Via an unexpected chain of events involving my Brother-in-law & friends who happen to be holidaying near us, a book that hadn't shown up before we left has arrived at the farmhouse!

I am VERY excited about this one. If it lives up to even 50% of the contents, it shld be amazing.

Update: I suspect this might develop into a new live-tweeting endeavour, as I'm only just through the intro and I've already discovered stuff like this:

And this:

If it carries on in this vain, my mark-up pencil is going to be worn down by the end of the book.

Found a new favourite quote:

"Civil society without power analysis is the opiate of the funding classes"

Getting that one put on a mug pronto.

This seems like a good statement of the fundamental challenge re the relationship btween institutional philanthropic funding and social movements...

Is the fact that this is from 2005:
a) quirky & interesting, or
b) depressing?

Also for anyone interested in the philanthropy/social movement interface (looking in yr direction here @irfan_fozia ), this typology of 3 ways funders can undermine social movements is really interesting

Firstly through marginalisation/exclusion of movements:

Secondly through exclusion/ marginalisation of organisations (i.e. whilst having recognised importance of movement/cause in general):

And finally through "philanthropic colonisation" where both cause and org are recognised, but in such a way as to distort/undermine (which seems close to the idea of "movement capture" , albeit perhaps more conscious and less structural?)

I this book, as you may have gathered.

Of course, everyone else on this holiday keeps looking at me weirdly as I pore over it making "hmmm" noises and scribbling with my pencil...

But I think we call all agree that it is they who are wrong.

Been reading more from my new purchase, this time the chapter by Joan Roelofs on "Liberal Foundations: Impediments or Supports?"

An absolute humdinger for anyone interested in qns of whether foundations, even when as well-intentioned as possible, are potentially problematic.

Here's a nice pithy summary of the potential issues in terms of representing an anti-democratic influence in society & undermining focus on need for structural reform:

This is also a sharp listing of 3 further critiques of endowed philanthropic institutions.

(The point about the inherent pluralism of the funding model potentially being a flaw is v interesting).

And this passage poses a qn that is particularly fascinating at this moment IMHO: if philanthropic funders are too much of a reflection of existing systems to embrace genuine structural change, does this limit their potential when it comes to envisioning possible futures?

Anyhoo, the chapter is well worth reading for a really good critical perspective (even if the assessment of foundations veers perhaps too far towards the entirely negative at points!)

This evening's reading was the chapter in Faber & Mccarthy by Sally Covington on "Moving Public Policy to the Right: The Strategic Philanthropy of Conservative Foundations".

Lots of interesting stuff on the long-term approach to using philanthropy to fund the battle of ideas:

It's a relatively well-worn observation at this point, but it certainly does seem like there's a lot for any funder seeking to drive policy change as a way of achieving long term goals to learn from these examples.

E.g. On attitudes to core costs and funding timeframes:

Great quote on importance of core funding when it comes to philanthropic support for social movements, and highlighting role trust and "class affinity" play as potential barriers (from Robert Bothwell's chapter "Up Against Conservative Public Policy" in Faber & Mccarthy) :

Great final para to the Bothwell chapter in Faber & Mccarthy, on the way in which foundation funding for movements often only follows after prior growth/success has lowered risk profile.

Again, feels very 2020-apt.

Just finished reading a great chapter by Brulle & Jenkins on "Philanthropy & the Environmental Movement" (in Faber & Mccarthy).

Some cracking stuff on movement capture & how funders choices re narratives, org types & tactics can (deliberately or not) skew entire field:

Also this, on failure of foundations to support orgs with genuinely participatory nature & why this inherently limited the ability of the US environmental movement to drive change in the latter half of C20th:

Another evening, another chapter in Faber & Mccarthy's edited volume of "Critical Perspectives on Philanthropy & Popular Movements" (which is def a top 10 fave for me at this point).

Tonight, it's this cracker of a chapter on funding for the environmental justice movement:

Really interesting point here re how the environmental justice angle sits w/in wider environmental movement: is it a victim of being seen as "too justice-y" for green funders and "too green" for justice funders and thus forever falling through cracks of existing siloes?

I like this framing of the danger of movement capture/co-optation as a known risk to avoid from the p.o.v. of an aware & self-critical funder too (perhaps makes it seem less unavoidable...?)

Nice point here re the positive value funders can potentially add by having a "helicopter view" & being able to connect the dots btween different movements that otherwise might never exchange knowledge or experiences:

But then also a powerful point re the necessity for foundations & grantmakers themselves to change in structure/practice if there is to be any fundamental shift in the dynamic when it comes to funding movements:

Great formulation here of the point that a focus on measurability in grantmaking can be a barrier to foundations engaging in less quantifiable activities, such as antiracism work

(From Lisa Duran's chapter on racial justice in Faber & McCarthy's "Foundations for Social Change")