The Power of Language

I have been thinking a lot about the word "Philanthropy" lately.  Not because linguistics fascinates me, but because more and more frequently I am hearing from people how they are not "philanthropists".  This is usually in the context of the dollar value of which they donate, not their nature or charitable tendencies.

The word philanthropy comes from the Greek philanthropos, the love of mankind - Phil = Loving and Anthropos = Mankind.  Our use of the word philanthropy as it pertains to charitable donations was not brought into the common English lexicon until 1730.  At that point it time it was not associated with any value beyond someone who donated to charity.  In fact, it wasn't until major family foundations like Kellogg, Carnegie and Ford came along that the word took on the "large-dollar" value connotations.

I am re-reading two Massey Lectures, The Rich Nations and the Poor Nations by Barbara Ward, this lecture was first broadcast by CBC in 1961.  Dangers & Opinions by Willy Brandt first aired on CBC in 1981.    

Both Ward and Brandt's lectures focus on two key ideas that still play out in today's economy - equality (through globalization), and progress (as defined by science & technology) and how these two ideas are pushing widening the gap between the have and the "have-not" societies as well as how they are forcing global political and economic balance-of-power shifts.

Bernie Lucht, the host of the CBC Massey Lectures, writes in the introduction of More Lost Massey Lectures:

We live in an age that is said to be a-historical.  It is difficult to remember the past - or even acknowledge it - living as we do, in the "eternal present," driven by schedules and information overload, and wrapped up in anxieties about career, family, health, the environment, terrorism, the future of the world.  It can be both comforting and discouraging to know that many of the issues that we confront today have been with us in different forms for a long time; people have grappled with them for generations.

What does this have to do with the etymology of philanthropy?

Just over a year ago I held a series of focus groups across Canada on people's perceptions of Philanthropy.  We discussed the emotional, psychological, financial and business impressions that this word has.  This word's history is one that has shaped our social views of the non-profit and voluntary sector and how our tax laws support or hinder our interactions with organizations.

In the case of the "have" v. "have-not" countries looking at progress and the social divide that has occurred within and between these countries how is philanthropy perceived? 

International development is one of the fastest growing arms of charitable sector in North America.  With the likes of Bono and U2, Bill & Melinda Gates, Bill Clinton, Angelina Jolie all pushing for pushing for individual supports and more government intervention in war-torn, poverty stricken, under-developed communities; it's no wonder that overseas aid has become "sexy."

In 1961 Ms. Ward stated the following -

1. Equality of men and the equality of nations: "... nationalism today comes to us in great measure in the form of equality - the equality of nations, one with each other, the equality of esteem and prestige which comes from not being run by other nations."

After having just returned from Italy, and seeing first-hand the "power" of the G8 (+5+1 countries).  The concept of equality has never been further from reality, and yet still an elephant in the room.

So much of today's "philanthropic" activities, besides not being truly philanthropic, are done because there is a perceived imbalance between the person with the money and the recipient without.  It has nothing to do with love of mankind, as the root of the word suggests, and everything to do with balance-of-power.

In the 50 years since giving this lecture, equality and the actions of the countries with the wealth has not balanced out.

2. Progress: "... the possibility of material change leading to a better world...  This worldliness... this emphasis on the goods and opportunities of this world is another radical force in our world."

Material wealth and the imbalance it has caused is a motivator behind philanthropic activities.  When companies want to do work in various African countries, they are required, not just by their shareholders, but by the governments in power, to "level the playing field" by investing back into the community.  Of course, what we have observed is that in large part these funds do not actually get back to the community, nor does it level the playing field.  So now companies are seeking out NGO business partners on the ground who can implement the community projects, and circumvent the corrupt government officials.  This of course has led to other major issues, most specifically the removal of accountabilities of the government for their own people, and putting the NGO in the position of filling needs of citizens that governments should be addressing.

So, is this really progress?  As a global society have we really moved forward, or have our actions pushed us backwards?  Is the idea of "bigger, better, faster" really advancing our societies even though we are seeing a rise in societal issues both locally (increased domestic violence, increased addictive behaviours in youth, increased rates of heart attacks and stress related illnesses) and internationally (growing rates of human trafficking, increased acts of genocide and racially motivated crimes, increased global environmental concerns)?

We need a new word for philanthropy.  Our activities around charity are no longer philanthropic.  They have moved to acts of survival.  It is no longer incumbent upon those with wealth to ensure that those without are supported.  Our whole system is breaking down because we have been top-heavy for too long. 

Countries can no longer be dependent on other countries for aid.  This model is broken.  As soon as the global economy took a nose-dive, it became quite clear that those dependant on the wealthy were not prepared for when the tap had to be shut off.

The role of the community investor, whether you are a business or an individual, has to change.  And the change needs to occur on several fronts: Relationships with NGOs, relationships with government and relationships with other community investors (whether they invest $10 or $10 Million). 

It will be your responsibility to empower and support NGO's from being front-line supports to actual business partners in sustainable community growth.  It will also be your role to direct and guide government to move from aid supports to global partners.  It will be your role to have conversations and debates with fellow community investors about the effects that your dollars are having in your communities.

Philanthropy as we know it is no longer.  So, what will our new word be?  What power will it hold?  What history will it shape?