Nila Kartika Wati
The landscape of modern philanthropy is currently undergoing a period of intense self-examination as practitioners and community organizers highlight a growing disconnect between institutional resource allocation and the lived realities of marginalized populations. At the center of this discourse is the concept of "solidarity," a term frequently used in mission statements but often found lacking in practical application. For those transitioning from the front lines of community intervention to the boardrooms of grant-making organizations, the transition reveals a stark contrast between the theoretical pursuit of equity and the visceral risks faced by those living within cycles of systemic violence.
The Richmond Model: A Foundation of Proximity
The call for a more engaged form of philanthropy often draws from successful grassroots interventions, such as those seen in Richmond, California. Organizations like Advance Peace have pioneered models of violence interruption that rely on "proximity"—the act of being physically and emotionally present with individuals caught in the grip of cyclical gun violence. In Richmond, a city that historically struggled with high rates of homicide, the "Peacemaker Fellowship" was established to mentor youth and young adults who were deemed most likely to be involved in firearm-related incidents.
The guiding philosophy of these mentors—often summarized by the mantra, "I’m not above you. I am not below you. I am right here with you"—emphasizes that solidarity cannot be a detached observation. In these environments, firearms often become normalized as the primary mechanism for settling disputes, a byproduct of inherited conditions where the world is perceived through the lens of survival. Data from the Richmond Office of Neighborhood Safety suggests that such proximity-based interventions contributed to a significant reduction in firearm-related injuries and deaths over the last decade, proving that deep empathy and shared risk are essential components of effective community work.
Understanding the Captive Maternal Framework
As professionals move from these direct-action roles into philanthropic positions—such as program managers and implementation strategists—they often encounter an institutionalized distance. This distance allows philanthropy to maintain a cerebral expertise that can inadvertently silence the wisdom of those with lived experience. To describe this phenomenon, many scholars and activists point to the work of Joy James, a political philosopher and professor at Williams College, who coined the term "captive maternal."
The captive maternal refers to a mode of care where the labor of protection, healing, and sacrifice is extracted from those closest to the suffering, while the overarching structures that produce that suffering remain unchallenged. Historically rooted in the experiences of enslaved women who were forced to nurture the very systems that oppressed them, the modern application of the term describes communities that are forced to absorb institutional failure. When the state or private institutions fail to provide safety, education, or healthcare, the community creates its own "brilliant" responses to survive. However, philanthropy often risks co-opting these survival strategies—treating them as "models" to be replicated in controlled environments—without actually transferring power or resources back to the originators of that care.
The Chronology of Philanthropic Intervention: Schools Not Prisons
A pivotal moment in the attempt to bridge this gap occurred with The California Endowment’s (TCE) "Schools Not Prisons" campaign. Launched in the mid-2010s, this initiative represented a departure from traditional, risk-averse grant-making.
2014-2015: As California’s incarceration costs soared—approaching $11 billion annually—community organizers began pushing for a redirection of funds toward education and restorative justice.
2016: The California Endowment launched the "Schools Not Prisons" public education campaign. This was not merely a funding stream but a statewide tour involving artists, activists, and directly impacted youth.
2017-2018: The campaign faced significant pushback from interests invested in the carceral system. Critics questioned the credibility of using philanthropic funds for political advocacy.
2019 and Beyond: The campaign succeeded in shifting the narrative, contributing to policy discussions that prioritized community-based health and youth development over punitive measures.
The significance of "Schools Not Prisons" lay in its refusal to act as a "captive maternal" function. Rather than funding communities to simply manage the harm caused by the prison-industrial complex, the campaign resourced the power of those communities to challenge and transform the system itself. By standing with organizers even when the work became politically "risky," the institution demonstrated a form of material solidarity that moved beyond rhetoric.
Data Analysis: The Resource Gap and Institutional Control
Despite individual success stories, the broader data on philanthropic distribution suggests a persistent imbalance. According to reports from the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP), a disproportionately small percentage of grant dollars is directed toward "social justice" or "community organizing" compared to general service delivery.
| Category | Description | Philanthropic Trend |
|---|---|---|
| Service Delivery | Managing symptoms (food banks, shelters) | High funding, low institutional risk |
| Systemic Reform | Policy change, litigation, advocacy | Moderate funding, high political risk |
| Power Building | Community organizing, local leadership | Low funding, perceived as high risk |
This data highlights the "contradictory" nature of philanthropy. Wealth often originates from the very systems that produce social inequities. Consequently, philanthropy can serve two masters: it can redistribute power and protect the imagination of movements, or it can "soothe the conscience of wealth" by managing symptoms while preserving the status quo.
The Transition to Revolutionary Love
To move beyond the role of the captive maternal, political philosophers like Joy James advocate for "revolutionary love." In a journalistic context, this is analyzed as a strategic shift where care is joined to confrontation. For a philanthropic institution, this means approaching community practices not as "models to be bottled up and replicated," but as sacred practices of survival that require protection and amplification.
Revolutionary love requires a rejection of "extraction." In many cases, philanthropy behaves extractively by taking the "intellectual property" of community survival—their unique methods of care and relationship-building—and institutionalizing them into rigid programs that lose their original spirit. True solidarity, by contrast, requires the institution to share the risks of the community, including the risk of failure and the risk of political backlash.
Official Responses and the Current Political Climate
The debate over the role of philanthropy is occurring against a backdrop of increasing legal and political challenges to Racial Equity and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives. Following the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling on affirmative action, several philanthropic organizations have faced lawsuits from conservative legal groups alleging that race-conscious grant-making is discriminatory.
In response, some foundations have "chilled" their community power-building efforts, seeking the safety of distance. However, leaders within the social justice sector argue that this is precisely the moment when "being right here with you" becomes a necessity.
- Statement from Advocates: Many community-rooted leaders argue that when philanthropy retreats under legal pressure, it leaves its partners exposed. They call for foundations to use their significant legal and financial "shields" to protect grassroots movements.
- Institutional Perspective: Some major foundations have reaffirmed their commitment, stating that racial equity is not a "program" but a fundamental requirement for a functioning democracy.
Broader Impact and Future Implications
The implications of how philanthropy chooses to engage with the "captive maternal" framework will determine the success of social movements in the coming decade. If philanthropy continues to prioritize institutional management over community-led liberation, it risks becoming an instrument of the state, helping to manage poverty and violence rather than ending them.
However, if institutions embrace the "Richmond mantra" of standing alongside communities, the impact could be transformative. This would involve:
- Direct Resource Transfer: Moving away from restrictive, short-term grants toward long-term, general operating support for community-led organizations.
- Public Advocacy: Using the institutional "voice" of philanthropy to defend community organizers from political targeting.
- Humility in Practice: Recognizing that the expertise of survival held by those in the "grip of violence" is superior to the theoretical expertise held by those at a distance.
The future of the field depends on whether it can reconcile its inherent contradictions. As the political climate becomes more contested, the safety of distance is no longer an option for those who claim to seek justice. The choice remains: to continue the extraction of care under the captive maternal model, or to engage in the risky, essential work of revolutionary love and material solidarity.
