During our class' discussion with Anita Borkenstein, we learned that women may only be voting members of her giving circle if they put up an $1,100 dollar contribution that goes toward the grants they make and the group's activities. It makes sense logically: they need that money to actually function as a giving circle. It just bothered me to think that people in the community who need support don't get to be part of the decision about where the support goes. As Anita told us, her giving circle offers some scholarships, which I was happy to hear. But the conversation overall got me thinking again about how philanthropy is a bit of an exclusive club, you must have some amount of disposable income, whether it be ten dollars, a thousand dollars, or millions of dollars, to participate.
Another thing we have discussed in class and between blog posts is the idea that giving our time can be a source of philanthropy. I like this way of thinking, but again there are people who do not have time to spare. Someone working three jobs to make ends meet can't necessarily go volunteer once a week as well.
The videos that we watched in the first week of class asserted that anyone can be a philanthropist. However, we cannot deny that there are barriers to doing so in both the traditional and established alternative methods. While there is no silver bullet, I thought there must be some more widely accessible way to "promote the welfare of others" (Google's definition of philanthropy). And then, for dramatic effect, it hit me. What if the best way to engage for people who don't have extra money is to simply not spend money? By that, I mean boycotting.
The first time I heard about boycotting was when I learned about the Delano Grape Strike in history. Workers on California grape farms were operating under poor conditions for inadequate pay. In the 1960s, they held a strike. Through the media attention for the strike and having certain workers travel and speak across the country, they encouraged many Americans nationwide to stop purchasing table grapes in support of the strikers. The pressure applied by both the strike and the boycott was eventually enough for the workers to succeed in gaining better benefits, protections, and pay.
To oversimplify, how hard is it to not buy grapes? Not hard at all. For almost everything we consume, we can either just not purchase it at all, or buy a comparable product from a different source, without noticeably affecting our quality of life. And boycotts can force companies to stop engaging in harmful practices that hinder the welfare of others.
Of course, one person deciding to not buy a book or toothpaste or LED lights from Amazon is not going to stop the company from exploiting their warehouse employees. But the same can be said that one donation will not end world hunger, or one hour of volunteering will not teach all grandparents how to use iPads. Philanthropy results from cumulative efforts toward a cause people think is important, and it always requires some people to be the leaders, getting others to support the cause and directing their organizations on where and how to take action. The same is true of a boycott. In the Delano Grape Strike, average Americans would have never known to boycott and the boycott would not have been as effective without workers striking and spreading the word, which would not have happened without Larry Itliong, Cesar Chavez, and others leading the movement. But the boycotters' refusal to cross the picket line was still important. And it is something that anyone could do. Just do not buy grapes.
As I touched on before, boycotts are not magically one hundred percent non-prohibitive. Sometimes there is something that people cannot compromise on getting. Despite this, I think that as a whole it is more accessible than traditional philanthropy or volunteering. If we are already being liberal with definitions, I think we should recognize and encourage boycotts as a form of philanthropy because they, too, work to promote the welfare of others.
I know this is an unusual way of thinking about philanthropy, so I would love to see what everyone has to say about it! It may be that, while valuable, we should just leave boycotting as its own thing and not bother calling it philanthropy. Or, you may see that putting it under the term is useful. Let me know!
These are the sites where I scrubbed up on my grape strike knowledge:
https://ufw.org/1965-1970-delano-grape-strike-boycott/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.history.com/.amp/news/delano-grape-strike-united-farm-workers-filipinos
These are the sites where I scrubbed up on my grape strike knowledge:
https://ufw.org/1965-1970-delano-grape-strike-boycott/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.history.com/.amp/news/delano-grape-strike-united-farm-workers-filipinos
- Maya Wolf
Hi Maya! I think you raise an extremely important point, and I too at times have considered philanthropy to be exclusive and selective to certain people. As you mentioned there are only so many people who are able to contribute their income or time towards philanthropy. In the case of this pandemic many people have been laid off, meaning a source of income is lost/limited and schools and day cares have also been closed, meaning individuals are confined to caring for families. There is also the mandated requirement of staying indoors, meaning donating your time in the form of volunteering is not a viable option. So how can one, according to the YouTube video we saw in the beginning of this semester, be a philanthropist? Your point to boycotting is very interesting, and I wouldn’t have ever considered that myself. However, after reading your argument I could agree in encouraging this as a form of philanthropic work, especially in the situation we find ourselves in today. I would consider this to be an effective and viable form of philanthropic work for those who cannot afford to donate their income or time.
ReplyDeleteYou frame philanthropy in an interesting light, especially touching upon how it is privileged in nature. I would agree with you that in many cases, boycotting a product or service could make a difference. However, it doesn't quite fit the explicit definition of philanthropy because it's hard to know for sure if boycotting truly promotes the welfare of the general people. Last year, when people called a boycott to Home Depot because one of its cofounders was found to be an active Trump supporter (https://www.npr.org/2019/07/10/740173176/home-depot-responds-to-calls-for-boycott-over-co-founders-support-for-trump), they didn't stop to think about how boycotts would harm the workers at Home Depot, as less income for the boycotted stores would mean less salary for workers. Even putting aside the effects on workers and other people affiliated with a boycotted company, we cannot be sure that a boycott will be effective in accomplishing some beneficial change in society. There is a difference between a few people avoiding the use of a product and an entire community doing that. Sen et al. wrote in 2001 that if someone used the product more often, they would be less willing to take part in a boycott, while others would not boycott a product if they thought it would not be successful, ostensibly with the mindset that a boycott would be time wasted (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/24099102_Withholding_Consumption_A_Social_Dilemma_Perspective_on_Consumer_Boycotts). When it comes to wanting a change, a boycott is a tricky thing, and there is a lot to take into account for it to be successful. All this considered, however, a boycott still could be an important tool for the philanthropist, as long as they are able to mobilize their community towards a cause great enough to be worth the sacrifices made during a boycott.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this post, I came here to say something similar to what Josh noted. Boycotts can be highly effective and are usually made with good intentions, but they can easily go wrong. Due to this factor, I believe that an emphasis on categorizing boycotts as philanthropy and thus being purely beneficial, would increase the number of people participating without necessarily having done any research. This, unfortunately, could open the door for misplaced philanthropy, or for further harm to be done accidentally. Therefore, while I believe in the power of the people, particularly within boycotting, I also believe that as much as philanthropy should be normalized and emphasized, we need to put a pressure on doing it responsibly.
DeleteThis is a very interesting take on philanthropy! To some extent, I think that along with good intentions, a certain amount of privilege is inevitably necessary to be able to partake in philanthropy. To be able to donate money, you need to have a surplus of money that you don't need to live a comfortable, sustainable life. To be able to donate time through volunteering and the like, you need to have a privileged enough life to have free time that you can replace with something like volunteering. This is sometimes not possible for people working multiple jobs, taking care of children etc. And to a lesser extent, I believe boycotting does also require privilege. The idea of philanthropy implies giving, and while boycotting is a much easier way to give back to the community and help those in need than donating to nonprofits or spending hours volunteering in a food pantry, it does require the sacrifice of limiting your options of goods you buy. While buying something slightly more expensive or less convenient feels like a small sacrifice to most of us, it's still a luxury that some people can't afford. I believe that while boycotting is a much easier version of philanthropy than others, it's still not completely priceless.
ReplyDeleteMaya, you made some excellent points. First, I agree with your point about the giving circle and philanthropy in general as an exclusive club. Boycotting seems like an interesting approach that's the opposite of philanthropy. The comparison you made between each individual action and the overarching result is interesting. Although I think boycotting is a great idea in principle, it's very hard to execute in real life. Due to the multitude of variables in everyone's life, it would be very hard to find one thing that a lot of people would willingly boycott. I think this is also related to the rising polarity in America. Whether it's economic class or political views, we seem to be going further and further from a middle ground. Thank you for your post and I really enjoyed reading it.
ReplyDeleteHi Maya,
ReplyDeleteYour understanding of boycotting as a form of philanthropy is very insightful. When the definition of philanthropy is broken down, its purpose is to improve the welfare of others, whether it be through ones funds, time, or in this case, lack of support. By not supporting a cause financially, you are a philanthropist as this is soliciting positive reinforcement for others. One issue that I can see with this form of philanthropy is that change will only be made when boycotting is drawn on a great scale. Simply boycotting a product yourself will not make an impact, which means that powerful leadership and advertising is needed for boycotting to be deemed effective. In addition, this would be considered a niche of philanthropy, as it only targets circumstances where people are being taken advantage of or some sort of human rights violation is present. For philanthropic efforts towards circumstances like space exploration, interpersonal violence, and food security, this form of philanthropy may be more difficult. Nonetheless, I would consider philanthropists who boycott to be advocates, bringing about change by bringing about the community to financially impact organizations or causes that hurt the welfare of others.
Arpeet Patel
I agree with Maya that boycotting can be a form of philanthropy, but some of the other comments have also raised good points. However, I feel as though my mindset wavers between the two extremes—I believe boycotting can be a powerful tool of philanthropy if one a) has been asked by a company’s employees to boycott and b) has done the research to determine why they are being asked to boycott.
ReplyDeleteThis has proven especially useful recently, on Prime Day. Major labor unions and organizations such as the AFL-CIO, UFCS, and CWA asked that on the discount day Amazon customers avoid purchasing from the company. The movement was made in order for warehouse workers and delivery drivers to gain safer working conditions (https://thehill.com/policy/finance/453129-labor-unions-back-amazon-prime-day-boycott-worker-strike). Even more than 50 years after the Delano Grape strike employees are still using the boycott as a method of making companies listen to their demands, with varying degrees of success.
With COVID-19, boycotts are a true way to hurt a company—most are already losing profit due to pandemic conditions. Many “essential” employees have not been given a choice as to whether or not they wish to work during the crisis. It is a choice between potential exposure to the virus or starvation and possibly homelessness. As such, New York Representative Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez has proposed that low-income essential workers should protest going to work after the crisis—boycotting their jobs (https://www.foxnews.com/media/aoc-boycott-work-coronavirus-shutdown). This is one way that people who do not have the money to philanthropically contribute to COVID-19 induced issues help—by boycotting businesses who mistreated their workers after the crisis is over.
All in all, this was a way of performing philanthropy that I had never considered, and I thank you for bringing it to everyone’s attention. With the current economic situation, boycotting is likely a more powerful tool than ever before so if it can be seen as philanthropic all the better.
Sabrina Reba
Wow, Maya, thank you for sharing your perspective with us!
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, even though we had that talk with Anita about the Giving Circle, what bothered me most was the lack of diversity. Black People and People of Color should have a say in how their community changes even if the Giving Circle is well-meaning. It is just as important that the changes and improvements are agreeable with the people who live in the community as it is to just aid them. Honestly, Boycott Philanthropy is a topic that seems very doable in terms of application. I mean like you said it is very simple filtering out items from our daily lives in support of mistreated workers. Philanthropy is all about reaching out to others and helping them in times of difficulty, therefore, helping people who continually suffer harsh conditions for our luxury items is the least we can do. Especially when you look at Amazon who habitually recruits undocumented workers who cannot say they experience terrible work conditions lest they are handed off to ICE. Boycotting is a tried and true method that has always worked because the longer it goes on, the more companies lose, and the more likely they’ll give the people what they want. It is an ingenious way of supporting the workers by protesting with their wallets and taking their money elsewhere. Boycott Philanthropy is a really smart take on this because as you have said before anyone can do it at no cost to themselves.
Zaria