Over the last year, sharp disagreements about pluralism in the nonprofit sector have come into focus. At the same time, new spaces have been made available, such as in the Chronicle of Philanthropy’s The Commons, the Council on Foundations’ Building Together conference, and the Urban Institute’s Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy, to discuss these issues.
One central tension lies between the proponents of bridging and equity work. Bridging work sometimes asks participants to put their grievances to the side for some greater good, while the goal of equity is to address standing grievances first. Given that bridging has taken a central place in discussions about pluralism, the tension between equity and bridging has extended to a tension between equity and pluralism. So the language of pluralism is often felt as an attempt to chill activist and equity work. That’s a shame, because equity is just as central to pluralism as bridging.
Proponents of pluralism, and especially bridgers, need to pay attention to the fact that their language can be felt as restrictive. Here are some examples: at the Urban Institute’s webinar, Aisha Alexander Young of Frontline Solutions shared her experience at the ABFE (the leading conference of black foundation staff and leadership) when the Statement on Philanthropic Pluralism (on which CoF was a signer) hit. Young spoke about the chilling effect of the statement on the joyful mood and sense of possibility that ABFE cultivates. Similarly, Lori Villarosa at Philanthropic Initiative for Racial Equity, also mentioned in that same space that grantees working on racial equity are hearing from their funders “this is too polarizing, do something else.” Both speakers emphasized the feeling that promoters of pluralism are really saying sit down and shut up.
At Building Together, a conference that both promoted pluralism and offered opportunities to practice bridging work for philanthropy, many bridgers were in attendance, including Braver Angels, Interfaith America, The Convergence Center, and Resetting the Table.
But a few of the bridging speakers had some digs against the protesters on college campuses against the war in the Gaza Strip, implying that bridging strategies are better - and that the protesters should give it up. Apparently both David Brooks (whose speech I heard) and Eboo Patel (whose speech I missed but heard about later) expressed something along these line.
Further, that disapproval of the protesters was noted, with some disapproval, by more than one conference attendee. One person said to me, “for a conference that is supposed to be about pluralism, some of the speakers don’t seem to be all on board with that message,” and went on to cite Brooks and Patel in particular. That listener heard those speeches’ knock on anti-war protestors in the same way that others already mentioned hear pluralism and bridging as nice words for sit down and shut up. The outcome is the overarching sentiment from equity-driven folks that, if pluralism is about chilling efforts for equity, to hell with pluralism. Ouch.
The outcome is the overarching sentiment from equity-driven folks that, if pluralism is about chilling efforts for equity, to hell with pluralism. Ouch.
All this got me thinking again about the importance of different roles and approaches in a successful pluralistic society. I have an article forthcoming about this topic this October in The Foundation Review, so if you’re interested in reading more, watch that space. In the meantime, I want to dig into the idea that a successfully pluralistic society needs both kinds of approaches - bridging and equity work - along with many others.
Work that centers equity, activism, and advocacy tends to be highly creative. Such spaces tend to be democratizing, mediating popular experience to disrupt and reinvent ways of being and doing. Ideas that have come out of these spaces have shaped and reshaped American society for the better - including the abolition of slavery, civil rights, and marriage equality movements. These organizations can’t do this creative work tied to the expectations and needs of other factions in society, and shouldn’t be expected to do so. Yet, without bridgers, activist movements often fall short of long-term success - lasting only until the next election cycle, or the "other side" gets better organized.
Work that focuses on bridging can bring those creative ideas to a much wider audience, and offer space for iteration and the democratic practice of negotiation. Policy changes with very broad, bipartisan support are more likely to survive the next election cycle. Bridgers also create space for relationships, which are the real foundation for lasting success, to blossom. Finally, although I said above that bridgers sometimes ask participants to put aside their grievances, some bridging techniques are designed to address conflict directly, allowing participants to air and work through grievances in structured environments (e.g., Resetting the Table). Bridgers are necessary to a pluralistic society, yet without activists for equity, they will lose a vital source of creative ideas and likely fall into the trap of seeing the status quo as acceptable - which it is not.
Bridgers are necessary to a pluralistic society, yet without activists for equity, they will lose a vital source of creative ideas and likely fall into the trap of seeing the status quo as acceptable - which it is not.
All this makes hosting and holding a truly pluralistic space quite difficult. It will continue to plague conveners like the Council on Foundations and others who are trying this feat. But despite these tensions, I don’t think we’ve yet arrived at catastrophe. Another key hallmark of successful pluralistic societies are the classically liberal values that show up for Americans as the First Amendment rights of assembly, speech, and petition for redress of grievances. In all the spaces I’ve mentioned - folks felt able to push back against the ideas that troubled them. Whether it was Aisha Alexander Young at the Urban Institute webinar, or David Brooks and my co-participants at Building Together; all of these folks felt able to criticize, publicly, an idea or way of being they disagreed with.
Despite the real and felt tensions between folks who take these different approaches, and the fact that they don't always sit well or work in concert with each other, they are both desperately needed. Even better, the tensions and criticisms between them cause them often to sharpen or rethink their strategies. All of this is very good in the long run, even if it is frustrating in the moment.
As Aisha said at the Urban Institute event, we are experiencing “the most pluralistic expression of philanthropy and the nonprofit sector that has ever existed.” We’ve only gotten to that point, I think, because the sector has allowed the growth and flourishing of both bridgers and activists for equity among many others. I don’t know about you, but that gives me hope.
For guidance on nonprofit strategies for pluralism, reach out to me at allison@cohesionstrategy.com.
Comments