Refusing market? I doubt it

I found this week’s supplementary reading “refusing the market” contradicts so much with what we have been talking about in our nonprofit classes. In this week’s reading, Eikenberry was all talking about the damage marketization can cause to a nonprofit on its way to do social good, and that nonprofit would get lost in marketization. However, in our last semester’s PAFF 551 class, we were talking about one of the most important ways for nonprofits to survive and accomplish their goals is to develop diverse programs to make revenues on their own so that they don’t have to be so dependent on their funders and would have more freedom to go for their mission. In our PAFF 552 class this semester, we were also talking about making some compromise when our mission goes against certain tasks that our funders require us to do, such as marketization, because to make social impact, we have to first of all survive.
Then Eikenberry recommended that nonprofit should cultivate more meaningful and diverse relationships with individuals rather than focusing mainly on raising funds through market approaches (Eikenberry, p.591). In my opinion, this proposal is unrealistic. First, it’s not that all the current nonprofits have lost their social identity and dumped their mission. Many nonprofits managed to make a balance between marketization and accomplishing its mission. Second, it’s not likely that nonprofits will be getting enough fund if they give up they fund they are getting now from the big donors and turn to individuals as the main source of their fund. People are well aware that they can make donations to nonprofits. Many of them just choose not to. So it’s unlike that their attitudes will change dramatically in a short period of time and make more donations.
What do you guys think? Do you think we should turn to individuals as the source of our fund? I would love to hear opinions from you!