Ended
📅 Join the next one.This dialogue examined philanthropy’s role during a period of institutional destruction and potential transformation. The conversation centred on confronting the fundamental contradictions within philanthropic systems while exploring opportunities for radical change through local knowledge systems, narrative reclamation, and alternative funding mechanisms. The discussion was notably shaped by the ongoing genocide in Gaza, which speakers positioned as both a symptom of systemic failures and a catalyst for reimagining philanthropic practice.
Bottom Line Up Front: Traditional Western philanthropy faces an existential crisis requiring immediate transformation through decolonisation, democratisation, and elevation of existing local giving systems, particularly in the Global Majority world.
“If the whole thing is burning down, we might as well get as honest as humanly possible and then try to see how we can save the parts of it that are worth saving and change the parts of it that need to be changed.” – Naila Farouky
Naila Farouky identified the “gross disparity between the distribution of wealth versus the accumulation of wealth” as a core contradiction. She questioned whether voluntary generosity and democratic accountability can coexist, noting that philanthropy “operates on voluntary action, not necessarily a democratic mandate, but then it also ends up influencing a lot of public priorities, like education, like health, like policy.”
Bhekinkosi Moyo reframed these as “complexities” rather than contradictions, emphasizing three critical issues:
Lucy Bernholz argued that foundations are fundamentally “portions of wealthy people’s financial portfolios,” challenging reform efforts that fail to acknowledge this reality.
“The longer we tell ourselves that these are institutions interested in justice, the harder the reform effort becomes, because I think foundations are portions of wealthy people’s financial portfolios.” – Lucy Bernholz
The Professional Enclave Problem
Alan Fowler raised a critical self-reflection: “I wonder if we need to have a serious reflection on us ‘philanthopoids’. Are we reaping what we have sown as a sort of professionalised enclave, through endowments distancing from populations that live horizontal gifting.” This highlighted how professionalization may have disconnected philanthropy from grassroots giving cultures.
“I wonder if we need to have a serious reflection on us ‘philanthopoids’. Are we reaping what we have sown as a sort of professionalised enclave?” – Alan Fowler
Farouky emphasised the critical importance of “reclamation of narrative” and shifting paradigms around:
She highlighted the need to move beyond “buzzwords” like solidarity that aren’t being lived by, calling for honest confrontation:
“There’s no way we’re going to have this discussion bring anything to fruition that’s positive, if we’re not willing to say, by the way, the way you’re doing this really sucks, and it’s not going to work for much longer. [Solidarity] is not just a word that you say. It’s kind of like, what have you actually done that is in solidarity?” – Naila Farouky
Mutual Aid and Community Wealth Building: Farouky advocated for elevating ancient, globally-rooted systems like zakat and waqf (Islamic endowments) as “legitimate, powerful systems of collective care, and not as alternatives, but as leading” approaches.
Local-First Approaches: Moyo called for starting at the local level, noting that “three wealthy Africans whose wealth is equivalent to half the population of the continent” could potentially solve many continental problems if properly guided. He emphasized various expressions of African philanthropy from “many to many” during humanitarian crises to individual support networks.
“Maybe it’s time for big philanthropies to be complementary, as opposed to them leading the way.” – Bhekinkosi Moyo
Farouky proposed building independent systems:
“Why can’t we just openly say we’re just not going to engage we will build our own… if you build it, they will come. There’s literally no rule that says we can’t [build alternatives].” – Naila Farouky
Farouky provided a powerful example of how crisis has already transformed giving patterns. She detailed how approximately 300,000 Palestinians have entered Egypt as undocumented persons, ineligible for formal refugee support, with their survival funded entirely through grassroots crowdfunding:
Farouky described conversations with established Western aid agencies that lost 60-80% of their funding yet responded by considering mergers rather than fundamental transformation. Her response: “What the hell you doing? What are you talking about? You’ve learned nothing from this moment.”
Alan Fowler posed a critical question about whether this represents the “catharsis that US philanthropy needs” – a moment requiring fundamental rather than incremental change. He noted: “Experience often suggests that transformative change requires catharsis. For US philanthropy, it seems to have arrived. Can cathartic thinking help?” The speakers suggested this is indeed such a moment, requiring complete reimagining rather than reform.
Godelieve Van Heteren raised a crucial question about preparedness: “why are we not better prepared for the current institutional onslaught, and what would guarantee that anything we do now would make us better equipped… That’s all of us, ourselves.” This highlighted the need to examine failures in democratic culture within the sector itself.
“This is probably the last chance we have to do something right, because it’s all to the surface now.” – Godelieve Van Heteren
Farouky detailed her and Halima Mohammed’s decision to resign from Alliance magazine’s advisory board because editorial choices reinforce Western-centric information environments. They have proposed creating an alternative platform that would:
The speakers emphasized that “knowledge is power” and current systems represent “a site of colonization.” Farouky noted:
“The first ever recorded act of philanthropy in history was recorded in Morocco in 859 AD. This is not nascency.”
Naila Farouky
Moyo outlined CAPS-I’s plans to adapt the Blueprint for African contexts through:
Rose Maruru from Epic Africa shared findings showing significant individual giving by ordinary Africans to local organizations, including 30% giving to human rights and advocacy work, challenging assumptions about horizontal versus systemic giving patterns. As she noted in the chat: “One narrative that’s absent in conversations about philanthropy is giving by ordinary individuals, especially in Africa! Yet, this is one of the main sources of support for African civic groups.”
Her research revealed that the funding cuts have been “devastating” but many organizations see this as “a wake up call, like a reset… We knew it was coming. We didn’t know how it would come.” Rose’s organization published two key reports:
Megan Haddock from ISTR emphasized that “so much learning happens in networks when organizations and people share knowledge and experiences. It is in networks that organizations develop common narratives. Investment in knowledge development and sharing in networks therefore seems like a good place to start.”
However, Dana Doan cautioned that “networks in and of themselves can exacerbate power dynamics if they are not intentionally organized,” highlighting the need for careful attention to whose voices are heard and elevated.
Shahla Raza’s emotional intervention highlighted the daily reality of crisis: “It’s crisis after crisis. Every single day, it’s exhausting, having to live through a genocide.” Her comments underscored the moral imperative for those with privilege and planning capacity to act decisively.
In the chat, she articulated the stark difference in timeframes: “The truth is, many of you in the Global North have the space to plan ten, fifteen years ahead. But where we are, people are in crisis now. Some have two weeks to live. The groups we support are dealing with constant emergencies, and we can’t plan more than a few months at a time. Philanthropy in the Global North needs to get it together and show up for us.”
Katherine Fulton emphasized the need to work simultaneously on immediate crisis response and structural change, noting: “One key tension/challenge now is that we have to work in at least two-time frames. We have to use the tools and resources we currently have to address today’s growing suffering and destruction while seeding experiments in what could be better in the longer term.”
Beth Sawin from the Multisolving Institute offered insight into addressing both immediate needs and long-term change: “There’s the immediate need – for security, food, emissions reduction, health, etc – and there’s a way of meeting that need – based on trusting relationships across silos, centring equity, thinking in systems, and true solidarity across issues and communities… This interplay can build two things – a sort of ‘muscle memory of a collaborative and just way of being together that can be brought to future issues and trusting networks that can be a source of adaptive capacity to face what comes next.”
Moyo concluded with a call for “reimagining the powers that we have as individuals in certain contexts, in certain geographies,” emphasizing that transformation requires recognizing and exercising individual agency within larger systems.
“How do we reimagine philanthropy going forward, and how do we centre people’s agency in order to fully liberate ourselves from the exigencies of the past. I don’t think it’s really an issue of education. I actually think it’s an issue of political will.” – Bhekinkosi Moyo
The dialogue drew participants from across the globe, representing a truly international conversation about philanthropy’s future. This geographic diversity reinforced the speakers’ emphasis on the need for truly global approaches to philanthropic transformation rather than Western-led reform efforts.
Alan Fowler noted the importance of linguistic diversity: “one reason for ignorance of indigenous gifting is, like now, a narrative reliance on the Anglo-language of philanthropy. A universal alternative is to gift.” This highlighted how language itself can be a site of colonization in philanthropic discourse.
The dialogue was marked by profound emotional weight, with participants navigating what was describe as “overwhelming collective grief.” This grief was not abstract but deeply personal and immediate. It serves as both witness to the magnitude of current suffering and fuel for the transformation work ahead. This collective holding of grief while maintaining fierce commitment to change exemplified what Farouky meant when she spoke of moving from a framework of “peaceful coexistence” to one demanding justice, even when that demand comes through tears.
Shahla Raza shared her organization’s approach through sumoodfund.org as “our little attempt to change traditional philanthropy and be local,” providing a concrete example of the alternatives being built in real time.
The dialogue pointed toward a future where philanthropy operates through:
The speakers reached consensus that this represents a “re-foundational time” requiring complete reimagining rather than incremental reform. As Godelieve Van Heteren noted, “this is probably the last chance we have to do something right, because it’s all to the surface now.”
The dialogue concluded with recognition that building alternatives requires courage to name systems honestly, willingness to divest from failing institutions, and commitment to elevating the knowledge systems and leadership that already exist within communities worldwide. The transformation is already underway through grassroots responses to crisis; the question is whether established institutions will adapt or be left behind.
The Path Forward: As participants affirmed throughout the conversation, the work continues. Sarah Hoey spoke for many when she said “many of us privileged folk in the global north are also not giving up!” The conversation ended not with despair but with commitment to the long-term work of transformation, anchored in the recognition that as Naila Farouky concluded: “we are not giving up though… Never!”
The dialogue series continues with upcoming sessions on:
All materials, recordings, and future announcements are available through Impact Trust’s website, with participants encouraged to continue building the networks and alternatives discussed throughout this powerful conversation.
This summary represents key themes and direct quotes from the dialogue participants. The recording is available on our YouTube channel here.