Abstract
The aim of In Defence of Philanthropy, as the title suggests, is to defend philanthropy by taking on its main critics defined by the author in three groups:
Critiques “focused on the ‘how’ of philanthropy, asking whether its existence and current methods, especially the in-perpetuity foundation form, entrench unequal power structures, exacerbate inequality and undermine the democratic principle of political equality at the ballot box and subsequent law-making” (p. 10). The author summarizes these as the “academic” or “giving is undemocratic” critiques. Critiques “focused on the ‘what’ of philanthropy, questioning whether the causes chosen and prioritized by donors are the ‘correct’ ones, the basis on which philanthropic spending should be allocated and how ‘better’ giving decisions can be made” (p. 10). The author summarizes these as the “insider” or “giving is misdirected” critiques. Critiques of big giving, “focused on the ‘why’ of philanthropy—scrutinizing the motivations of donors and the benefits that may be gained, as well as making ad hominem attacks on individual philanthropists” (p. 10). The author summarizes these as the “populist” or “giving is really taking” critiques.
The question the author addresses related to these critiques is: “Do the problematic aspects of philanthropy make it an illegitimate or an improvable activity?” (p. 4). The author holds that despite the critiques, the latter is the case and suggests that we can “more carefully draw attention to the paradoxes and problems with philanthropy in a manner that avoids harming, however unintentionally, the overall greater good” (p. 5). A defense of philanthropy is needed, the author argues because criticism of philanthropy risks curtailing the philanthropic impulse, and less philanthropy would impact those most reliant on “the kindness of strangers” (p. 4). It is unclear from the evidence provided in the book, however, if the giving impulse has really suffered from such criticisms already. Indeed, in Chapter 2, the author describes how philanthropy has been critiqued for at least 300 years, but still seems to persevere.
The book provides a well-organized summary of the critiques of philanthropy historically and today. Chapter 4, which focuses on describing the “insider” or “giving is misdirected” critique, provides what seems the most well-developed argument. I found some of the arguments regarding the other two critiques—academic/“giving is undemocratic” and populist/“giving is really taking”—to at times misconstrue the pervasiveness and nature of some critiques. There are also places where additional discussion of important critiques and critical scholars of philanthropy might have been included.
For example, I would have liked to have seen more discussion of both sides of the coin related to examples of philanthropic “good works.” The author rightly celebrates the philanthropic contributions made by The Society for the Abolition of the Slave Trade, whose donors helped to end slavery in the UK, but might have addressed as well that a good deal of philanthropy has been historically tied to, and in many instances is still steeped in, colonialism, racism, whiteness, and patriarchy. In addition, some major work, especially from feminist scholars in social work and beyond, could have been integrated into arguments for and against philanthropy. As one historical example, Jane Addams, founder of Chicago's Hull House, was well known for practicing philanthropy while also being critical of how it is practiced and might have been useful to draw upon for all three critique areas.
I especially appreciated the well-done analysis towards the end of the book that discussed why critiques of philanthropy “stick” and would like to see that discussion developed further in the future. For example, the psychology of why some people are critical of “do-gooders,” to rationalize meanness or to avoid looking bad (do-gooder derogation), or have a preference for “Goldilocks givers” are important to understand for a host of social benefit areas. These phenomena made me wonder if more critiques of philanthropy, such as what was described by the author as a populist critique accusing philanthropists of being selfish, might in a perverse way help to increase the attractiveness of philanthropy?
In the future, I would also like to see what arguments for and against philanthropy might be made outside the U.S. context and scholarship. The author notes that the U.S. is an outlier when it comes to philanthropy (and I would argue when it comes to its social and political environment as well), but most critiques and the author's responses to them rely heavily on U.S.-focused work, and then applied to other parts of the world. A future analysis of the benefits and critiques of philanthropy might be bolstered if focused on non-U.S. work and (particular) regions of the world.
Overall, the book provides a bold defense of philanthropy that would be of interest to a general audience and particularly to philanthropists and fundraisers. The book recently won the best book award from the Association of Fundraising Professionals, a U.S.-based international association of fundraising professionals.
