首页    期刊浏览 2025年07月21日 星期一
登录注册

文章基本信息

  • 标题:What gives
  • 作者:Wagner, David
  • 期刊名称:The New England's Journal of Higher Education
  • 印刷版ISSN:1938-5978
  • 出版年度:2001
  • 卷号:Summer 2001
  • 出版社:New England Board of Higher Education

What gives

Wagner, David

American Foundations: An Investigative History, Mark Dowie, The MIT Press, 2001, $29.95

Journalist Mark Dowie's book on philanthropy begins with a clever "note on semantics" offering a wonderful skewering of overused terms such as "accountability," "civil society," "independent sector" and "progressive"-buzzwords Dowie identifies with philanthropy but which are similarly worn out by the academy, liberal corporations and profes sions such as social work and sociology.

I wish he continued in this vein. His start is not only funny, but an important critique of contemporary liberalism as well as "philanthocracy"-the science of giving money by the rich so that their sins will be forgotten by the rest of us. But while this is an important book for anyone interested in this topic, Dowie ultimately retreats from structural criticism. By the book's end, its conclusions add another "progressive" critique to the growing body of literature. One sign of this is that after skewering the meaningless "civil society," Dowie proceeds to use the word uncritically hundreds of times!

The strength of the book lies in its clear, patient, historical analysis of the foundation as an American institution and its accomplishments and shortcomings. Although highly critical, the book is fair and well-documented.

Dowie divides philanthropy's record into the areas of education, science, health, the environment, food, energy, art and civil affairs. In each cogent and well-organized chapter, we see how vague good intentions in plutocratic hands achieve elite objectives that ultimately succeed in disappointing both policymakers and the foundations themselves.

Education and health care have been improved in the 20th century, but along elitist lines, which have helped the affluent far more than any one else. Having created elitist colleges and developed the "medical model," foundations now scratch their heads as to why social problems remain. Foundations financed the "Green Revolution" which revolutionized agriculture and food production in the Third World, but, in the process, destroyed village culture and exacerbated inequalities. In the arts, foundation support goes to highly visible projects for elites rather than development of a popular appreciation of the arts among working and poor people.

In each area, it is not evil people nor evil intents at issue, but rather the tendency of social elites who control foundations to fund programs that make the world look more like them-- usually Western and wealthy, and, until recently, white and male. What is so strong about the book is its readable, journalistic style which accurately reflects the historical record, while covering a wide range of areas that critics of philanthropy usually find isolated in discrete academic journal articles.

But like so many liberal and left observers, Dowie retreats from his own critique. Early in the book, he describes foundations as "drag anchors" on social change that are "bland, self-congratulatory." By the last (and weakest) two chapters of the book, Dowie has resorted to platitudes: "A healthy community leads to a healthy community." And, "If America is to become more progressive in fact and outlook, it will be, in part, because its philanthropists seek social progress."

Dowie complains that the dominance of conservatives in the "civility" debate must be matched by "progressive" foundations whom he hopes will put more of their money where their mouths are.

I am reminded of the old joke about the group of women who return from a Catskills vacation. They complain the food was bad and, of course, there wasn't enough of it! Dowie seems to think philanthropy would improve if only there were more of it.

Ultimately, the book's weakness is its inattention to how the extraction, accumulation and distribution of wealth could change.

The author sees capitalism as eternal, despite its very short history. He is suspicious of the public sector and the intervention of government officials, bureaucrats or special interests in allocating money. Yet these suspicions, though understandable, contradict his thesis about democracy, and his earlier suggestion that foundations are inherently "ademocratic."

Yes, in these days of Clinton and Bush, Yeltsin and Putin and numerous others, it is hard to imagine an exciting democratic system of public government. Yet the logic of his argument still fails. If foundation schemes to slightly mitigate the worst of capitalist excess through a bit of philanthropy have been a dismal failure for a century, why will it change now? y, why will it change now?

David Wagner is a professor at the University of Southern Maine's School of Social Work & Sociology and author of "What's Love Got to do with it? A Critical Look at American Charity. "

Copyright New England Board of Higher Education Summer 2001
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved

联系我们|关于我们|网站声明
国家哲学社会科学文献中心版权所有