Inspired by nature’s ebb and flow, the Constellations Culture Change Fund set out to apply experimental practices that are critical for resourcing narrative change, write Erin Lynn Williams and Ilegvak.
Those of us who engage in radical resource redistribution know that the goal of institutional philanthropy should be its own obsolescence. But that will not happen overnight; change is a process.
So, we navigate contradictions and inconsistencies to operate within our entrenched structures while reimagining new ways of creating equitable and regenerative support systems. To do so, we draw on efforts to ‘decolonize’ the sector, embrace ways of doing and being that run counter to the norms of traditional philanthropy, and seek to clarify and embody the deep narratives we seek to amplify in the world.
The ‘love of humanity’ industry grew out of racialized economic and environmental genocide and exploitation, and is further entrenched by unjust tax codes that deepen inequality. Even honest attempts at reform, such as inviting a community representative to sit on a foundation board, often reproduce the same cycles of harm that undermine genuine change. When it comes to transforming these complex systems, we find hope in drawing inspiration from ancestral practices that respected and nurtured the power of nature.
Learning From Our Natural World
Mycelium networks store and share critical nutrients in an intricate system of underground communication channels across the ecosystem. They move the nutrients intentionally depending on the ever-changing needs of each tree, an undertaking that happens invisibly through interconnected, decentralized nodes that can extend for hundreds of miles. Think about the incredible beauty of this evolved circular accountability mechanism that took testing, failing, learning, and testing anew to get right.
At the Constellations Culture Change Fund and Initiative, housed at The Center for Cultural Power, we made our own discoveries by applying this adaptive and reciprocal process to our resourcing models. We did not buy into the myth of outcome predetermination as we funded through a narrative system, and turned away from rigid, artificial, and formulaic structures.
That meant we iterated with practices that looked like nature’s ebb and flow of testing and failing, moving our focus and resources where they were most needed. For instance, Constellations collaborated with the California Arts Council to enable a participatory panel of culture bearers and folk artists to make decisions that provided flexible grants to six lighthouse organizations rooted in traditional, ancestral, and Indigenous knowledge, values, and practices.
We imagined what it would look like to throw out the typical framework of who is ‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving,’ and envisioned, instead, a fund without competition and hierarchy.
During that undertaking, we dove deep into discussions about the merits of our selection process and its potential effect on community well-being. We imagined what it would look like to throw out the typical framework of who is ‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving,’ and envisioned, instead, a fund without competition and hierarchy. What might it look like to let go of practices based on scarcity and fear of not knowing the outcome, and move towards practices based on possibility and learning? We debated: could we use a lottery system or find a way for finalists to make the selection themselves?
Ultimately, we started with an open call and public webinar to state our intentions and limitations, such as our timeline, total amount of funding available, the regrant length based on our funder, and the anticipated number of final grantee partners. Then, we published a public FAQ so that all potential applicants could have access to the same information.
Grounded in multidirectional communication and collaborative problem-solving, the Constellations team created the space for our five-member community panel to define their relationality agreements and how they would interact. These agreements included making room for “multiple ways of knowing,” reviewing proposals and community endorsements with support from the fund’s equity indicators, and determining the overall decision-making process.
Like Nature, Always Be Testing
We know these ideas and practices are not new and have been tested by many other collaborative and activist-led funds operating in different contexts. But like nature, we wanted to continue to iterate, share our missteps and new understandings, and introduce refinements to the field by trying them again under new conditions.
Philanthropy benefits from not just thinking about but also testing out ways of resourcing that may seem unattainable within our institutions, like participatory models. Time constraints, the fear of making mistakes, or losing control, are all the rationales we have heard. However, those with large endowments, especially, must examine the underlying narratives that promote that reasoning, and invest the time, energy, and money in exploring processes that unravel the very assumptions we are currently operating within. Funders should practice humility by trusting the wisdom of their community, those they are supporting, and ultimately, nature’s ways.
In fact, experimental practices are all the more critical when it comes to resourcing narrative and culture change, which undergirds all of our social justice work. Profound narrative shifts do not happen in a straightforward or linear fashion, and the work is limited by philanthropy’s demands for prescriptive logic models, reductionist metrics, and time-bound impacts.
Narrative change is an inherently relational process that requires time to cultivate meaningful connections, trust, and credibility. Funders that seek to make the most essential contributions should prioritize support for network building, iterative and adaptive approaches, and spaces that support collaboration, rest, and moving through conflict in humanizing ways.
Equally important, we should lift up mistakes once healing and restoration have begun and be proud of the chances we took. It will take generations for alternative narratives and regenerative ways of being to take hold, so investing for long durations is imperative. We know philanthropy is capable. However, it lacks fortitude, which makes it even more critical for initiatives like Constellations to exist and show that another way isn’t just possible but necessary.
It’s tricky and often painful to reimagine a system while working within it and navigating its constraints consistently. Yet, we cannot be complacent or stop testing, particularly in our current climate. What if philanthropy chose to behave more like nature? What if it took its cues from mycelium and relied on the knowledge of community nodes to move resources where they were most needed as the context changed? All it takes is a little imagination and courage to rekindle our connection to the natural world.
++++++++++++++++++
Erin Lynn Williams is the Chief Field Building Officer at The Center for Cultural Power and led the three-year Constellations Culture Change Fund and Initiative. Ilegvak is a culture bearer, artist, designer, filmmaker, writer, activist and educator.
The Myths of Philanthropy series is being published in collaboration with the Center for Effective Philanthropy, Elemental, and VITA.
Get involved
Elemental is a funder learning and grant-making initiative that cultivates conditions to resource narrative power. Find out more about this collaboration opportunity on the Funders Collaborative Hub.
The Funders Collaborative Hub publishes a range of perspectives. The views expressed here are those of the authors, not necessarily those of ACF.
