In “Catalytic Philanthropy,” Kramer writes, “If philanthropy is to become an effective way of solving pressing social problems, donors must take a new approach.”
What do we mean when we use the phrase “solving problems?” I interpret it as denoting the permanent and complete remedying of issues. Of course, social problems are complicated and so deeply intertwined that we have great difficulty determining the breadth (as well as the root cause) of a given social problem (please refer to my previous post entitled “Nothing Really New (but comment, please do!)” http://paff5522011.blogspot.com/2011/03/nothing-really-new-but-comment-please.html).
If we would like to solve problems, which we rightly should, it is incumbent upon us to incorporate a vision of the world devoid of ills. Though there are countless steps involved in the ongoing process of advancement, we need to focus on actually solving problems as a reachable goal. So what is the secret recipe for solving problems, or achieving nonprofit effectiveness, or making the perfect omelet for that matter? We’ve read articles, books, thesis, etc., each with a different method. Our readings emphasize a major problem: people disagree. So what is the root cause of this problem? Yes, this is a tautological question, as it is redundant and misleading to perceive such problems as wholly distinct. However, if we accept that individual problems are related to others (such as the issue of people disagreeing relating to the issue of different socio-economic castes, relating to the uneven distribution of wealth, relating to our traditional institution of exchange, relating to…and so on), we ought to willingly adopt a different approach. When attempting to solve one perceived social problem, we inevitably affect a myriad of others. Accordingly, if we want to solve “one” social problem, we are looking to completely change the world in a deeply profound manner.
Kramer suggests that we need to use all available tools to change philanthropic practices. He suggests appealing to a variety of apparatuses such as corporate resources, investment capital, advocacy and litigation, and lobbying. Surely, he pleases Krutchfield and McLeod Grant. But does he go far enough, in appealing to the capital interests of central socio-political sectors? Are there other available tools? It may come as a surprise, but I find technology to be an immense and growing resource (it’s actually more than a resource or tool, but for the purposes of this post, tool it is). What has technology done for us? Or rather, what hasn’t it done? And the big question: what will it do? I don’t quite know, but it may prove to be growing force in approaching social problems, just as it is currently and has in the past.
Kramer’s vision, Charity Navigator’s revised system, and the like, propose small steps along a much greater path. The world is changing quite fast and our ability to keep up requires a greater use of technology (ex. Charity Navigator is planning to use more algorithms to enhance its ratings system). We all depend on this complicated resource, which is advancing every moment at a seemingly accelerating pace. So what do you think about all this? Any thoughts about anything written in this post? Agree/disagree? Care not to share? I’m too proud to bribe, but I’m not too proud to beg. Pleeeeeeease?
OK Andrew, I am going to attempt to formulate a response to your post (a post like your others, which I find interesting but difficult to respond to as effectively as I would like – meaning my failure to respond is a reflection on me not you, honestly.)
ReplyDeleteFirst, I think that you have a point about “social problems.” There are so many intertwining factors, and varying opinions on causes and effective approaches, that it is difficult to define the term generally and even more difficult in relation to a specific issue. I also agree that one of the primary “issues” we have learned about this semester is that people, well, disagree. I read some of the comments on the Stanford Social Innovation Review website, in response to Kramer’s article, and found the variation quite interesting. Some people thought that he had presented a concept/approach/theory that could “change the game,” while others did not believe he had anything new to offer.
I remember completing a competition of sorts, in an undergraduate marketing class, and we were required to develop a product, and choose a pricing, placement, and promotion scheme. Each week we were able to update the information and at the end of the semester the computer program spit out the total revenue obtained by each group, and consequential, one team won the game. Clearly, even beginning to develop an equivalent program from this course would result in a debate lasting well beyond a reasonable completion date.
That being said, the reading this week highlighted ways in which to use technology that go beyond our social media discussions, offering other opportunities in addition to reaching potential supports. I was particularly interested in case study and how they had identified a time period when children in the foster care system (or technically transitioning out of it) need “effective” support. The use of technology to connect these children/young adults with family members, or other consistent adults in their lives, must be a positive improvement. Additionally, the use of technology by those working to decrease the negative impacts of the transition period (for example, ways to increase speeds after changes in the law) seems like a step in the right direction. So, while the cause of this issue, a poorly run foster system, terrible parents, etcetera, is clearly up for debate, I believe they are still making improvements and moving in the right direction (though as someone with minimal to no experience with the foster system, I am well aware that I should not be speaking on behalf of the people running this program or those they serve.)
Ok, this was a long response but I feel pretty confident in your ability to read quickly Andrew…I hope my response was not too disappointing. I’m sure you were hoping for a good one – see you in class!
I have been doing a lot of thinking as well about how we go about "solving" problems, and I am not entirely convinced it is possible, no matter how much we would like it to be the case. I do not think you can go about it by imaging a world devoid of ills, because a world will never exist as such. If we are to solve a problem I think we must think about all the problems that exist in the world and how one affects the other. After all of our reading so far this semester, I am finding it harder and harder to believe that we can truly identify root causes or even, for that matter, make a real impact.
ReplyDeleteSo, I just spent a good twenty minutes writing a post,and blogger arbitrarily deleted it without warning. So, I will try to do this again, but be a tad more brief due to my annoyance at technology.
ReplyDeleteAs I was saying before, I agree to a certain extent with you all. Basically, problems in our contemporary society are complex, intertwined, and increasingly difficult to solve. But, my question to you, and it was much more lovely and nuanced before blogger destroyed my spirits, is whether you believe that social and societal problems are an intrinsic trait of human existence? Can we ever wholly solve a problem, or are circumstances and problems themselves constantly changing? The tsunami in Japan and the multitude of popular uprisings in the world are but two examples of how quickly the landscape can change when it comes to complex social problems.
Thus, I think that constant adaptation and evolution are necessities for those of us who wish to be effective or have an impact in today's world. Technology is one of these forms of human evolution, but as I can attest from my previous post, it STILL has problems. Indeed, I believe that a bit of humility in the face of humanity's vast and complicated problems can help us, as hopeful future agents of social change, keep a realistic yet optimistic outlook on the future. The longer I live the more I come to the conclusion that absolute "control" is a human illusion, and a rather overzealous one at that.