Robert Payton

1987

Philanthropy is an "essentially contested concept."

The idea was introduced by the British philosopher W. B. Gallie in an influential essay thirty years ago. According to Gallie, essentially contested concepts "essentially involve endless disputes about their proper uses on the part of their users." As William E. Connolly writes in The Terms of Political Discourse:

According to Gallie, "democracy" is such a concept, at least as it is used in western industrial societies. It is an achievement valued by most. Commonly accepted criteria of its application are weighted differently by opposing parties, and certain criteria viewed as central by on party are rejected as inappropriate or marginal by others. Finally, arguments about its proper use turn on fundamental issues about which reasoned argument is possible but full and definitive resolution often unlikely. Thus, for some the central criterion of a democracy is the power of citizens to choose their government through competitive elections; for others this factor is less important than the equality of opportunity for all citizens in attaining positions of political leadership; for still others both of these criteria pale in significance if the continuous participation of citizens at various levels of political life is not attained. These disagreements proliferate further when we see that concepts used to express them, such as 'power', 'political', 'equality', and 'participation', require further elucidation also, a process likely to expose further disagreements among those contesting the concept of democracy

Philanthropy is an "essentially contested concept," an idea that is bent and distorted by attempts to contain within it a diversity of human phenomena that resist generalization and categorization. Philanthropy has changed in definition -- been modified in definition -- by the deliberate intellectual effort to find a word that would identify different concepts: (a) general benevolence -the original Greek meaning of "love of mankind"; (b) the application of the social sciences to social problems -- the activity now labeled as the profession of social work; (c) the identification of social problems, their study, and the development of strategies for their solution; and (d) all of the above -philanthropy as the embracive term for voluntary action for the public good.

But our differences about the meaning of philanthropy are more important than the different things we would apply it to. Philanthropy becomes an essentially contested concept when it is seen as a struggle between mercy and justice, between relief and development, between the alleviation of suffering and the reform of social institutions. A second difference of consequence is the question of self-interest: can philanthropy be used as a means to other ends, to spin off collateral benefits? A third difference about which people disagree is the extent to which philanthropy works its way through pressure on or collusion government or business. To what extent does the reach of philanthropy extend into the other two sectors, justifying the politicization or the commercialization of philanthropic endeavor?

Philanthropy as a g concept.

Philanthropy may prove to be an idea similar to that of general intelligence, as proposed by psychologists early in this century. Tests were developed which claimed to measure intelligence as if it were a single, coherent concept. Howard Gardner summarizes the debate in his Frames of Mind:

Still, one long-standing debate within the area of intelligence testing must be briefly rehearsed here. On the one side are arrayed those individuals influenced by the British educational psychologist Charles Sparman -- in my terms, a "hedgehog" -- who believe in the existence of "g" -- a general overriding factor of intelligence which is measured by every task in an intelligence test. On the other side are supporters of the American psychometrician and "fox" L.L. Thurstone, who believe in the existence of a small set of primary mental faculties that are relatively independent of one another and are measured by different tasks. Thurstone, in fact, nominated seven such factors -- verbal comprehension, word fluency, numerical fluency, spatial visualization, associative memory, perceptual speed, and reasoning.... (16-17)

Gardner considers himself closer to the foxes than to the hedgehogs, but has reservations about the foxes, too. Gardner's own theory is one of "multiple intelligences," which he contends can be defined as six: linguistic intelligence, musical intelligence, logical-mathematical intelligence, spatial intelligence, bodily-kinesthetic intelligence, and "the personal intelligences." Gardner rejects the earlier "multifactorial" theory of Thurstone because it "does not question the existence of general horizontal abilities, like perception and memory, which may cut across different content areas." The methods of the foxes are also deficient because they are based on pen-and-pencil tests; "there is simply no way to sample an individual's competence in such areas as bodily expression, musical ability, or the forms of personal intelligence." (321)

These insights from psychology suggest that essentially contested concepts can be debates that might be resolved by agreement in time. Sustained grappling with the concepts may reveal the weaknesses or even the fallacies of argument: Gardner points out the fallacy of reification among those who would see general intelligence as a g factor. Some arguments reduce to the arbitrary; as Gardner points out: "When it comes to interpretation of intelligence testing, we are faced with an issue of taste or preference rather than one on which scientific closure is likely to be reached." (17)

Many people are dissatisfied with the notion of "philanthropy" for reasons roughly similar to the objections to "g". To impose a single term on such disparate activity and values puts apples, oranges, and kumquats as well as eggs in one basket. Yet even at that, philanthropy presumably leaves out other things that might be included. The beneficial effects of self-interest in the marketplace have been considered as different from philanthropy, but direct corporate grantmaking is included, presumably on the basis of the beneficiaries of the grants.

In one context, the essential value is the voluntary dimension; in another context, it is the private character of the source; in still a third context it is the requirement of serving the public good.

Is there a g factor? Or is the notion of philanthropy an abstraction from a cluster of values analogous to Gardner's multiple intelligence? If so, how many different fundamental forms of philanthropy are there?

Philanthropy as ideology.

Thinking of philanthropy in the light of the debates in psychology about the concept of general intelligence brings out the importance of cultural influence. The critics of intelligence testing have faulted it for its exclusive emphasis on scientific reasoning and its neglect of other important factors. Scientists with a particular set of intellectual values -- their own -- tried to develop tests which would equate those intellectual values with a desired quality called intelligence. The scientists themselves may have been unaware of their own bias. More recently, the charges against tests have included racial and ethnic bias as well. There is reason to believe that some of the most distressing failures of philanthropy have been the result of cultural bias, that philanthropy can become an "ideology." At least, that is what is at issue in the allegations that the United Way is biased in favor of Establishment causes and concerns and neglects or ignores the needs and organizations of minorities. The charge also appears in the relative lack of attention to research and treatment of "minority diseases" -- sickle cell anemia, Tay-Sachs disease, and AIDS.

One need only read the literature urging the development of corporate philanthropy to recognize that its more powerful appeal to some people was that it appeared to be an alternative to government, a way of slowing the growth of public welfare services and the intrusion of government influence into fields such as the arts and humanities. The impassioned defense of philanthropy as an instrument of freedom is common among those of us who see corporate philanthropy as an alternative funding source to government. The comparative cost-benefit analysis of welfare services provided by private giving, by the marketplace, or by government agencies would not be ideological in the same way.

Consider this recent textbook definition of ideology (from Roy C. Macridis in Contemporary Political Ideologies):

Ideology has been defined as "a set of closely related beliefs or ideas, or even attitudes, characteristic of a group or community"...

What separated theory or philosophy from ideology is that while the first two involve contemplation, organization of ideas, and wherever possible, demonstration, ideology incites people to action. It shapes beliefs that move people into action. Men and women organize in order to impose certain philosophies or theories and to realize them in a given society. Ideology thus involves action and collective effort. Even when they originate (as they often do) in philosophy or theory, ideologies are inevitably highly simplified, and even distorted, versions of the original doctrines. It is always interesting to know the philosophy or theory from which an ideology originates. But it is at least as important to understand ideology as a distinct and separate entity to be studied in terms of its own logic and dynamics, rather than in terms of the theory from which it stems or the closeness of its resemblance to it.

Philanthropy is likely to be no more than ideological as long as it remains at an unexamined level and does not reveal the structure of ideas which hold it together and give it energy. Apart from the theory or philosophy, then, Macridis recommends that we return to the first ethical question and ask of philanthropy, what is going on?