The White Man’s Band-Aid: A Critical Essay on Philanthropy
By: Mina Mohammadi
What does it mean to engage in philanthropy and what does it mean to help humankind? Who should be allowed to hold these positions of power in helping others, and what are the power structures that exist within this social realm? These questions can be answered in a variety of lexicons, but are visible when speaking about the political theories of Gandhi and Marx. In Gandhi’s Hind Swaraj, Gandhi speaks about bringing power back to indigenous Indian peoples through a variety of methods: methods that all together culminate in the idea of Indian ‘Home Rule’ and self-determination. As for Marx, he believes that in order to bring power back to those that are less fortunate, the entire structure of ‘fortune’ and wealth must change: that the real changes come from a systematic and revolutionary annihilation of class structure. Both Gandhi and Marx would argue that 21st century ideas of ‘philanthropy’ are fundamentally hurtful: that philanthropy is a capitalistic, western-centric and a colonialist system that keeps the same people it supposedly helps under the wealthiest’ heels.
Let us first begin our conversation by discussing what ‘philanthropy’ is and has come to be. According to the Oxford dictionary, the term philanthropy is defined as “the desire to promote the welfare of others, expressed especially by the generous donation of money to good causes”. But overtime, specifically after the industrial revolution and the morphing of the term by elites like the Rockefellers, 21st century philanthropy has come to add another layer of meaning, one that often implies institutional and corporate support. For example, our usage of philanthropy is usually in terms of corporate philanthropy: “The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Apple and its philanthropic mission…” The act of a singular person or a small group is simply referred to as a “a donation” in common colloquial sense. This dichotomy in language inherently implies a more legitimate undertaking of donation by a corporation and in its opposition, a lack of legitimacy and “official-ness” by a singular person or a motivated group. So as we continue this conversation, it is important that we recognize the language we use to describe this lexicon of ‘helping humankind’ is inherently capitalistic.
As you can predict, this is where we see the application of the critical lens that Marx provides through his theories, specifically those in his book, The Communist Manifesto. In his book, he completely reconsiders 20th century society and advancements together. He critiques political systems and social hierarchies that have seemingly plagued societies and provides a detailed account of how to fix these injustices: a communist revolution. Marx lays out his argument by suggesting human history in society started at and continues with class struggle. He describes this class struggle as:“bourgeoises and the proletariat”. The bourgeoisie that Marx refers to, is the social class that has come to own the means of production during industrialization. This group furthermore, ensures their economic supremacy by exploiting the lower class, the wage workers who work in the production of these goods, known to Marx as the proletariat. But beyond just highlighting these two groups and their relationship, he also highlights the broader, more global impact of this. “Modern bourgeois society….has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells.” (Mina Mohammadi).
Marx would disagree with not only the 21st century definition of philanthropy but also philanthropy as a gesture. The first reason for this is what its original definition implies, the desire to help ‘others’. Marx would disagree with this from a foundational basis. The ‘othering’ of those less fortunate feeds into the capitalistic narrative of proletariat and bourgeoisie: a system that sits upon the acquisition of wealth by the exploitation of “others’’. “The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes.” (Communist Manifesto, 15). No real change is occurring within any definition or variation of “philanthropy” to systematically shift class structure. There is no lifestyle change or inward questioning posed to the bourgeois who engages in philanthropy. Marx believed that wealth should be redistributed entirely, that societal change is revolutionary and all-encompassing, implicating the bourgeois who are donating. Until this revolution occurs, any attempt to help or donate to “others’’ conducted by those in the bourgeois class does not change the unequal system itself, but rather works only as a facade of a band-aid.
This critique is even more visible in the 21st century undertaking of philanthropy. Marx, if alive today, would have been even more disgusted with the new variations of ‘helping humankind’. We can see his critiques highlighted and repeated in philanthropy’s metamorphosis with its advents of ‘donor advised funds’ and ‘tax benefits for the charitable’. In a tell-all article published in the New York Times titled How Tech Billionaires Hack Their Taxes With a Philanthropic Loophold, the article cited a trend amongst billionaires to invest Donor-advised funds. “D.A.Fs allow wealthy individuals to give assets usually cash and stock, but also real estate, art and cryptocurrencies — to a sponsoring organization like the Silicon Valley Community Foundation, Fidelity Charitable or Vanguard Charitable. But while donors part ways with their money, they don’t give up control. The sponsoring organizations make grants to hospitals, schools and the like only at a donor’s request. So while donors enjoy immediate tax benefits, charities can wait for funds indefinitely, and maybe forever.” (New York Times). DAFs are not even the half of it, but one part of larger systems that enable the rich to get richer off of seemingly charitable actions. Philanthropy itself becomes an immoral undertaking, even beyond its foundational capitalistic structures, under loopholes like these. ‘Philanthropy’ instead of working towards social good, becomes an enticing strategy amongst the bourgeois to attempt tax efficiency. As for Marx, he would argue that on an individual level for those in the bourgeois that engage in DAFs, the ‘benefits’ of philanthropy do not outweigh the social cons. In the United States at least, taxes are one of the only political arrangements in our capitalistic society that aim to somewhat redistribute resources and money for social good. Undermining this system that allows for even the littlest bit of social good is immoral and no amount of ‘philanthropy’ can make up for this tear in generally-accepted social good fabric.
Beyond the economic and political lexicons in which a Marxian lens can criticize philanthropy, there is also a racial and colonial element that exists within the power structure. The dynamic of a rich, often white-western person providing philanthropic work for people of color in ‘underdeveloped’ countries sits upon the historical traditions of white saviorism. In a piece by the NonProfit Quarterly, Author Solomé Lemma wrote, “Some of the biggest national development agencies around today were actually created before colonialism ended. They worked in places like Africa and Asia. Their initial work was actually under the governing structures of colonialism, right? So there is a deep history that’s connected to that, and what that means is that it permeates some of the cultural practices and even the discourse around international development in philanthropy that’s practiced today.”
So as we discuss philanthropy, new questions must be posed regarding what it means to give “education” and “development” and to grapple with the colonial undertakings of these skewed narratives. This questioning of advancement was also posed by Gandhi in his work, Hind Swaraj. While Gandhi’s Home Rule was written in response to the specific independence movement of India, many of its ideas surrounding the examination of ‘development’ and advancement are broad reaching, implicating a variety of post-colonial topics. Gandhi argues 3 main points regarding western interference in post-colonial independent countries. Firstly, he believes in the idea that “Home rule in self rule”, that India must not adopt British style society after it gets independence. He also argues that self reliance must be exercised by Indians, refusing all trade dealings with the British. Lastly, he argues that India will never experience freedom unless it rejects Western civilization itself.
As one can see, 21st century Western, corporate philanthropy works completely at odds with Gandhi’s ideas in Home Rule. Philanthropy, as we see today, from providing “education” and “development plans” to under developed countries undermines much of these ideas: that philanthropy in many cases can be seen as an extension of colonialism to place western norms into other countries. “Charitable giving may not be the most effective way of solving world poverty. Indeed charitable giving may even distract from finding the best solution — which might involve a complex rethink of the way the world organises its economic relationships, and large-scale government initiatives to change people’s conditions.” (BBC). The same billionaire that is funding a world poverty philanthropic charity to provide food, can very well be benefiting from the resources of the under developed country whose government could be providing its own people food. As best stated by Gandhi himself, “British colonialism and ‘modern civilization’ are like a mouse gnawing people while apparently soothing them.” (Gandhi, Home Rule). Gandhi would say this about the development of modern day corporate philanthropy.
One does not have to look too far to see Gandhi’s ideas surrounding post colonialism and philanthropy in action. Apple, one of America’s largest multinational technology companies, made news in 2019 when the company said that they would provide 200 million dollars in philanthropic efforts towards the fight against HIV/Aids in the continent of Africa. Tim Cook, Apple’s CEO also provided thousands of dollars to a variety of other efforts. “Apple has made large donations to charities focusing on health and human rights. Cook himself personally helped to raise $610,000 for the Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice and Human Rights, and has pledged to donate his entire fortune to charity, after first paying for his nephew’s education.” (NS Tech). After news caught on about Apple’s charitable actions, other companies and the public cheered on Apple in its endeavor to provide for those in under developed countries.
But should they have? Not only did Apple engage in elaborate tax avoidance schemes that deny governments billions of dollars in tax revenue through these philanthropic methods, but Apple itself benefits heavily from the stripping of under developed countries resources. In 2017, Apple was held under deep security for buying much of its iPhone materials from brutal Congolese mines. “Reports that major corporations such as Apple, Sony, and Samsung use cobalt sourced from so-called “artisanal” mines — small-scale mines where workers use the most basic tools — with little to no labor regulations in the DRC have come out for years. In 2016, Amnesty International released a report that demonstrated how these companies fail to do even basic checks to ensure that child labor isn’t being used to extract the cobalt they use for their products. The report also found that no country requires companies to regulate or publicly disclose information about their cobalt supply chains.” (Vox). While Apple seemingly helps these underdeveloped regions with its philanthropic work, it also benefits from the very same systems.
Even beyond corporate philanthropic efforts, western governments with resources to engage in philanthropy are in many cases, just as ineffective. Foreign aid philanthropy by western governments is shown to worsen the per capita GDP of the countries they are supposed to help. Money, education and resources are often strategically given to countries that will economically help the philanthroper. “Last week, during her tour of Africa, Theresa May proclaimed that, in the post-Brexit world, Britain’s aid budget would be used to promote British trade and political interests. That, though, is exactly how aid is already used. The countries that currently receive most British aid are primarily either significant markets, such as Nigeria, visited by May last week, or of geopolitical importance, particularly for the “war on terror” — Pakistan, Afghanistan, Syria.” (The Guardian). This is not limited to Britain either. “The same is true of America, too. None of the poorest countries in the world is among the top recipients of US aid. Most aid goes instead to Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Afghanistan and Kenya, again for reasons of geopolitics and trade.” (The Guardian).
So what can we say about philanthropy? Under the lens of post colonialism, Gandhi would say philanthropy is an extension of imperialism. Under a Marxist lens, Marx would say that philanthropy makes no dent in the fight for social justice but rather a capitalistic band aid. In many ways, they both agree on some fundamental issues: that philanthropy is a capitalist, western-centric and colonist system: meant to keep those down under a white man’s heel.
