The language of philanthropy in Australia

United Kingdom foundation Lankelly Chase just announced they would be closing their doors and redistributing their assets to social justice organisations because its Board “had become increasingly unable to reconcile its charitable mission to tackle racism, injustice and inequality with its position as a major investor in global capital markets it considers to be rooted in racial and colonial exploitation”.

By literally “relinquishing control”, this decision is a monumental one, and sits at one end of what you could call a spectrum of transformation happening in global philanthropy at the moment, mostly concentrated in Europe, the UK and the United States.

This transformation is a shift in power. In general, it’s an intentional move away from the traditional philanthropic patron-recipient model, towards one that is based on sharing and redistributing wealth accumulated as a result of unequal systems of power.

So instead of philanthropy being seen through a lens of benevolent acts of ‘giving’ or ‘charity’, a funding entity or philanthropist enters into partnership with an organisation to support their work on their terms. This is ‘power with’ rather than ‘power over’.

This morning I came across a social media post from a prominent actor in Australia’s philanthropy landscape that said: “join the national conversation about doubling giving to charity by 2030”. Aiming to double the amount of money going to non-profits in Australia is undoubtedly a great idea, and I’m all for it!

Fresh words and attitudes

But let’s take a deeper look at the language that’s commonly used in philanthropic circles in Australia – words like ‘giving’ and ‘charity’. This widely accepted vernacular demonstrates the need for Australian philanthropy to explore deeper ways to meet the moment and momentum of transformation.

To move towards more equitable systems, we must be able to take a good look at the language we use. While ‘giving’ or ‘gift’ is an inherently positive word in many situations, what it infers in the philanthropic context is ownership and a power differential. There is an implicit expectation for the recipient of a gift to be ‘thankful’.

There is also a generous splash of ego added to the mix because giving to others makes you feel good: it’s ‘generous’. This power differential can play out in multiple ways for an organisation receiving funds. For example, funds may be conditional or dependent on a ‘donor’s’ priorities or interests; and organisations may be genuinely afraid to speak up about what they actually need in case they lose their funding.

A similar power differential accompanies the word ‘charity’. On the one hand it implies helping those in need and it comes from a legitimate love for fellow humans. On the other hand, it brings with it a sense of passivity – overlooking individual (and indeed cultural) agency and capacity. It reduces complex phenomena like poverty and marginalisation to grand narratives. It can also foster a sense of shame, for those on the ‘receiving’ end.

Thanks to the hard yards of social movements, some pockets of global philanthropy – such as those supporting gender equity, racial justice, and the environment – are now making genuine moves to transform this unequal power dynamic by changing the way they fund, who they fund, and the language they use.

‘Sharing’ or ‘redistributing’ resources is simply a more equitable way to describe philanthropy instead of ‘giving’ or ‘charity’. ‘Partner’ is replacing ‘grantee’ or ‘beneficiary’. ‘Funder’ is replacing ‘donor’.

Sharing is Caring

As the Urgent Action Fund for Women’s Human Rights Asia & Pacific recently explained, “Sharing embodies the principle that the people most affected by the issues are setting the agenda for the resources they need and how they use them… Giving creates a hierarchy of power, whereas sharing doesn’t. When we talk of philanthropy as redistribution of resources, it breaks the hegemonic power relationship between the resource-rich North and the ‘needy’ South”.

Shifting our language in the philanthropic space contributes to transformation. The transformation that takes place is an interrogation and acknowledgement of history, democratisation of the space; and an intentional shift away from a culture of competition and the myth of resource scarcity.

It can contribute to an equalisation of power; the dissolution of the White saviour; the removal of ego; and the acknowledgement – and transformation – of ongoing discriminatory systems and exploitation that has contributed to the unequal accumulation of global resources and power in the first place.

Language is a powerful marker of the ways in which we think and do, and where we have come from. Letting go of terms like ‘giving’ and ‘charity’, is a powerful indicator that we are moving forward towards new, equitable ways of doing philanthropy.