We live in an unprecedented era of polarization, inequity, and division. The imbalance across power and resources is so extreme that the vast majority of people do not see themselves represented — hardly the ideal environment for advancing democracy and dismantling unjust systems. However, as leaders in philanthropy and people committed to solutions, it is vital that we allow space for differing perspectives and ideological conflicts as we pursue a vision that offers hope to all.
Philanthropy mirrors democracy in that accepting pluralism contributes to harmony and camaraderie among those providing resources to yield social and economic change, and those impacted most by both these resources and the inequities that necessitate them. Democracy, along with philanthropy, must facilitate healthy disagreement for all communities to truly be represented and have a part in shaping society.
I come from a tradition of engaging different ideas, approaches, and beliefs as a way to deepen understanding, sharpen my perspective, and hold the contradictions of my own ideas. I worry that many of us are turning our backs on this way of approaching difference and disagreement at the peril of our own dreams.
Democracy is based on a set of overarching beliefs within which disagreements naturally take place. Democracy, at its best, should be representative, objective, and just. Without difference of opinion — staunch disagreement, even, there is no such thing as democracy. These disagreements cannot merely exist; they must be cultivated and recognized.
As our democracy currently stands, there is very little tolerance for disagreement to such an extreme that we refuse to accept the possibility of legitimate democratic loss. To function at our best, we must recognize the representation of every voice, even when we lose. Being so principled as to reject any ideas that make concessions to the other side leads to everyone losing in the long run. One of philanthropy's main challenges is building programs that provide hope to all despite fraught circumstances and realities—and disagreement, which employs an authentic recognition of what every voice says, is essential to achieving this.
Exercising pluralism and disagreement, even though often uncomfortable and difficult, is necessary to direct the ethos of philanthropy and democracy into a truly representative system. From the leadership of charitable institutions to those who are being served in their communities, all of us need to feel heard and represented, even in the face of conflicting perspectives. Understanding what others’ stances are rooted in, even if we think they are wrong, is essential. Failure to achieve this, or to be immediately dismissive of those who disagree, leads to a reciprocal rejection of our own beliefs, resulting in both sides being neither heard nor considered.
The philanthropic sector should function as a space where folks can have healthy disagreements and recognize that multiple paths can get us to the freedom we are working toward. Differing opinions and disparate beliefs are symbolic of the diverse society we inhabit. Healthy disagreement and mutual recognition are the attainable goals for the greater good of the philanthropic mission and will lead to real change and representation for all communities.
- Carmen Rojas, President & CEO, Marguerite Casey Foundation
Disclaimer: Confluence blogs may contain external links to other resources and comments or statements by individuals who do not represent Confluence Philanthropy, Inc. Confluence Philanthropy, Inc. makes no representation whatsoever regarding the content that you may access as a result of our blog, nor the statements of any third parties whose comments may be expressed therein.
