In Weeks 1 and 2, we’ve focused on the two MAJOR theories in explaining the existence of the nonprofit sector, those of market failure and government failure. Some of the readings propose more nuanced and specific perspectives on the role of the nonprofit sector in relationship to the market and the state. You will notice that when you get into the readings for Week 3 that Lohmann proposes a “positive economics perspective” in his clever use of the evocative phrase “and lettuce in non-animal”. In other words, we don’t typically describe things by what they are not (particularly as we become more familiar with a concept or phenomenon) as we do in the more residual explanations of the nonprofit sector. (For example, we don’t call a dog a “non-cat” or an Aggie a non-Longhorn--or vice versa--or silence as non-sound!)
Before jumping into the Week 3 readings, take a moment and consider the idea of “nonprofitness” as something essential or original or independent (vs. primarily residual), and list 3-5 bullet-point statements, that support the idea of “nonprofitness” or alternatives to the residual perspectives.
(Notes: 1) Some of you may be interested in considering the idea of “nonprofit failure”. You are free to pursue this as an alternative, if you prefer. 2) If you completely reject the notion of “nonprofitness”, then consider and list your reasons for rejecting the idea of “nonprofitness”.)
Ok, I have to admit...my approach to this topic, as almost all the topics I have been addressing comes from my perspectives in gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender identity politics. Bear with me please as I walk through my dance with residuals thus far.
Julia Serano wrote a book entitled "Whipping Girl: A transsexual Woman on Sexism and the Scapegoating of Feminity" and asked either in the book or her website that individuals stop writing transwoman or transman when referring to trans gender persons who were born one sex, but present socially as another (reference to a discussion on this at bottom). Long story short, why should a modifier be used when identifying someone as a woman first and foremost - if they have been socially living as a woman for XY number of years. Do we really need an adjective in all cases....if a person presents and is treated as a man in all respects, shouldn't we call him a man regardless of what someone may know behind closed doors (trans man verses man).
This article and discussion question bring up the some topic. At some point it boils down to "when are we as a sector going to own ourselves enough to refer to ourselves with a descriptor that speaks to our individual identity rather than that derivative of some other identity." This line of thought is much in line with feminist discourse which looks at why women are called women (a derivation of men) and not something else (perhaps womyn?).
But, I had not honestly thought about identity in regard to non profit.So, in constructing a identity for this sector, what are some traits that uniquely identify it:
Values, the motivation of people to engage in this work primarily and normatively from heart first as per Frumkin chapter 4- Bottom line is mission/purpose, not profit or surplus. Not to say surplus/profit are not healthy for the organization - as I very very much believe they are, or that efficiencies of operations and professionalization is not sacrosanct to this work, but ...at the end of the day, mission accomplishment is what is expected of these organizations.
Nondistributive imperative. The readings show that although there is a dark side to this sector wherein there may not be distributions, but there may be other job "perks" that serve the same purpose....the organization is still to invest net from the year back into the organization and for future forestallment of disaster.
Ownership in the hands of the people. I am actually surprised that our sector does not celebrate this factor more, as it is the alternative to the criticisms of Marx and others wherein ownership of the means of production is the possessed by a few.
Interestingly, 3 and 4 as reasons juxtapose themselves against the framework of the other two sectors instead of standing as something "new" or "different" from the others. These traits are like the "anti-traits" to the other sectors. 1 and 2 though give us clues in how we might reframe the identity of this Mission Driven, ForPurpose, or ValueMotivated sector different from "nonprofitness". Do these terms really work though in adequately rebranding the sector? I don't know.
I would think that "Voluntary sector" comes close, but also becomes less true as efficiencies demand greater professionalization (and people who do this work full time need to be able to pay bills and put food on the table).
Are nonprofits then residual, or "something new". If we change our history up and consider that early society was more communal. voluntary, and everyone helped everyone (ie, it takes a village to hunt/gather/ and care for children or warfare), then perhaps forprofit/nonvoluntary, or even governmental industries are actually residual of the origin state to how things were done? What I am trying to say is "Are forprofits and government instead residual of nonprofits"?
The other point I would make is that I believe the philanthropic sector is an amalgam of residual identities derivative or precursor to something else while also something different from the other two.
No comments:
Post a Comment