In our April immersion course, consultant Anne MacKay posed this brilliant thought to the group. And I confess there has not been a day since Anne flew back to Canada over a week ago that I have not thought deeply about its implications.

What if you don’t have to worry about being financially supported, because I am working on that for you, and I don’t have to worry about being financially supported, because you are working on that for me?

Since she uttered those words, I find myself asking the same 2 questions, over and over:

• What would this make possible?
• And what might such a way of being look like in practice – in organizations, in communities, in neighborhoods?

Photo Credit: Taken in Norman, OK by Hildy

(This is part 2 in the continuing story of Creating the Future’s Philanthropy R&D Lab. For Part 1, click on this link.)

If you’ve been following our adventures at Creating the Future, you know that a big part of what makes this work effective is back-casting – reverse engineering the future we want for our world. (And if you’re not familiar with that, this TEDx talk explains both how and why it works).

The graphic above shows that process in action, as it depicts some of the conversation from the team’s February meeting. It’s a bit cryptic, I know – but if nothing else, it shows an approach that is all about setting up the dominoes in the chain of cause-and-effect that will encourage our desired result to emerge.

The 2 boxes in black ink at the bottom of that graphic were the topic of our February meeting.

• How can the Philanthropy Lab demonstrate what co-supporting a community / a cause / a movement looks like? 
• If philanthropy is not so much about money, but about all of us together ensuring our communities are whole and healthy, what would it look like if individual team members were modeling this? 
• How would each of us as individuals be relating to the Creating the Future community? 
• To the world?

It’s one thing to talk in theory and philosophy, or to focus on what others should do. It’s quite another for each of us to be able to say, “Here’s what we did, and here’s what happened as a result. Here’s how our actions changed from focusing on raising money (the norm in the philanthropy world), to instead focus on building true partnerships, where the whole of each partner was honored and brought to its own highest potential.”

These are meaty topics, to be certain. They are meaty when we’re just talking in theory. When the mandate is “No theory without practical application” – AND when that practical application means each one of us as individuals must determine what we will actually do – well, the discussion was pretty mind-bending at times. Here is just some of what the group came up with (I say “some” because I won’t pretend I was able to capture it all):

• If we are hoping to see communities that are filled with people who are truly co-supporting themselves and each other, that is about being supportive, rather than something we do (giving money, or me helping your cause). 
• We would all be figuring it out together. It’s about the big “us” of “all of us” vs. “us inside this org and you outside” 
• We would be gracious in acknowledging our own fears and stigmas about money – the stigmas around those of us who have money, and around those of us who do not. We would be sensitive to and compassionate about the unspoken assumptions and expectations we culturally bring to “money” 
• We would be tapping into our own giving, giving of ourselves to this effort, in all ways (including money and all the rest that we are / have)
• We would be honoring the whole of who each of us is inside vs. what each of us has (money) 
• We would stop talking about relationships and start BEING Relationships 
• If we don’t want to see siloing, we won’t compartmentalize ourselves 
• “When I give freely to something I believe in, I feel gratitude because it is there. Since giving to Creating the Future, I feel grateful. I feel more connected – with my being, my spirit.” Sharing THAT. 
• We would be listening. I want to hear where folks are – what they’re interested in. 
• We would be sharing mutual enjoyment in sharing ideas.

As we do at the end of every meeting, we asked ourselves what had stood out – some time for reflection before heading back into the world. And the overwhelming sentiment was the repeated question:

In making this practical for our colleagues, what does that mean for each of us to be and do?

What will it look like for each of us to model what it means in action (not in theory) to co-support an effort, a program, a movement – a community?

As we prepared for the March meeting, we summarized what had transpired, and set the stage for what’s next. You’ll find that in the video below.

The story continues to unfold. And you can write yourself into that story starting right here! (That means adding your comments!!!)

Creating the Future’s Philanthropy Lab held its first meeting in October of 2011. And that means it is way past time that we keep folks in the loop about the work that team is doing, to begin to engage some of the big questions we are sinking our teeth into – and to see if you would like to join us!

Philanthropy Lab?
The Philanthropy Lab has gone through several titles since its inception last fall. It started as the Resource Development Team, evolved into the Rethinking Philanthropy Team, until finally it became clear that this is the first of several R&D labs that will be at the heart of Creating the Future’s work.

And so, the term Philanthropy Lab was born.

So what’s it all about? The short term mission for this team is simple:

Find ways to support Creating the Future’s scale-up from 2 founders doing the work of 12 people to an actual staff of 12 people, AND, most importantly, to do so in ways that walk our own talk.

If we know that competitive grant-making (pitting organizations / collaborations / people with innovative ideas against each other for the means to implement their work) is one of many systems that go counter to creating a cooperative, healthy, humane future for our communities, could we in good conscience use those very systems to support Creating the Future’s efforts to replace those systems?

Or put another way, do we really want to compete for funds, to scale up an effort that will (among other things) advocate to STOP making people compete for funds?

Guided by the Pollyanna Principles (the values at the heart of Creating the Future’s work), it became clear that while it would be far more expedient to set aside our values – to use current systems to get funded, and then use that money to change those systems – this would not be (as our colleagues at WinFinity have coined the phrase) beginning as we intend to continue.

Yes, it will take a year longer than it would have if we had just gone out and found funding. And yes, that means things are a bit more tight than we’d like.

But this is such an incredible opportunity. We are constructing a model that will hopefully be an example of what it can look like to scale-up, staff-up and support a major initiative in a way that models true, holistic partnership (vs. simply financial partnership). We hope that no matter what we learn, it is of value to others who are seeking more effective (and dare I say less soul-sucking) approaches to supporting social change.

The First Few Months
As with all Creating the Future’s work, the team started by exploring its vision for the highest potential of philanthropy. If philanthropy were to reflect its original Greek meaning – Love of Humanity – what would that look like? What would it make possible for communities? And what would have to be in place in communities, for that result to emerge?

The answer to those questions took several months to unfold, resulting in two posts back in December – “Philanthropy as Love of Humanity,” and  “Do We Really Want Donations?”

The work created an image of communities where people are nurturing, nourishing, encouraging and co-supporting each other’s potential – communities where people are participating in their own lives, and in the overall life of their community.

As we have worked this past 6 months, our task has been to reverse engineer* from that vision, to begin determining action steps that will allow us to be that community now, in the way we support this nascent effort.

As you might imagine, the work has been brain-bending at times – exhausting and exhilarating, all at once.

And the reason for that is simple. This is not a theoretical exercise. It is a practical matter of the greatest importance. How do we support our work in a way that aligns with our deepest values, walking the talk of the future we want to see in our world?

As we watch the world become more and more cynical in response to a larger and larger gap between values and actions, we feel these are perhaps the most practical questions we can be asking. Further, we believe the most important place to start is the place where people are the most willing to set aside their values – the place of scarcity and fear that has been the root of how social change has, to date, been supported.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Having brought you up to speed a bit in this post, and in the 2 posts back in December, the next post in this series will begin with our first meeting of 2012, where we asked, “How can the Philanthropy Lab demonstrate what co-supporting a community / a cause / a movement looks like – beyond money, honoring the whole of what each individual has to offer?”

So stick around – the party’s just getting started!

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

If you would like to be part of Creating the Future’s Philanthropy Lab, please let us know. We are seeking creative, curious minds to join us in this exciting and often brain-bending endeavor.

• If you believe the issue of supporting healthy, humane communities is bigger than finding new ways to raise money…
• If you believe the issue is less about supporting strong organizations, and more about supporting efforts to build strong communities…
• If you wish there were a more life-affirming, interconnected, we’re-all-in-this-together way of nurturing and nourishing the communities we love (and the systems and infrastructure within those communities)…
• If you relish opportunities to question your own assumptions about fundraising, engagement, and community building – and to then practice what it is to walk the talk of those new assumptions…

… if that’s you, we are seeking to add several open, curious minds to this team. We meet by phone once a month for 90 minutes at a time, and then in between online.

And we would love to have you join us. (See Post #2 in this series here.)

* This TEDx talk shows what it looks like to reverse engineer the future we want for our world!

Photo Credit: Many thanks to Don O’Brien and Wikimedia Commons for this photo

And then one day, I couldn’t work anymore. Poor health and severe post-partum depression set in after my daughter was born, and I left the workforce to care for myself and my new baby. When I suddenly realized I no longer had the self-sufficiency that working meant to me, my depression deepened. I felt helpless without a means of earning money. I hated depending on anybody, and my stress compounded with financial insecurity.

In truth, I wasn’t financially insecure at all. I was actually deeply supported by my husband, family, friends and collegues. I had a spouse with a job, some savings, maternity leave and COBRA health insurance. Those people and resources helped me get better, and two years later I joined the workforce again.

Here’s what I learned from that experience: When I thought what I needed was more cash, what I really sought was freedom from financial anxiety. I didn’t want to worry about if we were going to have enough to pay the rent just because I couldn’t pull my weight at the moment, but I also thought that caring for myself was a luxury I could not afford. What turned the dial down on my financial fear and worry was recognizing that I was part of a community that was not going to let me fall through the cracks. It turns out that my  self-sufficiency — my confidence in my own resourcefulness to be able to care for myself and family  – had a limit, and that limit was me. My bootstraps could only pull me up so far. To transcend the limits of my self, I needed to see that I was connected to and supported by others — even financially.

It turns out that even people who do have ample bank accounts feel financially insecure. A study from early 2011 by Boston College’s Center on Wealth and Philanthropy found that even the super rich “still do not consider themselves financially secure; for that, they say, they would require on average one-quarter more wealth than they currently possess.” The average net worth of the people in this study was $78 million. If $78 million didn’t make someone feel financially secure, then what would?

Our instinct in times of financial hardship is to narrow our focus to the survival of ourselves or our family. Unfortunately, it also ends up narrowing our focus of solutions to what we can do all by ourselves: cut expenses or increase income. Ironically, what creates the financial security and financial wellbeing that we actually seek lies outside the small, narrow focus in the larger networks of communities. With more resources to access, there is also more flexibility in how to respond.

But right now, our communities and governments are going through the same downward spiral of scarcity, cost-cutting and income-raising dilemmas we have at home. This is the time  to make investments in our capacity to support each other. Instead of debating what to cut and who to tax, we can ask ourselves:

• How would we feel if we knew that the community supporting us was as big as a town, city, nation or a continent?
• What would we do differently if we knew that our basic financial needs would be met through our community networks and supports when we hit rough spots such as unemployment, caring for sick family members, our own ill health?
• What government policies can create the conditions in which we will feel supported by the financial strength of an entire community until we can regain our self-sufficiency?
• What can we do now to dial down our collective financial fears? Who needs to be involved and how?

I’m not suggesting that we don’t need to cut expenses or raise taxes, but those are actions that need to be taken in the context of a vision we are trying to achieve. We are a country of unquestionable, tremendous wealth, and that wealth was supposed to be a proxy for financial security. But none of us feel financially secure, even if we have the wealth. If having the wealth doesn’t do it, then what would actually free us from financial fear?

Here are two things we can do with public policies to create conditions that lessen financial fear and increase our overall financial security:

• Narrow the bandwidth for wealth– The wider the gap in wealth, the more room there is for comparison and stronger feelings of financial inadequacy. It’s like trying to keep up with the Joneses but always failing because there will forever be someone with (lots) more money than you. The more narrow the room for comparison, the less inadequate we feel. Plus, when we narrow the bandwidth, the fall from fiscal grace is shorter and the climb back up not so steep. Policies that narrow income and wealth gaps (such as progressive taxation) can do this.
• Fulfill universal needs without contingencies for income – Our need to be able to care for each other is universal, not limited to those at the poverty line. If the need is universal, then so should be the program. Designing policies that help anyone who needs it, not just those who fall below certain income thresholds, creates a public good for everyone even though it will only be used by those who need it when they need it. One existing example is the Family and Medical Leave Act which requires employers of a certain size to offer unpaid leave to workers caring for new or ailing family members. Workers are eligible regardless of their income, and while anyone can envision a situation where they might need to use it, only some will need to at any given time. Strengthening this program allows us to focus on supporting the people who support others in need, so that there isn’t a competition between income and care. It supports a community’s ability to care for itself.

Maybe our government solutions to provide income supports (such as unemployment or welfare) have been incomplete in part because of our focus on getting individuals back on their feet. Investments in the community’s capacity to care for each other could top off those efforts, because it’s the supportive relationships that will give us the financial security we truly seek.

*******************

Note: This is the last in a series on financial wellbeing at the Two Penny Project Blog. You can read the other posts in the series here, here and here.

Words contain so many assumptions that we rarely take time to consider. And so, when we talk about our funders as “partners,” what are we really saying – about them, and about us?

Wikipedia says a partner is…

• A friend who shares a common interest or participates in achieving a common goal
• A Significant other in an intimate relationship
• A member of a partnership
• A business partner
• Partner (business rank), a member of a law firm or accounting firm which is formed as a partnership
• A participant in a partner dance

Reading through Wikipedia’s links to all those entries, it is striking that even in the case of “business partner,” money is only one of many other factors, all of which have to do with alliances and mutual goals.

True Partnership
When I think of true partnership, I think of a good marriage. A strong marriage is rooted in honoring the other person despite (or even because of) their flaws. A strong marriage is about commitment to the same goals and values. In a great marriage, both parties realize that when they are together, it is as if there is a 3rd person in the room – a powerful whole that is greater than the sum of its parts.

Sadly, in the world of social change, this sort of partnership is rare. And I say “sadly” because if there is anything that will create change, it is the power of what we can create together that none of us can create on our own.

When Creating the Future says “Partner”
Being in start-up / scale-up mode, Creating the Future is seeking all sorts of partners for all sorts of efforts.

• As we move our Immersion Courses into communities, we are seeking partners to not only help make those courses happen, but to help those courses have the impact they have the potential to create in those communities.
• As we work to scale our efforts from “start-up” phase to “program development” phase, we are seeking partners to not only help make that happen, but to participate in as many ways as possible, to ensure those programs have the most impact possible.
• As we seek to demonstrate how various components of social change work can be more effective, we are seeking partners to help make those demonstration projects happen, walking alongside us to be the future they, too, want to see in our world.

In every effort Creating the Future is initiating, partnership will determine how successful this movement for change will be. Here is how we described this approach when we announced our desire to reinvent philanthropy as Love of Humanity:

The only way to accomplish our mission is to engage our community (the whole world!) to collectively make that happen, all of us together in all kinds of ways, with all our combined talents and gifts. If the effort belongs to Creating the Future, it will fail. It must be owned by all of us.

Therefore, instead of asking people to “fund Creating the Future’s project,” we will seek Stone Soup sorts of partnerships, where everyone brings what they have, to nourish and nurture an effort that belongs to all of us together.

So then, what might that look like in action? Let’s use the issue of “bringing our immersion course to communities” as an example:

• Perhaps partners might provide food or a venue for the course…
• Perhaps they might provide funding to bring us to the community to teach the course…
• Perhaps they might join the class as participants in learning how to transform their own work, to create more significant impact through that work…
• Perhaps they might invite local Creating the Future grads to help guide their own internal transformation, to reach for more of what is possible for their own community…
• Perhaps they might become a demonstration project partner, working side by side towards our shared  goals, and sharing what they learn along the way…
• Perhaps they might partner with others in their community, whether simply to provide the course to the community, or to work as a cohort of funders and others who wish to bring their collective work to its highest potential for creating change…

Deep meaningful partnership. Partnerships that make the whole greater than the sum of its parts. Because we are exploring this as we go, we confess that we are not certain what these partnerships might look like in practice. There is, however, one thing we do know:

If we want a future where we all nourish the potential in each other, we don’t have to wait. We can be that future right now. And we can model to others both what that looks like and how it works, even as we discover that very thing ourselves.

If you have seen deep, meaningful, mutually nourishing, whole-is-greater-than-the-sum-of-the-parts partnerships in action, please share those stories with us. And if you have ideas for how our own partnerships can be more meaningful, walking that talk right now – please share that as well.

In our real lives, friendship is not a means to an ends. The end result IS the friendship!  And that’s precisely where its power lies for the causes we care about.

The answer, then, to the question, “Are we doing FriendRaising so that they’ll give us money?” is no. We are making friends simply so that we will have friends – along with all the magic and power that comes with true friendship.

There is a house for sale in my neighborhood. The realtor is an old friend. I walk past his sign every day, think of Jim, and smile.

On my walk this morning, the wind had knocked the hanging sign off its hooks. I stopped, re-hung it, and walked on.

Instantly, I wondered, “If that wasn’t Jim’s sign, would I have fixed it?” And I confess the answer was that I may not have done so.

I smiled, thinking that a different realtor, at a different house, with a different sign – she probably cares as much about the properties she sells as Jim cares about his clients. And her friends and family probably care about her as much as I care about Jim. Yet I might  not have taken the time from my morning walk to stop and fix her sign, simply because I do not know her. I don’t care about her. But I do care about my friend Jim.

Another story comes to mind – I believe it was one of Saul Alinsky’s – about the importance of connecting. Here is my recollection of the example Alinsky gave:

If I were scheduled to give a talk, and I died prior to giving that talk, there might be a notice in the paper. You might think, “Saul Alinsky – I was to going to go hear him. What a shame.” And that would be that.

But if I had given that talk, and you had been in the audience, and then I had died afterwards, your thoughts would be very different. “Oh goodness no! I just saw him last week. He talked about this and about that – he was wonderful! I cannot believe he is gone!” You would have felt a connection. I would be the same person, and I would still be dead. But your feelings would be different.

Connection matters. And the more engaged that connection, the more it matters.

Engaged connections are what make us act. Engaged connections are what make us care more about the speaker we saw – even though he was only a guy on a stage – than the speaker who died before we could see him. Engaged connections are the difference between the likelihood of fixing my friend Jim’s sign vs. the sign of a stranger.

Engaged Connections Are About Friendship
Here is what I wrote in the introduction to my Community Enagement workbook, FriendRaising, about the ‘transactional’ definition of friendship, as used in the traditional ‘nonprofit’ sector:

The transactional view of friendship [states], “If you give us money, we will be your friend. If we think you will give us money, we will court you as our friend. If you fail to give us money, we will eventually stop calling you. The more money you give us, the more friendly we will be.”

Sadly for our organizations, our efforts do not have friends. We may have donors. We may have attendees at an event. We may even have a great ROI on a mailing.

But we do not have friends.

Friends are there for you, no matter what. Friends volunteer. They make connections for you. They lend you their truck. Friends do all that and more because they feel a connection to you and to the work you are doing to make your community a better place to live.

And yes, friends will also give you money.

But just as in real life, that’s not what a friend is – someone who gives you money. It is someone who cares. Someone who would feel pain if something bad happened to the work you are trying to do. Someone who feels that your mission is their mission. Someone who will work to ensure that mission is accomplished!

The truth is that a direct mail piece cannot make a friend. To make a friend, you need to make a real live engaged connection.

Turning Donors Into Friends
Today, right now – list all your donors. Sort them by dollar gift. Take the top 1/4 of those donor names, and set them aside. If you are like most organizations, you are already engaging those folks plenty. (If you give us money, we will be your friend. The more money you give us, the more friendly we will be…)

Now look at the other 3/4 of your existing donors – the ones you pretty much ignore except to send them more mailings asking for more money.

And starting from the bottom up – yup, from the $5 donor and the $10 donor – call each one of them, until you are done. Take the week. Take the month. Call each one and say Thank You.

Call and ask if they would like to take a tour of your facility.

Call and ask if they would like to have coffee, so you can learn more about their feelings about your community’s issues, and your community’s potential.

If yours is an arts or education organization – perhaps a museum or a symphony – call and ask if they would like free passes to your latest exhibit, or your latest performance. You weren’t sold out anyway, so why not show the people who care about you that you care back?

NOT because they will give you more money. But because that’s what friends do.

Friends say thank you.
Friends call when they DON’T want anything.
Friends give as much as they take.
Friends call just to say, “I am glad you are in my life.”

Money alone cannot make your community an incredible place to live. To truly accomplish your mission – in a way that allows you to say, “We have created the conditions we dreamed of for our community” – that will take far more than just having donors.

It will take having true friends.

Philanthropy may be defined ideally as “love of humanity,” but philanthropy as we know it is a perfect microcosm of our modern American capitalist economy:

1. There is fierce competition for scarce resources (“This rejection of your proposal is not a reflection of the worthiness of your project.”).
2. A person’s worth is determined by their wealth (“We need a new board member. Do you know any rich people? Specifically, ethnic rich people?”).
3. We think we can buy social good (“To receive your grant, please sign and return this grant contract.”). Plus, we think we can get it on sale (“Administrative and fundraising expenses are not to exceed 5% of total budget”). And even off the rack (“Let’s replicate the model nationally”). Maybe throw in a money-back guarantee (“We only support evidence-based practices.”).

Philanthropy as we know it has done a great job in becoming an indipensible part of our economic system by helping people feel comfortable with and even good about grossly inequitable distributions of wealth and power. Without scarcity in one corner and extreme wealth in the other, who needs philanthropy?

What if many of the social problems we face today, which philanthropy as we know it aims to mitigate or solve, have roots in the way our economy treats people? Maybe, equality between people can only be achieved once there is also some level of economic equity between us. What if peace between people and nations requires a more equitable global distribution of wealth?

What if we have to think outside of the current economic system that gave birth to philanthropy as we know it in order for philanthropy to achieve its highest potential?

So let’s try this: take a deep breath and relax. What could philanthropy look like in a world where everybody already has enough?

When I ponder this question, I see a world with an economic system that supports people’s inclinations to:

• Give generously.
• Receive graciously.
• Reciprocate frequently.

When I imagine an economy in a world where we all have enough, we give generously. I see people who give freely without strings attached. There is no fear of it going to waste, no worry that a precious resource might be squandered. We can do this because we trust that what is given will be returned in some form, which frees us to be generous because we never give away — we only give, and what we give grows.

When I imagine an economy in a world where we all have enough, we receive graciously. I see people who know how to receive. They recognize the gift that has been given, and there is no shame attached to receiving because we know that we all receive in one form or another. The recognition of need is simply an act of humility, not a sign of weakness. Seen this way, we can be gracious — especially because we know that all of us have something important to give, and we are always asked to do that.

When I imagine an economy in a world where we all have enough, we reciprocate frequently. I see a whole network of people giving and receiving just what is needed and called for at any particular time. Lynne Twist calls this state “sufficiency.” Just enough, no more, no less. It’s a principle around which we can construct relationships that allow us to care for each other. After all, economics is really about how we decide to structure relationships between people. We could design a system that acknowledges a radical truth — that we are equal and interdependent — and in so doing, obliterate philanthropy.

Give generously.
Receive graciously.
Reciprocate frequently.

An economy built on these principles doesn’t need philanthropy as we know it. It would already express our love of humanity.

This is not an academic exercise for us. The question arises as a result of rethinking what philanthropy looks like if it reflects its roots in “Love of Humanity.” As we have vowed to explore what it means to be the future we want to see in our communities, we find ourselves asking, “What do our values look like in action at our donation page?” And to be honest, we have a lot more questions than answers so far…

What We’re Really Saying When We Ask for Donations
There are so many unspoken assumptions embedded in the language of donations. Here are just a few:

Donate to our organization / our work
Assumption: WE the organization are separate from YOU the donor. YOU give to US.
Assumption: When YOU give US money, WE will do the work. After all, WE are the experts.

Your dollars make this work possible
Assumption: WE depend on YOU.
Assumption: More to the point, WE desperately need YOUR money.
Assumption: Without YOUR money, OUR organization will not survive, and none of the work in our community will get done.

The more we unpack the layers, the more we see that the act of asking for donations, no matter how noble it is (and we acknowledge that it is, indeed, noble), is ultimately rooted in a sense of scarcity. And any relationship rooted in scarcity is a power relationship. You have money, we need that money – it’s not for us personally, but to do amazing things for others. But we really need it. Please give it to us?!

Starting a Different Conversation
As we re-think philanthropy to be the true partnership implied in the words “Love of Humanity” – the original meaning of that word – all this is coming up for us. If we know the only way to create the future we all want is for all of us to work together – not YOU helping US, but all of us working together in one big Stone Soup of partnership – what does that look like in practice when it comes to supporting the work to accomplish that? And if the word “donations” carries all the assumptions noted above, is that really an approach that aligns with the world we want?

I don’t want to suggest we have the answers; what I do know is that…

1. Individuals will go where systems lead them.
2. The situation I’ve described above is simply a system.

To create new systems will require a whole new set of questions – questions that lead to empowering, engaging answers, rooted in abundance and connection.

• How can we walk the talk of being in community with each other at our “donations” page?
• What do those values and assumptions look like in action at that page?
• Would we still call it a “donations” page?
• What do we want to offer at that page? How can we use that page to be of service to each other (vs. “YOU the donor” being of service to US)?

If the Page- Formerly-Known-As-Our-Donations-Page** is about all of us together creating the world we want, how can we link what people expect to find – a donations page – to our own intention to be the future we want to see?

Much to think about. What bubbles up for you?

** Our “donation” page is a work in progress. Here’s what it looks like today. As you look at it, is there anything that stands out? Anything that makes you stop and think? What does it evoke for you? Any and all observations and thoughts are welcome!

At the risk of sounding like the father in My Big Fat Greek Wedding, the roots of the word “Philanthropy” come from the ancient Greek.

“Philanthropy etymologically means ‘the love of humanity’ – love in the sense of caring for, nourishing, developing, or enhancing; humanity in the sense of ‘what it is to be human,’ or ‘human potential.’ ” (Wikipedia)

Of course that is not what “philanthropy” means in common usage today:

“In modern practical terms, it is “private initiatives for public good, focusing on quality of life.” This formulation distinguishes it from business (private initiatives for private good, focusing on material prosperity) and government (public initiatives for public good, focusing on law and order).” (Wikipedia)

Definitions are about assumptions, and our assumptions are what create our actions. If we assume that philanthropy is “all of us nourishing our human potential,” our work as social change agents will be inclusive, engaged, connected with everyone equally because everyone can be a lover of humanity.

On the other hand, if we assume that “philanthropist = donor,” our work will reflect the assumption that only those of means can “love humanity.”

Rethinking Philanthropy
Creating the Future’s Resource Development Team started with similar assumptions as any other such team – that its mission was to determine how to fund this start-up in the short term, and especially how to fund the build-out of all our programs over the coming 2 years.

Our first step was to determine our highest potential end goal. “What will the work of this team make possible? And for whom? If we were 100% successful, what would that look like in the world?”

The answer has resonated with all of us. The immediate result of our work is that frameworks and tools for creating and sustaining vibrant communities will be as common as fundraising and organization-focused tools are today. And if that happens, the ultimate result will be healthy, vibrant communities.

Which is when it struck us. The highest potential of this team’s efforts is that ancient Greek definition of philanthropy – love of humanity – that we all support and nurture and care for each other with compassion and wisdom.

If we all nourished each other (Oh I do love the thought of “nourishing” each other!), we would not need to be urged that “everyone can be a philanthropist” (Translation: “Even $5 helps”). Each of us would already be philanthropists, giving our all, simply as part of being actively engaged with our fellow humans.

If we all lived in full engagement with each other, that sense of openness and mutual responsibility and empathy would feel as natural as “not knowing our neighbors” feels today. It is simply what we would expect from each other.

And in truth, kindness and connection are already all around us. Think of how often during the day you experience a smile as the cashier makes small talk, or someone letting you into the lane in traffic, or a phone call from a faraway friend.

What Will We Do Differently?
Creating the Future is at the very beginning of this journey. So far, here is what the “Rethinking Resource Development Team” is discovering (and yes, the name is changing as our thinking changes!):

1. If kindness and connection are already all around us, Creating the Future will do our best to amplify and model that, to show what that looks like in action in social change work.
2. Instead of working to build an “organization,” we will approach our work as a “project” that will be completed when our mission is accomplished. In that way, we hope to avoid the trap of thinking this entity must be sustained for the long haul, which leads to “individual survival” thinking vs. “all of us together” thinking.
3. The only way to accomplish our mission is to engage our community (the whole world!) to collectively make that happen, all of us together in all kinds of ways, with all our combined talents and gifts. If the effort belongs to Creating the Future, it will fail. It must be owned by all of us.
4. Therefore, instead of asking people to “fund Creating the Future’s project,” we will seek Stone Soup sorts of partnerships, where everyone brings what they have, to nourish and nurture an effort that belongs to all of us together.

If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together.
African proverb

We are not sure where this approach will lead. However, we do know where the old “Philanthropist = Donor” approach will lead. It will perpetuate the assumption – and therefore the reality – that those with money (i.e. individuals, governments, businesses) are the only ones with the power to decide the future for the rest of us.

And there is one other thing we know. If we want a future where we all nourish the potential in each other, we don’t have to wait. We can be that future right now. And we can model to others both what that looks like and how it works.

Or at least that’s the plan.