By LENECIA LEWIS (VF '10-'11; Esperanza, Common Justice)
As a VERA Fellow, I spent most of last semester dissecting the idea of a not for profit organization. During that time I focused a lot on philanthropy and was often reminded about the newness of the title social entrepreneur. The term is always loosely defined, but is widely agreed to describe a new kind of philanthropist. One who is thought to consider the business of non-profits as more than just charitable giving. But despite the broad nature of the definition, the term is mostly used to describe a particular type of individual.
Usually a recent college graduate, the social entrepreneur has been inspired by an eye-opening trip to (insert developing country name here). Fired up by the “injustice of it all”, the social entrepreneur gathers and commands a youth advocate army. Weapons of choice include: a Cannon EOS 40D camera, an acoustic guitar, and an active account on all social media outlets. Most often the social entrepreneur will become the creator of a symbolic, yet trendy, line of apparel or jewelry. Their philosophy: “Save the world, look cool doing it”*.
Having spent the past four years entrenched in the world of the social entrepreneur, I know this profile very well. Imagine my surprise when this exact term was used to describe none other than our own Herb Sturz.
In a panel interview about his book A Kind of Genius, Sam Roberts commented that Sturz is the epitome of a social entrepreneur and has been for the past 50 years. Far longer than the term itself has been in use. Naturally this was difficult for me to reconcile. But certainly Sturz’s approach to social injustice was to go way above and beyond charitable giving. So of course Roberts has to be correct. Right? Which must mean that the way in which social entrepreneurs have been popularly categorized is fairly meaningless. Right? If indeed Herb Sturz and the above described character are both of the same breed, then what does this mean about the way we separate and categorize efforts to solve social justice issues?
Initially, I wanted to post about the evolution of the non-profit sector. From charitable giving all the way up to philanthrocapitalism (a neologism that deserves its own post entirely). My intention was to place Herb Sturz somewhere along this evolutionary spectrum. It seems, however, that the spectrum is merely cosmetic. That each form of ‘new and improved philanthropy’ is merely a way to modernize and advertise the efforts of those involved.
Curiosity has gotten the best of me. Now that you have read about Sturz’s work in New York, and before you begin your work at your own non-profit agency, I would like to know how you see it: How do you understand the role of the social entrepreneur? Are they truly the new and improved face of philanthropy?
*Point of reference, Blake Mycoskie of “TOMS Shoes”.
13 comments:
Lenecia,
Aside from being bitterly jealous of whoever came up with the wonderful, and apt, neologism "philanthrocapitalism" (you?), I'm extremely intrigued by your questioning of the meaning of the term "social entrepreneur." I have to admit that I had taken this term for granted while reading Roberts' biography of Sturz, had not subjected it to critical reflection, despite the advice of one of my favorite professors, who urged that we always "pull language apart." I now realize that in my review of Roberts' book, I half-consciously avoided even using the term, except in a direct quote, preferring instead "social engineer" to describe Sturz. My avoidance signals a resistance to blindly accepting the heroization of "the entrepreneur" in all its guises, which is so prevalent in our Lockean-liberal culture. The entrepreneur, a Horatio Algeresque character, is first-and-foremost a private individual, an eminently capable one who supposedly has his (the sexism is not mine here) boot-straps firmly pulled up and just needs "government" to stay out of his way so he can go about the business of getting things done, making a personal fortune, and most recently, "creating jobs." There is high irony, then, in the meshing of the private and the public in this expression "social entrepreneur." The phrase is somewhat reminiscent of the term “corporate responsibility,” understood to mean environmental and social responsibility, again an uneasy marriage of public and private interests.
The irony in this meshing brings me full circle to “philanthrocapitalism” and leads, finally, to addressing your question about whether “social entrepreneurs” are “truly the new and improved face of philanthropy.” I would, first of all, refer you to your own astute observation that “each form of ‘new and improved philanthropy’ is merely a way to modernize and advertise the efforts of those involved.” I feel that your statement includes an implication about how non-profits themselves become self-interested institutions in which self-survival is paramount, but most crucially, your observation evokes for me a recognition that there really is no such thing as “new and improved;” there is just philanthropy. Philanthropy itself depends upon the accumulation of great fortunes. Without massive disparities in wealth, there could be no philanthropy. Come to think of it, the prefix philanthro- does not need the root capitalism to evoke irony.
The justification for the accumulation of great fortunes proffered by the likes of Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, Grover Norquist, and other assorted Lockeans is that some people are just natural entrepreneurs. If we only get out of their way, they will make all our lives better. Great fortunes are the province of great men (and the occasional, token Dagney Taggert). The social entrepreneur of the Sturz variety is one who has proven his ability to walk among them. This is not necessarily a novel approach; this is just good philanthropy.
Lenecia,
While I may not have as long a comment as my predecessor, Mr. Riggs, I do have to say that the reward that one gets from the pursuit of equality in every facet of human life, for every human being by not only envisioning a better system but implementing your ideas into reality and enforcing that our government improves the systems from which we rely on for justice is not only one that has forever affected the way I look at our social justice system, but has indeed given me a real depiction of what a 'Social Entrepreneur' really is. Herb Sturz did all this and more. I was one of those people that thought that the idea of a non-for-profit organization was there because they were supposed to be there. I never really impplemented the thought of how critical the role of a philanthropist was in this field. I'm left humbled and enlightened.
Similar to how Robert seems to understand the modern social entrepreneur as somebody who "creates jobs", I thought of the definition of social entrepreneurs in the same way. Expanding on this thought, I believe that a social entrepreneur is also somebody who relies on the power of any community to make society better. The idea for making more jobs available probably comes from the recent economic situation, where the thing that matters for our society the most right now is finding people jobs. Sturz was a social entrepreneur, because he created programs that helped improve the lives in the communities and the society that the communities were a part of.
Philanthropy as I understand it is the similar to social entrepreneurship, except for the bigger focus on money. There seems to be a focus on the amount of money that can be donated to the needy communities. In the sense that modern social entrepreneurs are "the creator of a symbolic, yet trendy, line of apparel or jewelry", maybe social entrepreneurs become the philanthropists when and if they make it big. Although I initially imagined the positions to be reversed since Lenecia's question is if philanthropy has become social entrepreneurship.
After thinking about the last question, I do believe social entrepreneurs are the improved face of philanthropy. It's not new if it's an improvement of an old term. However, it is improved because social entrepreneurs (at least the ones who are not concerned with selling merchandise) seem to focus less on money and more on helping the society. Sturz as a social entrepreneur was focused on helping different groups of people in New York City. When he didn't have the money to fund the projects he wanted to create, he would find the money through other sources of income.
Personally, Social Entrepreneurs are the new philanthropist. Now and days, to get the the more people involved, there needs to be a benefit to them. What Lenecia referenced was the CEO of Toms Shoes, where you buy a pair of shoes and they automatically make another pair for a child in need. This organization is doing beyond well because it not only gives the benefactor a 'cool pair of shoes' but it almost rewards them in a way. What is that saying about the human race though? Are the majority of us selfish enough that we need a reward to give?
Herb Sturz's social entrepreneur is somewhat old fashioned and is a rarity to see which is why he was such a humble hero. This is not a to put down the current social entrepreneurs, but one has to go with what is smart of the generation. Sturz knew how to "work the crowd," whereas now and the new directors of non-profits are doing the same.
Social entreprenuers usually seek results, not recognition, as did Sturz. They not only help create jobs, but also obtain the means and access to the resources that will be utilized for social change. Surely philanthropists contribute, many by donations and acts of charity. However, how I see it, the Herb Sturzes of the world with the vision, plans, the networking connections are the ones who the philanthropists provide the finances to to get the ball rolling so to speak. If I have referred to Herb Sturz as a philanthropist, I would be forced to rethink that statement. To have the forsight to design a blueprint for social change, obtain the funding for the mission, bringing about constant progression in the fight against social injustice, with little or no recognition, In my opinion can be referred to as a social entreprenuer. Looking at it from this point of view, I would conclude that social entreprenuers cannot be equated with philanthropy.
The main and central difference between a social entrepreneur and a philanthropist is the amount of planning and money one has invested to a certain project. Not to say that there is a specified amount of time or money one could invest to achieve two equally prestigious positions. Both people try to rid or decrease some of the worlds social ills. Like everything else in this world money is a necessity for people to accomplish these things.It is usually the philanthropist who could get an entire project going by donating a certain amount to get the project running. But as mentioned before a a college graduate could certainly could invest money into certain "weapons of choice include: a Cannon EOS 40D camera, an acoustic guitar, and an active account on all social media outlets" which is money and time. But without the help of some small or larger grants the fight against this particular worldly ill will be difficult maybe even impossible.
Along with money time and plan making must be two other components to properly build any non profit agency. Anyone can throw millions or billions of dollars to aid the fight against a certain ill. Its not money that cures problems instead it is great planning and the time one invest are are as imperative as the money is. This is whether the importance of social entrepreneurs are necessity to have any program work. A social entrepreneur is a fairly new term but this persons job is basically meant to achieve social change. They focus mainly on creating social capital to further their social and environmental goals. So a philanthropist could donate billions of dollars to an issue but without someone who knows how to put that money to work against that particular social ill the money is almost useless. Not to say that a philanthropist does not have any time invested to the particular project for example it was Louis Schweitzer who realized the injustice with the bail system in New York. It was also Louis Schweitzer who invested millions to get the idea started, and his connections with important people who all made this possible. But without the ability of Herb Sturz to organize and plan certain things the entire idea would've been impossible. So without one the entire mission is impossible. But at the end of the day it is the amount of money and planning one has invested to accomplish certain issues.
I think social entrepreneurs have taken what they do and customized it to become the new face of philanthropy. I was convinced only because after having read about Sturz outstanding work, it made me look around my community and see that there are so many non profit organizations who are taking on the task of humanitarians.
The problem with this is that like a colleague said, they are looking to recruit others who have the same desire in order to expand their projects. The only way to recruit these people is by rewarding them for doing their good deed. As I get ready to step into the agency I'll be interning at, I try to think of it as a day to day duty of serving others rather then the feeling of " I've done my good deed for today."
What a wonderful stream of thought. You have front-burnered a number of issues that will provide context for the way this course examines social justice. I will just mention two that jumped out at me.
1. What is the relationship among wide scale social change, specific problem solving, and branding?
The kinds of social change (for example, wiping out poverty) that are necessary to avert the need for public (such as welfare) or private (e.g. charity, social entrepreneurship) interventions have traditionally been catalyzed by grassroots political movements. Critical theorists would say that all such interventions undermine social activism by putting a band aid on a gaping wound and diverting our attention away from the actual problem: inequality. On the other hand, pragmatists like Sturz would say that the hungry family cannot wait for society to change, we must find a way to deliver tonight’s dinner. Social entrepreneurs, like Sturz, argue that we can use the fact that people and institutions are self-interested (I want a cool t-shirt; New York City wants real estate values to increase) to solve specific social problems, so why not use the carrot approach? Anyway, pragmatists might remind us that social activism is no panacea: it brought us the Third Reich as well as the Civil Rights movement. In the case of the former, one needs only to watch Leni Riefenstahl’s “Triumph of the Will” to see how effective marketing drove Hitler’s message to the masses. If we can make helping (instead of goosesteppping) fashionable, is that inherently wrong? To what extent does such branding prevent us from seeing the real “enemy”, which some might say is capitalism itself? On the other hand (not sure if it's the left or right), while we are doing all this philosophizing, people are still suffering.
2. What is role of language in shaping perception?
Many of you called attention to the how what we call things tends to redefine reality. Are we pro-life or anti abortion? Freedom fighters or terrorists? Is the rebranding of the charitable sector as entrepreneurial simply a word game that capitalizes on the chronic vogue in American culture for industrialists and their inventions? Rhetorical strategies sometimes lead us to oxymoronic ends. As Robert implied, is the very phrase “social entrepreneur” incongruous and contradictory, like the “jumbo shrimp” sign at Red Lobster?
I agree with Professor Stein. This argument comes down to the different interpretations of words, which leads me to wonder how much the meaning of words change according to how we interpret them. In a way, the media shapes our perception of words, ideas, and of people. We must be conscious about the way we understand what is shown through the media. Much of the media is misleading and biased. Just as how we filter our research and websites for information on the internet, we must filter information on what we see or hear.
I agree with Simon and Timothy. An entrepreneur is defined as a person who organizes a business, especially with high risk. This is Herb Sturz because of the way he manages Vera and the underlining goals behind his activism. A social entrepreneur does not have to be one that has an over-arching capitalistic view. We see this through Sturz's approach with spin-off organizations. He shows no interest in keeping those organizations to himself, which would be the capitalistic approach.
What makes Herb Sturz more than just a philanthropist is how much he expanded on his activism. He not only concentrates on solving one problem of the society, he would go on to deal with many other issues. Philanthropy suggests that it isn't a career, but rather a hobby or an interest. This is significantly different from a social entrepreneur who makes a career out of helping people.
As I am skeptical of how much money actually goes to helping people when organizations start using mass-media to advertise its cause, but I cannot deny that the only way people would be interested to help is if it benefited themselves. This was clearly understood by Herb Sturz when he was trying to receive funding for the different spin-off organizations. The only difference between Herb Sturz and the "Tom Shoe's" company is the way in which they use other people's interests for their own cause.
In any situation there must be a balance of ideas. We must advocate against the injustices of today and we must prevent injustices in the future. To say that one is more important than the other is a false dichotomy.
Lenecia,
First and foremost, I thought I’d acknowledge you for the very profound post. You did a great job! As I was reading, A Kind of Genius, I definitely took the term “social entrepreneur” for granted as Robert mentioned earlier. When I encountered the term, I settled with a definition along the lines of, someone (an entrepreneur-someone with loads of money) who recognizes a social problem and fixes it by gaining support through some form of networking. Pretty effortless, I know. Before I read your post, I might’ve labeled Sturz simply as an advocate for social justice who wants to improve the lives of those on the “lower rungs” of the economic ladder or better yet, the unprivileged. But now that you’ve mentioned it, I’m glad I can match Sturz’s hunger for change with a much fitting term.
I would definitely agree that the role of a social entrepreneur is without a doubt, a profound branch of philanthropy. However, after reading Simon’s post, I am a little indecisive of the latter, social entrepreneurship being an improved face of philanthropy. I think improved maybe an overstatement simply because if the proposed improvement for any given social problem isn’t symbolic, trendy, or like a line of apparel or jewelry, would it still have an effective impact on the social justice issue it is trying to tackle? For example, your point of reference, Blake Mycoskie of TOMS Shoes; TOMS Shoes has been around since 2007, however, its efforts have recently gained recognition due to becoming a trend by the advertisements of mainstream media. Did Mycoskie succeed because his movement was seen as another fashion trend “hipsters” can participate in? Did he accomplish a bit more because this particular trend has a purpose, a purpose that improves the lives of children in underdeveloped nations? Trends die out, old apparel is replaced with newer apparel, with that said, I guess I can relate to your idea of improvement. Sigh, and the indecisiveness remains!
On the other hand, social entrepreneurship is an excellent way to advertise the efforts of others while inspiring the prospective leaders who will encounter forthcoming social justice issues. It’s fulfilling to end a post feeling inspired to create change in an innovative way.
Wow, you guys are quite the intimidating group. Really making me think again about concepts I thought I already fully understood!
It is interesting to me that conversations about social justice and humanitarian endeavors often boil down to a debate over what drives charity. Is it the general ‘good will of man’ or an ego driven desire to be recognized for doing good? And if, at the end of the day, the same good deeds get accomplished, then does it really make a difference whether the intentions were selfless or selfish?
I’m not sure in what capacity you will all be entering your internships, but for those of you who deal with grants and funding I can assure you that you will begin to care less and less about this distinction. It is very difficult to ask the tough questions about equality and fairness to the rich guy in tux about to cut your organization a five-figure check. But the question remains, if people are poor and hungry and the best way to feed them is to accept charitable donations from the guys who keep them poor and hungry in the first place, what do you do? Is there something intrinsically wrong with doing what needs to be done NOW even though it might perpetuate whatever system is to blame for the real problem? Obviously, I don’t know the answer to this question. It’s just something to consider.
On another note, I like that this discussion is turning to words. Or, the reality behind how we use words. Philanthrocapitalism (which I did not come up with but wish I had- credit goes to Matthew Bishop and Michael Green) was likely chosen as the moniker for this movement because the term “Venture Philanthropy” seemed reminiscent of the wall-street failure that was fueling most philanthropic debate at the time. Likewise, “Social Entrepreneur” is an extremely vague title. Both the words can be described in many different ways. Melding them together has created the most loosely defined job description since “Performance Artist”. You know the type, you ask them what they do and they’ll give you a list; “I dance, I sing, I DJ, I model, I train zebras…” whatever. Well it is now much the same with social entrepreneurs. Seriously, ask one and they’ll give you a similar list; “I’m an activist, I design clothes, I make films, I run a non-profit…” Between the facebooking, the tweeting and the iReporting it’s really a wonder that these people get anything done in the way of actually reshaping society.
So in light of my understanding of social entrepreneurs, I maintain that Herb Sturz is in a league of his own. Beyond social entrepreneur, and far beyond philanthropist
Many thanks to Lenny and to all of you for a great first blog. As we head into "mission statements" and "charity" in the following weeks of seminar, I look forward to carrying on this conversation.
It strikes me that how we define our terms (social entrepreneur, philanthropist, performance artist)and develop our expectations for those people has a lot to do with perspective or point of view. This also gets back to the question raised by Sturz, Prof. Stein and Lenny about timing -- is it the work of justice to help out someone in need NOW even if you risk making things worse, or perpetuating injustice in the future?
In response to these questions we must ask ourselves where we stand, what is our unique perspective? When thinking, as I often do, about Victorian literature (occupational hazard), I reflect on the concerns of Victorian writers who wanted to make the world a more just place, wanted to record the injustices they saw around them in a rapidly changing world. Is it better to describe in detail the hungry, homeless, dirty street-sweeping child? Or to satirize the baggy bureaucracy that imprisons the poor rather than addresses the root causes? Can you effectively do both -- and if so, where then can you stand to see both so closely and at such a distance?
I was listening to the radio this morning (there was an interview with the Tom's Shoes guy, so if you are interested, go to www.wnyc.org and look under the Brian Lehrer show) and they were interviewing NJ folks about the governmental response to the flooding caused by Hurricane Irene. So many different points of view about how to address the issues! The caller who needed diapers and back-to-school supplies because flood waters had carried that stuff away. Literally street-level stuff. There was the caller who was worried about toxic chemicals from many of these super-fund sites, and then there was President Obama, who was calling our attention to the fact that, having developed about 30% of our wetlands, we now have created these environmental diasasters. I can just imagine the argument at that historical moment: developing the wetlands yields jobs which help the poor. The person who needs jobs in the short-term to replace diapers can't focus on the long-term health of the wetlands, but if we had focused on the wetlands, the diapers wouldn't have floated away.
Lenecia,
I would like to first off thank you for actually broadening my knowledge with what you have discussed about social entrepreneurs. As everyone has said before, a social entrepreneur, such as Sturz, a humble and people person,deserves a lot of recognition for what he did but from reading the book his main focus was to help people be treated equally by the criminal justice system. I believe that term "social entrepreneur" is the new philantrophy of this time.
Post a Comment