Over the past several months, a debate has waged in articles, virtual panels, and social media over the recent op-ed in the Chronicle of Philanthropy titled, “We Disagree on Many Things, but We Speak With One Voice in Support of Philanthropic Pluralism“. Creatively shortened as the “Philanthropic Pluralism Manifesto,” arguments for the article’s bold stand in support of philanthropy’s role in supporting pluralism have been matched by others denigrating it for its shortcomings, naïveté or worse, the damage such an approach might cause.

While this piece is not meant to analyze the merits of either side of the argument, what might be helpful is an assessment of what is often missing from the philanthropic sector writ large: empathetic intelligence (more on what this is in a moment).

It is clear that not only does the philanthropic sector play a role in the marketplace of ideas, it plays an even greater role in the adoption and spread of social norms and behaviors. With its considerable power through capital deployment, foundations and philanthropists have the power — through a not always transparent process — of picking “winners” which in turn play a strong role in how social norms, cultural ideas, and even legislative focus are determined. While not always ideal, the process has led to largely positive outcomes.

For example, had it not been for philanthropy’s overwhelming support of organizations large and small following the murder of George Floyd working to advance greater racial justice and oversight of local policing, there is a strong case that the effort would not have sustained itself long enough to catch the eyes and ears of the broader public.

The same can be said for COVID-19 responses. It was because of philanthropy’s overwhelming investment in trusted, local organizations best positioned to bring awareness of the benefits of the COVID-19 vaccine in their communities that vaccine distribution and adoption happened at the pace it did.

However, in these and other cases, philanthropic capital can be deployed to advance ideas and practices that lead to less justice for some and more for others, and not always intentionally. It is here that philanthropy is often blamed for its blind spots, its failure to understand the true needs of the public, or the most effective ways to advance a social good. This is where empathy comes in.

Empathy is almost universally understood as an ability to put oneself in the shoes of others, or an ability to understand or share the emotions and feelings of another. By this definition, to feel empathy towards a person or population who lives an entirely different life, or whose experiences exist far outside of one’s own would require a significant amount of research and data — or considerable imagination.

Read the full article about empathic philanthropy by Christy Vines at The Center for Effective Philanthropy.