What We Can Be
Do you see it too? Can we create it together?
Dear Ones,
We are approaching the Winter Solstice, here in the Northern Hemisphere.
Tomorrow is the longest night.
May you find peace in the darkness. May the darkness be a womb, where you can seed and birth new growth. May you seek and find the light.
THANK YOU for being here.
Thank you, thank you. 🙏🏻
Your presence here brings the magic. ✨
Considering that I launched this publication almost exactly six months ago, I’m bowled over by what it has already become, in just a few short months.
Birthing this place is one of the very best parts of 2024, for me. I hope that being a part of it has been a welcome part of your year, too.
This is the last post for 2024.
Wishing you a restful, restorative transition into the new year… and see you then!
With Love,
Cecelia 💗
PS:
As I’ve emerged from my “cancer cocoon” throughout this year, I’ve gradually been flapping my wings and finding the new directions in which I’ll be flying. 🦋
At the same time, I’m finding the air currents that will keep me aloft, and this publication will hopefully be a strong one of those.
To that end, if you value this work I’m doing — and would love to see me focus on it and grow it — I’d love it if you became a Supporting (paid) Subscriber.
Your financial support here will make so much good work possible, as I re-launch and grow my work in the world.
Plus, I’ll then be able to offer you even more love, care, and guidance, as Supporting Subscribers receive short-form Loveletters on Mondays and Wednesdays — and they can participate in our monthly Community Coaching calls via Zoom and our Community Chats here on Substack.
Thank you to those of you who are already Supporting Subscribers. I appreciate each and every one of you SO much.
One of the things I love about this time of year is that, as a whole year reaches its final days, and you prepare for the dawn of a new one, you’re often given to reflection.
Even more, here in the Northern Hemisphere, as the days get shorter and shorter, and darker and darker, it’s almost as if the entire natural world is quieting down — which encourages us to do the same.
So I’m reflective these days.
Even more than usual.
And I’m feeling even more deeply committed to and passionate about the work I’ve set out to seed and grow here at For the Love of Humanity.
I’m seeing SO clearly how needed it is.
Don’t you agree?
And here’s why I think so.
We’ve lost the plot, friends.
As we come to the end of 2024 — the year that AI burst onto the scene, becoming the topic of countless articles, podcasts, conversations, experiments — I have to say: we don't always have to adopt the shiny new thing.
Some things are timeless.
Sometimes the truths and wisdom and practices that have persisted for generations are far better than the new thing.
Philanthropy is one such thing.
I shake my head that "philanthropy" has become an "industry" — full of profit margins, investment returns, hierarchies, layoffs, power games, ego trips, and even solicitations from a machine.
Could we possibly be any further from the roots of philanthropy, right now?
Philanthropy = love of humanity.
So why is there so little love, now, in this "industry"?
Why is there so little humanity?
Why are machines preferred in place of humans... for "efficiency" or "the bottom line" or "economies of scale" or... whatever other justification?
From the beginning, philanthropy was a human-to-human relationship — one grounded in community. Somebody had a need. Another human with whom they were in community saw that need. And then, being in solidarity with their fellow community member, they helped them meet the need, often rallying the entire community around them. And before long, the roles would surely be reversed.
Simple.
So why are we over-complicating this so much?
Why are we always coming up with new tools and tips and tricks, so that everybody always has to feel like they're not keeping up?
Why are we letting the money rule?
Why...
... is there so little love or humanity in it anymore?
Why, indeed?
Corporate… vs. Community
If I distill down the philanthropy we have right now… and compare it to a distilled version of the philanthropy we could have, if our philanthropy was growing healthily from its original roots… I think I’d frame it like this: corporate vs. community.
Corporate has lots of connotations, of course. Corporate connotes profit-driven. Corporate connotes bureaucratic, rigid. Corporate connotes the bottom line, rushing, efficiency for profit’s sake, decisions being driven by money more than anything else, the humans being mere cogs in a machine.
Community, on the other hand, connotes connection. Collaboration. Meeting people where they are. Slowing down. Finding the joy in just being together. Prioritizing people and their needs over any other consideration. Love. Care.
Which of these sounds more like our working model of philanthropy?
I’m sorry to report that, from my decade-and-a-half-plus of working within the field, the former is a lot more familiar.
What do you say?
Let’s break a few of these differences down.
Rules… vs. Meeting People Where They Are
A corporate environment is often pretty rigid, beholden to its rules. Somebody — often one person with power — decides how things will happen, and then people need to just do it that way. People are expected to “get with the program” and conform to the expectations of the organization. There is not a lot of room for flexibility, or uniqueness. Often, people’s individual needs will get railroaded. Often, people will be seen as problems or — at best — “resources.”
In contrast, a community environment has breathing room. People are free to be who they are and work in the way, in the space, and at the time that works best for them and their energy. The norm is to give people grace, flexibility, the benefit of the doubt. Peoples’ needs are very important. Guidelines may be set, but people are free to give feedback on the guidelines, and/or to adapt them as needed. Buy-in is sought from people, before decisions are made. People’s uniqueness is celebrated, and they will be seen as inherently valuable, no matter what they do or who they are — just because they’re a human being.
Hierarchy… vs. Connection and Collaboration
Hierarchy rules the day in a corporate space. An org chart has been created where one or a small few people are at the top (a.k.a. the “C Suite”)… and that is where essentially all the power resides in the org. Everyone within the org is oriented to the levels “above” them on the chart — adapting their behavior and work to hew to those peoples’ preferences and edicts.
On the other hand, in a community space, people are oriented to the people at their side. No one inherently has more power than another person, and people stay connected to and in collaboration with each other. Rather than power struggles, people willingly share power — and they regularly check in with each other to ensure everyone’s on board with the way things are going. If someone’s not, people care. And they do the work to connect with that person and resolve whatever’s a problem.
Efficiency… vs. Being Present
In a corporate setting, efficiency is the goal for all of the work. Things move quickly — in a way that often brings a “rushing” energy and means that many people are moving faster than they’re comfortable with. People cut corners and don’t stop to tie up all the loose ends, because crossing a finish line as quickly as possible is usually highly valued. Conversations beyond the business of finishing whatever people are working on are usually minimized, in order to remain as efficient as possible.
In a community setting, people slow down so that they can actually be present with themselves and each other. Being a fully present, caring human is much more valued than checking boxes off, or moving quickly. Time is dedicated to connecting with people, and to pausing over stages to make sure that everyone feels they’re ready for the next stage. People also take time to tie up loose ends, especially between stages, and to collectively debrief things, once they’re finished, to ensure that future endeavors are as effective and harmonious as possible.
Behaving Like Machines… vs. Behaving Like Humans
As I said, humans are, at best, “resources” in a corporate environment, so the organization relates to them like it does to its other resources — like copy machines, computers, and air conditioners. All of these resources have an expected level of output, in a given day/week/month/year. If they aren’t providing this output, there will be an effort to “fix” them. After a while, if that doesn’t happen sufficiently, they’ll be dumped. Machines might have semi-regular tune-ups, to forestall a break-down, but otherwise, they are expected to just keep go-go-going, no matter what is happening around them. This is expected of humans as much as copiers, in this environment.
In contrast, in a community environment, humans behave — and are treated — like human beings. This means that, like all of the natural world (of which human beings are an integral part), they operate in cycles of activity and rest. This also means that, instead of being presumed to be impervious like a machine, they get to be the soft and vulnerable creatures they are. They will get hurt. They will get sick. They will need help. They will need a break. And all of that is OK, here.
Prioritizing Money… vs. Prioritizing People
In a corporate space, money is the ultimate purpose and value, especially when it comes to making decisions, strategic or otherwise. Things will be started and stopped simply based on how much money they’re expected to make, or have made. Other considerations — such as peoples’ ability to support their families, or the fact that many people rely on something — will never be very important. Money will trump every other consideration, from the budgeting process all the way through the execution phases, and especially in the evaluation phase.
Alternatively, in a community space, how things affect people is the ultimate consideration — and this includes everybody involved, from those working on something, to those supporting something, to those benefitting from something, and beyond. There is an awareness of the ripple-effects of actions, here, and especially that real peoples’ real lives will be significantly affected by most decisions. As such, decisions are made by surveying the landscape and taking stock of all of the people who have a stake — and then, all of those people are considered. Money is one of the considerations, of course. But not above the people involved, that’s for sure.
Fundraising… vs. Philanthropy
And now, we come to the ultimate comparison.
In my experience, fundraising has become the corporatized way organizations generate the funding they need to achieve their missions.
Fundraising has, above all, started to revolve entirely around money.
Now, I realize that it’s a bit counter-intuitive to say that fundraising shouldn’t revolve around money, but the problem is that there’s only so much air in the room here. Either money or people will get more of the oxygen — and money should never suck all the oxygen out of the room, so the humans start suffocating.
We talk all the time about not being transactional with donors and funders, but we absolutely are transactional in the ways things are done.
We shower extra attention on those who can give the most. We execute “moves” whose entire purpose is to “move” someone closer to giving a gift. We use the exact same marketing and communications research and practices as commercial marketers and communicators whose entire purpose is to get us to think we need more stuff and then buy, buy, and buy some more.
As a longtime fundraiser, well-steeped in how things are done, I know that, if a fundraiser reaches out to me, it’s hardly ever going to be because they genuinely want to touch base with me and care about me as a human being. No, I can be 90-something-percent sure that their CRM notified them that I was someone they hadn’t “touched” for a while, so they reached out to check off that box.
Fundraising involves power struggles. Fundraising gets territorial. Fundraising is constantly bumping up against, and having to navigate around, egos.
In my experience, fundraising constantly reinforces and recreates all of the most gnarly dynamics in our struggling and chaotic world, as it is (things like white supremacy, inequality, classism, a lack of accessibility and inclusion, power being concentrated in the hands of a few, and much more).
Thus, fundraising — in my experience — is tainted.
What about the alternative?
Why have I started to use the word “philanthropy” instead?
Philanthropy, as I’ve oft reminded you, means “love of humanity,” and it thus is the community-focused way to generate the funding we need to achieve our missions.
Philanthropy, in this sense, is my vision and hope for our future.
Philanthropy will revolve entirely around, and highly value, human beings. Every human will inherently and deeply care for every other human, within this model. So being transactional would not even occur to them.
Donors will have two-way relationships with orgs, as all true relationships are. Every donor will be an important part of the whole community wrapped around a mission, and donors will have mutual relationships with each other and with the org.
Everyone will experience this mutuality and reciprocity in relationship, and — again, like all healthy relationships — it will involve a reality of responsibility for each other and accountability to each other. All members of the community will actively reinforce these responsibilities and accountabilities.
Power struggles will dissolve within this approach, because everyone will understand that they’re sharing power with everyone else — and that, accordingly, no one will ever have a lock on it.
Everyone involved will be expected to park their ego, rather than letting it run the show — and everyone will hold each other accountable to this expectation, as they will know that this is necessary for the mission to be most effectively achieved.
All of the “isms” running our current world will be nullified, in our new practice of philanthropy. Every human being will be inherently valuable to us — whether they have a steady home or not; whether they can walk or not; whether or not they have money in the bank, or in the stock market; whether they are still the same gender they were assigned at birth, or have eschewed the gender binary; whether they can hear, or see, or not; whether they have light skin or skin as dark as midnight; whether they love someone of the opposite gender, or of the same one; whether they are sick… or healthy; whether they can work… or not; whether they’re young… or old.
All human beings will be highly valued, loved, and included in this new world. And whatever accommodations they need to make that so will be readily provided.
What do you say?
Do you see it too?
Can we create it together?
Thanks for this, Cecilia. Don't you think that deep wealth inequality is a large contributor to the current ways fundraising happens?