Episode 23
· 35:10
I think we wanna shift the narrative around philanthropy because it reminds us that we all have agency and power in terms of supporting the causes that are important to us, the needs that that we might see around us. I think it recognizes that we don't have to wait for someone else to step in.
Carmina Ravanera:When most people think about philanthropy, they picture rich, often white men writing huge checks for whatever cause they decide to get behind. And billionaire philanthropy has faced growing criticism. Is it really philanthropy, or is it just a sneaky way for the wealthy to avoid taxes and reinforce inequality? But this perspective leaves out a much broader, richer history, one where women, members of racialized communities, LGBTQ plus folks, and others have long used the power of voluntary giving to contribute to the public good and drive important social change. In this episode, we speak to researchers who are challenging the dominant narrative, expanding our understanding of who gives, why they give, and how philanthropy has always belonged to more than just a select few.
Carmina Ravanera:I'm Carmina Ravanera, a senior research associate at GATE.
Dr. Sonia Kang:And I'm Dr. Sonia Kang, academic director at GATE. When most people think about philanthropy, I think they picture major foundations, fancy black tie galas, or wealthy donors getting buildings named after them. These donors are often praised for supporting important causes, from health care to the arts to organizations for women and girls. But at the same time, there's also growing criticism of billionaire philanthropy, especially the concern that it weakens democracy by giving a very select group of private individuals too much control over public priorities.
Dr. Sonia Kang:So in this episode, we're adding nuance to that conversation. Through interviews with researchers, we'll unpack what philanthropy is, who participates in it, and why it matters more than ever to broaden our understanding of it. Right.
Carmina Ravanera:So to start off, I spoke to Jacqueline Ackerman, director of the Women's Philanthropy Institute at Indiana University. She talked about what philanthropy is rooted in and how that shapes the way we think about giving today.
Jacqueline Ackerman:At the school of philanthropy at Indiana University, as you can imagine, we talk a lot about defining philanthropy. The word philanthropy actually means love of humanity. And so, it's interesting that it's such a broad definition that can mean all sorts of, generous activities or or prosocial activities. But when people hear the word philanthropy, they're thinking, typically of, you know, wealthy white men, who have the capacity to give these huge gifts. And so we essentially want to bust the myth that that is who a philanthropist is.
Jacqueline Ackerman:We think that philanthropy includes a wide range of generous behaviors, in terms of supporting others, contributing to the greater good, and that really anyone can be a philanthropist. And in fact, many people are who have been historically under looked by by folks who pay attention to this field.
Carmina Ravanera:I also spoke with doctor Elizabeth Dale, who holds the Fry Foundation Chair for Family Philanthropy at the Dorothy a Johnson Center for Philanthropy at Grand Valley State University. She offered some powerful insights on how we define philanthropy and who gets included in that definition.
Dr. Elizabeth Dale:In terms of how I would define philanthropy, I really think of philanthropy as any kind of voluntary action for public purposes or the public good. So whether that's giving, whether that's volunteering, we we like to expand that to include talent, testimony, and ties. So everything from, you know, your skills, your voice in terms of advocacy, and the networks that you're a part of. And so there's just so many ways for people to give, and I really invite this more expansive understanding of philanthropy that invites us all to do what we can for the causes that we care about.
Dr. Sonia Kang:So at its root, philanthropy is voluntary literally a love of humanity. And it's not just about money. It includes time, talent, and skill too. But still, when most people hear the word philanthropy, they picture wealthy men writing big checks.
Carmina Ravanera:A big reason is that this is the dominant narrative we see, especially in the media and in shows and movies. But the story leaves out so much. People from all kinds of communities have always been involved in philanthropy even if their contributions haven't been as visible, glamorous, or celebrated?
Dr. Elizabeth Dale:I think the perception of billionaire philanthropists being ascribed to men is often because of history and where kind of scientific philanthropy started with the great industrialists of, you know, Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller, and others who established the first large general purpose foundations. But I think what that overlooks is that women have always been involved in philanthropy and women actually have used philanthropy throughout history as a way to claim more public roles in civic life. It was, you know, early women's voluntary associations allowed women to raise money, manage money, run organizations even if they weren't necessarily as large as the ones that that men were running. And so women have also used voluntary organizations to advocate for their own interests, things like suffrage and, you know, expansion of women's rights.
Dr. Elizabeth Dale:So while the perception dominates, it's not reality. And I think, you know, because there's been such wealth in you know, a gender based wealth inequality that's persisted, men have continued to have greater resources to give from and are also more likely to, I think, be, you know, claiming those public roles of of being a philanthropist. And women, even if they're in a couple or philanthropists themselves, may be a little bit less likely to claim that title today. And so we you know, this perception really does persist.
Carmina Ravanera:Women are often left out of the philanthropy story partly because they've had less access to wealth in many places in the world. When we do see stories about women involved in philanthropy, it's often in the context of wives of wealthy men hosting fancy fundraising events and playing supporting roles rather than being seen as strategic philanthropists in their own right. But when you account for income and other factors, research shows that women actually give more than men. And they tend to give differently too in ways that are more often connected to relationships and community. Here's what the researchers had to say.
Jacqueline Ackerman:The Women's Philanthropy Institute, we've been doing research on this for, almost two decades. And so we have a lot of research, and we've collected a lot of external research that gives us a really concrete idea of the gender dynamics in charitable giving. So, kind of the basics are that women are giving more when we compare women to similarly situated men and kind of holds things constant like wealth, like income, education, etcetera. And secondly, that women, in addition to being more likely to give, they're giving higher amounts than similarly situated men. So they are kind of by by these financial measures more generous.
Jacqueline Ackerman:But we also know that they are spreading this charitable giving to more causes and organizations. And so often, they're not receiving the same attention as a similarly generous man simply because they're spreading their wealth out and not making one big splash with their giving necessarily. The other ways that gender influences charitable giving in addition to, like, the what, we do know that the where is different. Women are more likely than men to give to causes like, health, human services, education, and equity. And then the how of philanthropy is also different.
Jacqueline Ackerman:So we find that men's philanthropy tends to be relatively transactional. Just, you know, writing a check or however one is making a donation, and then moving on. Whereas women tend to be highly relational, really collaborative both with organizations that they support and their fellow women philanthropists. Collaborative giving is just a huge phenomenon in in women's philanthropy. And then they're also giving, as I mentioned, broadly to a number of causes.
Jacqueline Ackerman:They don't tend to focus on just one. And then holistically, women tend to think of philanthropy as something that they're doing, yes, with checks to traditional charities, but also with, you know, the stores where they are are purchasing household items, do those stores have values that align with them? Are they, you know, investing their retirement account in, social good assets or ESG assets? And and just any way that a woman can use her resources, financial networks, voice, otherwise, they are doing so in a way that supports these causes that they care about. And so it's it's much more of a holistic sense of generosity, whereas it seems from the research that men have, like, a box for charitable giving.
Jacqueline Ackerman:And and they check that box, and then they move on to other areas of their lives.
Dr. Elizabeth Dale:For many years, I started as a fundraiser before I became an academic and a researcher, and it it was really seen as, you know, everybody kind of gives in the same way. Maybe maybe a naive perspective, but people didn't really think about how different aspects of identity and different life experiences might actually shape the philanthropic behaviors that we either take that we adopt, that we take on. And so my research really set out to highlight how do some different groups participate in philanthropy, what are the different considerations maybe that we need to think of in approaching donors of different identities with the understanding that each person is also an individual and that when we're looking at groups, we're, you know, we're making some kind of broader assumptions about behavior. But there are some differences. We know that even when we control for education and income that women are both more likely to give and actually give more relative to their resources.
Dr. Elizabeth Dale:Women have outpaced men in volunteering pretty much, you know, since we started looking at that literature. And getting behind the motivations for giving, there are different motivations for men and women. So women are often more connected to the cause, maybe looking more about, you know, how how does an organization, you know, either deliver on its mission, serve a particular population. Many men give because their peers have given or it enhances social reputation. We know that that's less of a driver for women.
Dr. Elizabeth Dale:I also don't want you to think that, you know, philanthropy was just everyday women, you know, throughout history doing small things. Know, there were prominent female philanthropists, you know, even in the eighteen hundreds and early nineteen hundreds who had access to wealth, who were able to really, you know, promote their own causes. Fewer than, you know, certainly there were fewer women than men, and those women often inherited money or either from their parents or from a spouse. But women women have been involved writing, you know, checks of all sizes throughout history. And I think that's important to recognize as well, you know, whether they help to establish women's colleges and universities or promote childcare.
Dr. Elizabeth Dale:You know, there were there were you know, or women like Jane Adams who were hugely influential in their work. You know, women have played significant roles as at the same time that they've played more everyday roles in philanthropy.
Dr. Sonia Kang:So women actually play a huge role in philanthropy, whether they're giving their time or money or both. And they tend to give in deeply personal ways, driven by connection and commitment to a cause rather than reputation. That really challenges the idea that there's one way to be a philanthropist. But what about other marginalized or minority groups? What do we know about how they participate in philanthropy?
Jacqueline Ackerman:A lot of our research has looked at race and then also to a certain extent economic status. We don't necessarily have research on every every demographic characteristic, although I would love to dig into that more in the future. But the big picture is that when we look within different groups, racial groups, economic status groups, what is common among these groups is that the women within those groups are more generous than men even if we're showing group differences. So, for example, if you look at, race and giving, if you're just looking at the flat numbers, there there is research that will show, that white households contribute higher amounts than than black households or other households of color. And what we have tried to do, especially in a report that we did a few years ago called gender and giving across communities of color, is to kind of debunk this myth that that certain races or ethnic groups are less generous.
Jacqueline Ackerman:Because when you dig into the research, a lot of it is predicated on, not holding certain factors constant. So when we do look at, you know, income and wealth as factors in this, the the giving levels are a lot more even. We also know that historically, you know, the definition of philanthropy and charitable giving has been built around this example of a white male donor. And so, for example, black women have this long tradition of formal and informal giving, mutual aid, faith based contributions that just don't show up in the traditional data. And one anecdote that that I, that has just stayed with me ever since I heard it was, you know, when you're asking questions about volunteering and volunteer hours, a lot of the raw data will show that, at least within gender, white women are are volunteering more.
Jacqueline Ackerman:And then, you know, I was talking to a friend of mine, who's black and was talking about this and was like, you know, let's how do you volunteer? And she was like, does church count? Does my school count that my kids go to that I volunteer at every week? And I was like, yes. And she's like, I would never put that on a survey.
Jacqueline Ackerman:That would not occur to me to put on a survey. And so it it appears to us that a lot of the historical research that might show some sort of racial or ethnic differences are are essentially conceptually flawed and are not really taking into account kind of all of the ways that these communities are generous.
Dr. Elizabeth Dale:I identify as part of the LGBTQ community, and so that's part of what motivated my research. And there there's some interesting findings among the LGBTQ community. I think there was a perception that people who identified as gay or lesbian might only give to gay and lesbian organizations, and that's absolutely not true. The majority of their philanthropy goes to the the full broad spectrum of charitable organizations because people are multidimensional. Right?
Dr. Elizabeth Dale:We have different interests and and passions, and that's reflected in our giving. At the same time, we know that money is managed a little bit differently in same sex couple households. Often there's either more kind of joint decision making or each individual might also have access to some of their own money, and so giving can come from any of those places. It can come from an individual in the household. It can come from a couple.
Dr. Elizabeth Dale:And so it's important to understand that. And at the same time, the recognition among couples is often, I'm gonna, you know, put my partner's name on it as well even if I made the gift because I wanna be, you know, seen as somebody who supports this cause and I want them to know, you know, hey, a gay couple supports their cause too. And so those were some of the the findings that I had in my research. You know, one of the interesting experiences of people who've maybe maybe have an identity that's been marginalized is this tendency to identify with other marginalized groups even if they don't share the same identity. So within some of my research, you know, for example, white lesbian women, cisgendered, who might really identify with causes that predominantly affect black women or, you know, wanting to support racial justice because there is some shared understanding of oppression and what that's been like.
Dr. Elizabeth Dale:And obviously, you know, we can't say that all queer people might do that. But I think when you when you ask someone, why did you give or what motivates you to support this cause? This idea that I've experienced oppression myself, and so that's kind of a heightened awareness of what others might be experiencing serves as this sort of linkage that really does motivate someone to give. I've really looked to explore this in different donor communities because I think it's actually what we need more of in in today's kind of world is, you know, we all have such varied experiences, but how can we come together and be align ourselves for for some common action or common good? And so that's part of why I've lifted that up in my research.
Carmina Ravanera:It's clear that the idea of philanthropy belonging only to wealthy white men just doesn't hold up. The researchers shared some specific and important examples of how people in marginalized communities have used giving and volunteering to drive meaningful change. And often, their approach to philanthropy looks really different from the big check, big ego version we usually hear about.
Dr. Elizabeth Dale:I did some research not too long ago on kind of the early AIDS crisis, and that was, you know, in the nineteen eighties as, you know, AIDS was very poorly understood and lot you know, increasing numbers of predominantly gay men were being infected. It was really the LGBTQ community that responded in terms of advocacy, pressing for research dollars, supporting people who contracted AIDS, supporting them, you know, often when their families wanted nothing to do with them, and there were very few kind of publicly available services. So whether it's, you know, establishing organizations like Gay Men's Health Crisis or ACT UP, which was really advocacy related, and both of those organizations continue today and have in many ways expanded their missions, not, you know, well beyond the LGBTQ community. So that's one example, you know, often kind of responding to a need that no one else is addressing. When I think about examples of philanthropy led by women, I think about lots of those early women's organizations where very small amounts of money were leveraged to run, you know, increasingly larger organizations, and that even when the monetary resources weren't there, the passion and the gifts of time and talent, I mean, these were voluntary jobs for many women, but they treated them like their full time job.
Dr. Elizabeth Dale:And so whether it was establishing organizations, you know, around suffrage, like the National Women's Suffrage Association or later organizations like National Organization for Women, you know, really like marginalized and minority communities have always used philanthropy as a way to support and advocate for themselves. And then often, over time, kind of adopt other groups that they're able to support as well.
Jacqueline Ackerman:I would say that giving circles and collective giving broadly is a huge example of this. We have some research on giving circles, and, we know that the vast majority, are women only or or women in the vast majority of of members. And so collective giving is really a female phenomenon. And what I love about collective giving is that it makes an everyday donor a part of big giving. So you can give 500, a thousand dollars, and then you're partnering with, like, a 100 other women who are also doing that.
Jacqueline Ackerman:And you don't have the say in where that goes, but you have a voice and a vote, and and you can decide together. And so I love that because giving circles have given billions and billions of dollars over the last decade, and and they're so important. And they also involve so many women in in giving and charitable giving and generosity. So I would say that's that's the biggest example that that I can share. As Jacqueline points out, giving circles, which are often led by women, bring people together to pool resources and collectively decide where that money should go.
Jacqueline Ackerman:It's a powerful reminder that philanthropy can
Dr. Sonia Kang:be collaborative, community driven, and deeply democratic. There's no one size fits all.
Carmina Ravanera:Here's another example. Indigenous groups in Canada make up about 5% of the population but receive less than 1% of charitable donations. In response, some organizations are working to rethink and reform traditional, often colonial philanthropic models to center justice, prioritize Indigenous leadership, and support Indigenous futures. We'll drop some links in the show notes for anyone who wants to learn more.
Dr. Sonia Kang:Right. We should definitely acknowledge the many valid critiques of billionaire philanthropy, especially as wealth inequality keeps growing in many countries around the world. Big donations might make headlines, but they often don't change the systems that produce inequality in the first place or transform the structures that keep it going. But at the same time, many nonprofits, advocacy groups, and grassroots organizations rely on acts of everyday giving, time, money, energy, to do work that really matters in people's lives.
Carmina Ravanera:Philanthropy isn't a substitute for social policy or fair taxation. It can't replace the role of the state in addressing inequality. But if we think about it more expansively, people's generosity has always fueled movements that boost up organizations and initiatives working to make society better and help shine a light on overlooked issues. When we show up for each other with time, money, or
Dr. Sonia Kang:care, we can spark real social change, we can also keep pushing to make philanthropy itself more just and equitable by centering the voices and leadership of marginalized communities. If we broaden our understanding of philanthropy, we start to see that it's not just about money and not just about wealthy donors. But some people argue that we shouldn't even call these other things philanthropy at all. So why is it important to rethink the narrative and how we define philanthropy?
Carmina Ravanera:Well, there are definitely debates around what we should call these acts of giving. Some people feel that using the word philanthropy for things like mutual aid can blur important distinctions, especially when mutual aid is about challenging unequal systems, not just working within them. But whatever term you use, it's crucial to recognize that many diverse communities, including women, LGBTQ plus communities, and racialized groups have long supported each other through voluntary giving. That's how we build collective power. That's how we take care of each other, and that's how we push for real structural change, especially during times of crisis.
Dr. Elizabeth Dale:I think we want to shift the narrative around philanthropy because it reminds us that we all have agency and power in terms of supporting the causes that are important to us, the needs that that we might see around us. I think it recognizes that, you know, we don't have to wait for someone else to step in even if we might be constrained by time or money or or, you know, any of the other resources that we, you know, we could all say we want more of. And so I think it it kind of brings us back to this idea that we all have a role we can play. And when we recognize that, when we realize that we have been philanthropic often in many different ways throughout our lives, or we've benefited from the giving and generosity of others, You know, recognizing that I think is part of how we shift this conversation and broaden philanthropy to something that maybe is more like a cultural norm. You
Carmina Ravanera:know,
Dr. Elizabeth Dale:it's often philanthropy is often taught in faith based communities as a religious tenant. But it can also be passed on in very secular ways, in schools, through families, through kind of getting involved in your community. And those those civic connections that we build are really important fabric in our society of where where we might meet different different people, people who are different from us, where we might meet people with varying perspectives, but we care about a similar issue and that brings us together. And so, you know, I think it's an it's an important way that we can be connected to one another and hope hopefully improve our communities and improve our lives and the lives of others. We we all have different reasons that that kind of motivate us to wanna be involved.
Dr. Elizabeth Dale:And I think that diversity is is really it's important to understand. It's part of sort of that fabric of diversity in our lives, and then we can actually make change. Right? We were talking about examples of efforts that have created meaningful impact. You know, a lot of the kind of equality organizations for LGBTQ rights and we when we think about the Supreme Court decision that legalized same sex marriage, I mean, that was a group of people coming together to advocate for a change and, you know, ultimately achieving that.
Dr. Elizabeth Dale:And so I think when we can remind ourselves of how the groups have have sort of either moved those efforts along or achieved those efforts, sometimes single handedly, we're reminded of of our own power as well.
Dr. Sonia Kang:Exactly. It's really about seeing ourselves as change makers and recognizing that solidarity can show up in so many forms, time, money, energy, care. That kind of connection and support is especially powerful during times like these when so much feels uncertain.
Carmina Ravanera:When we question the dominant narrative, we open up space to imagine something better for the future, a version of philanthropy that's inclusive, equitable, and community led.
Dr. Sonia Kang:So if someone says that philanthropy is just for ultra wealthy men, what's one thing I can say to challenge that?
Carmina Ravanera:Here's what the researchers had to say.
Jacqueline Ackerman:Our research has made it really clear that generosity is not limited by wealth. So folks across the income spectrum have really similar rates of giving, and high net worth folks do give, quite often, but, a lot of that is simply a function of wealth. And when we hold wealth and income, steady, and and, kind of separate that out from the equation, that difference is is very slight. I'll go back to giving circles. Giving circles and collective giving are a great example of challenging the myth that only ultra wealthy folks can can make a difference in their generosity.
Jacqueline Ackerman:You can give, you know, a 100, 500, a thousand dollars and be part of a major grant to an organization that can completely reshape or support its its operating costs. And that is a huge part of this. And I would just say we also do some research on investing in women's and girls causes, and we have found that messages about giving collectively, not necessarily through, like, a formal structure, but, the concept that we're all in this together and we all need support instead of, like, my organization over here needs support, and we don't really care about you. The kind of sector wide collaborative fundraising efforts, are really much more powerful, and donors really respond well to, that. And so I would say, you know, everyone wants an ultra wealthy donor to come along and, like, provide a lifeline to their organization.
Jacqueline Ackerman:We can't pretend that, money doesn't actually pay the bills. It does. But when you are doing fundraising right and you're messaging to reach that everyday donor, especially that woman donor, that woman of color donor, you are naturally gonna kind of bring everyone else along.
Dr. Elizabeth Dale:It's a hard myth to challenge, but I think it it's also the recognition that if only ultra wealthy people and men in particular were engaged in philanthropy, our world would look very different. So I would say look around you and see the examples of philanthropy in your own life, in your own community, and who has led those efforts? You know, for a lot of people, it's mothers and grandmothers who instilled those values in them or a community of of men and women, you know, coming together to start a food pantry or respond to a local need. And so, you know, again, I think telling those stories of philanthropy and recognizing where they show up in your own life challenges that myth outright. And then, you know, sometimes there's ultra wealthy women who step in as well.
Dr. Elizabeth Dale:And, you know, women like Mackenzie Scott and Melinda Gates, the the latter of whom, Melinda French Gates, who's really made her philanthropic priority the well-being of women and girls and, you know, effective maternal and child policies, how to change those policies to benefit more women and and in turn, you know, more families and people as a whole, recognizing the real important role that women have to play. And if their needs are met, then we we all benefit.
Carmina Ravanera:We can start by paying attention to the everyday acts of giving all around us and who's behind them. We can also get curious about the impact these efforts are having in our communities and rethink why we've often reserved the concept of philanthropy for only the richest few. And we can explore other models like giving circles that show how collective giving can be just as powerful, if not more so.
Dr. Sonia Kang:And with that, this myth is busted. Make sure you subscribe. We'll be back with a new episode soon.
Carmina Ravanera:In the meantime, happy myth busting. Gates busted podcast is made possible by generous support from BMO. If you liked this episode, please rate and subscribe to busted. You can also find more interesting podcast series from the Institute for Gender and the Economy by searching Gate Audio wherever you find your podcasts. Thanks for tuning in.
Listen to Busted using one of many popular podcasting apps or directories.
