The knives are out for philanthropists. Editorial coverage of their motives, gifts, and impact is increasingly negative, particularly in the UK, but in the USA and elsewhere too. Does it matter? Many worry that it does. Is Philanthropist the identity we should use to define others when they give and how are we fuelling differences in terms of superiority/inferiority by using terms like major donor. This blog by Prof. Adrian Sargeant explores a post-modernist look at philanthropy.

I don’t see donor centricity as the dominant paradigm in fundraising. For that to be true, the majority of organizations in our sector would need to be able to identify donors needs and follow through on their satisfaction, and they do not. The metrics we use to assess our practice are almost exclusively financial and we care little for our supporters and how we make them feel. True donor centricity would require organizations to look to the wellbeing and growth of their supporters. And as a sector, we’re not there yet.

Why do we still use military metaphors in fundraising, and descriptions of donors that we wouldn’t use externally? Is it time to shake up our vocabulary and celebrate the best of everyone?