Hitchhiker's Guide to Philanthropy Blogs
Posted by Lenore Ealy - Aug 29, 2005 9:43pmIn amost memorable passage of Douglas Adams' Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, two would be philosophers, Vroomfondel and Majikthise, realize that the key to philosophical success is essentially mutual destruction...or, in the language of academia, building each other's scores in the citations indices. Here's the passage:
"Yes," declaimed Deep Thought, "I said I'd have to think about it, didn't I? And it occurs to me that running a programme like this is bound to create an enormous amount of popular publicity for the whole area of philosophy in general. Everyone's going to have their own theories about what answer I'm eventually to come up with, and who better to capitalize on that media market than you yourself? So long as you can keep disagreeing with each other violently enough and slagging each other off in the popular press, you can keep yourself on the gravy train for life. How does that sound?"
The two philosophers gaped at him.
"Bloody hell," said Majikthise, "now that is what I call thinking. Here Vroomfondel, why do we never think of things like that?"
"Dunno," said Vroomfondel in an awed whisper, "think our brains must be too highly trained Majikthise."
So saying, they turned on their heels and walked out of the door and into a lifestyle beyond their wildest dreams.
(from Douglas Adams, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Chap 25)
This whole blogging phenomenon strikes me as being in this sense quite Adamesque. Phil Anthropoid suggests that philanthropy bloggers should be busy because ...tatata da!!! the press may be watching!
So, we find ourselves here even referenced by --"GASP"--the Council on Foundations, and I'm guessing the honorable thing to do among bloggers is to post their link here and drive up the link references as counted by those engines of web success such as Google and the like.
But this little game of cross-referencing (cross-dressing? at least the Council on Foundations Emerging Issues author doesn't know what to do with Wealth Bondage, either! And I won't provide the link.. go look it up if you're into that sort of thing.) leaves me a bit sad. Is it more important merely that we ARE, or that we have something interesting to say?? All this group hug among "philanthropy bloggers" and even the idea that we're readily classified as "philanthropy blogs" makes me shudder. Are those of us interested in what is going to be the hottest issue of the 21st century too readily creating our own little ghetto out here?
Here's my general point of view about this site:
We're principally about understanding the phenomenon of human action known as "enterprise," both in its commercial and especially in its non-commercial (hence philanthropic) forms. Enterprise--to under take something, to risk, to engage in a bit of arbitrage where we spot opportunity for value to be created--cannot be confined to the realm of purely private taking but should also be our first mode of action when we are also aiming to create value that accrues to the greater benefit of our communities, large and small.
Are we a "philanthropy blog?" To the extent that we may from time to time critique the current practices of the field,perhaps so. To the extent that we hope to reassess the conceptual foundations that shape today's philanthropy, perhaps so. To the extent that we hope to begin to imagine and describe and defend new ways of thinking about and practicing the arts of giving and community enterprise and voluntary association with an eye to modes of thought and action compatible with the essentials of a free society, maybe. But for now, go ahead and call us a philanthropy blog if needed--but don't spread the word too far. It might simply convince someone interested in some of the ideas we might explore here turn instead to Marginal Revolution, and they've already got lots of traffic!
Thoughts? - Add Comment
There are no comments for this entry yet.