is that voluntary association is how, beyond family, we learn to manage ourselves, to care about others, and do our bit for something larger. That we are often confused, ineffectual and fumbling is not suprising - we are learning the arts of citizenship, as we take on new roles, whether volunteer, treasurer, vice president, or president of some small organization driven by an ideal. Do such orgs get results? They make us better people, does that count?
In the most sophisticated philosophies descending from Bentham, the results are measured within "states of affairs." The state of affairs consists of agent, action, and result. All of that is encompassed and measured. What kind of person? What kind of process? What result? If the goal is a better world, and if we dehumanize ourselves in the process, have we succeeded? (See Amartya Sen.) John Stuart Mill, whose father drove him in the Benthamite way to get results, results, results, eventually had a nervous breakdown. He credits reading Wordsworth with his personal resurrection.
It is difficult, and insulting, to say to these MBAs so driven to get results that they drive their fellow citizens into hierarchies of cubicles, into the Weberian "iron cages" of bureaucracy, that they are in themselves, in their own persons, in their ethos and language, in their utilitarian view of humankind, the proof case for how wrong, how life denying, their practical philosophy is. What matter "results" if we become so stunted?
MBA s are the new colonialists. They would reduce the organic life world to an enterprise that they must manage. On the poetry of the native peoples, and their freely formed association, the MBA would impose the antiseptic language of the empire. We are supposed not to notice who prospers in this extractive regime bent on results. Who lives highest on which hog? Who does the work? Who bosses whom? Who makes the money? The result that MBAs crave is preferment, power, and wealth. The rest is the means of obtaining it. When they say, "We want results," you can be sure that what they will next expect is control. Whether that leads to results for society in the end is secondary, for the real result sought is power. Democracy? It has become a market to be gamed and managed.
Anyway, Bill Schambra is sayiing similar things, only (can you believe it?) with greater moderation. Great piece here.
Comments