Independent Sector Research Symposium, Honoring Brian O'Connell

Robert L. Payton

March 17, 1994

Let me offer a word of caution to Brian O'Connell, borrowed from T. H. Marshall's preface to his famous lectures on citizenship:

"The invitation to give these lectures gave me both personal and professional pleasure.... It may be -- and the thought is a disturbing one -- that sociology is on trial here in my person. If so, I am sure I can rely on you to be scrupulously fair in your judgment, and to regard any merit you may find in my lectures as evidence of the academic value of the subject I profess, while treating everything in them that appears to be paltry, common, or ill-conceived as the product of qualities peculiar to myself and not to be found in any of my colleagues."¹

After struggling for two weeks with this paper, I am reduced to following the outline I gave to the panel for tomorrow's discussion. That is, I propose to talk about what I said I would talk about.

Brian O'Connell, and Independent Sector under his leadership, have had much to do with bringing our field into higher education. In addition to his direct influence, his support and encouragement of Virginia Hodgkinson and her work rank with among the most contributions in getting the whole field underway. There is abundant reason for a festschrift to show our appreciation and our indebtedness.

That isn't what this paper is about, however. This paper is an attempt to talk about why this field has come into being. What is it about the world that calls the study of philanthropy into higher education in the first place? To pose the "mission question," Why do we exist? I learned from a fund raiser named Hank Rosso that to answer the mission question means specifying the urgent and important social problem that cries out to be solved. Without a clear sense of mission, Hank learned through years of working with organizations and institutions, the purposes are likely to become self-justifying.

My own answer starts -- but does not end -- with American society, and the role of philanthropy in that society. I am convinced that it is not possible for the United States to remain a free, open, and democratic society without an extensive and vigorous third sector. Very few modern societies will achieve and sustain freedom, openness, and democracy without something very like a third sector. It is difficult to conceive of a modern democratic society that is not guided by a constitution. It is disturbing that the place of voluntary action has no clear philosophical expression in our own constitution. Good works are essential to the good society.

During my professional lifetime I have seen the arrogant and grandly ambitious Great Society pre-empt for government many of the activities that had long been sustained and supported through voluntary action. The third sector seemed prepared to become a mere extension of government in order to achieve the assurance of adequate funds. Since that hope was frustrated, the third sector has increasingly taken on the qualities of the marketplace, also in the search of more adequate and reliable financial support. Few of the stewards of our philanthropic institutions seemed to see the differences among the sectors clearly enough. I believe those differences exist and that they are important. The essential values of philanthropy are in jeopardy as the boundaries among the sectors change, and when the stewards of the sector are unaware of the different values that make it reasonable to talk of three sectors rather than one or two or none at all.

The value of philanthropy is like the moral sense that James Q. Wilson has written about: it is vitally important but it is a weak force rather than a strong one, and it is therefore always vulnerable to the strong forces of wealth and power.²

Organized philanthropy is essential to a free, open, democratic society. For me, this is what William James once called a "live hypothesis" -- it works for me even though I can't prove it and I may not even be able to explain it.³

The condition of our society is alarming, of course. The voices of alarm seem always persuaded that our time is historically unique and threatening. There is always much about the world that upsets anyone who is paying attention, and it is true, as Joseph Duffey, former chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities, once observed that "Chicken Little only has to be right once." For purposes of our discussion, let's assume one can make a plausible case for being worried, and that it is reasonable to be upset.

Whatever the picture we draw, two things will be true: things often go wrong; and things can almost always be better. As long as those two generalizations are made about the natural world and the human condition, philanthropy will be needed. The question is not whether it will be needed, but what shape it will be in when we need it.

One justification for the study of philanthropy, then, is to discern more clearly its role and influence in our lives and in the society. What is it? Is it an It?⁴ Is it becoming stronger or is it truly a tradition at risk? If the tradition is important, as some of us insist, what are we doing to keep the tradition alive?

These questions take us back to the mission question. The arguments I advance claim that the tradition of philanthropy is in some peril in part because we have neglected to learn about what it is and how it works, how it relates to other activities and values, and what sorts of things make it stronger and which weaken or undermine it.

The second justification that I offer for our existence as a new field looks not at the need for knowledge and understanding but at the needs of young people. Most of the people outside the university that I talk to believe philanthropy is important because young people need to make it part of their lives.

It is not because we need young people trained to take over the leadership of our philanthropic institutions, these people say; their conviction is that young people need to have a concern beyond themselves. Some of those involved with the Commission on National and Community Service⁵ were convinced that the greatest social benefit of such service is to the young people who perform it.