Background: “Social Cohesion Philanthropy”

PACE believes that a healthy and functioning multiracial liberal democracy requires a socially cohesive population that respects differences within its citizenry. Achieving cohesion is a challenging and ongoing effort that demands the attention and investment of many actors across society’s many sectors, including philanthropy and civil society. While cohesion is not just one thing– it can be a composite of factors spanning civic participation, shared values, perceived unity, emotions, and more– toxic polarization and dehumanization of one’s “opponents” are arguably the biggest barriers to achieving it.

Unfortunately, even well-intentioned actors may unconsciously aid or abet toxically polarizing tendencies and behaviors, and are not immune to these dynamics in their own work and leadership. This includes philanthropy, which in addition to wielding financial influence through the allocation of resources, often has significant cultural influence that shapes norms and models civic leadership.

In a March 2022 piece featured in the Chronicle of Philanthropy, Suzette Brooks Masters raised an important tension and challenge that philanthropy faces:

American philanthropy is operating in a rapidly changing and unstable environment. Foundations often find themselves on both sides of contentious issues, mirroring the larger fracturing of our society. Dehumanization of so-called opponents, hardening of partisan identities, lack of trust, and erosion of norms have made it objectively more difficult to function, let alone make progress on important societal issues…Nonprofit professionals may be especially prone to these dynamics because they care deeply about making an impact on the world and may hold strong, moralistic views about how to achieve that impact. Framing outcomes as win or lose, undervaluing relationships, and prioritizing short-term wins over long-term outcomes are all common behaviors that can contribute to toxic polarization and exacerbate division.

There is no shortage of advice in 2022 about what philanthropy should and should not fund. But few people are talking about how to fund in a way that helps the United States — regardless of what is getting funded. That process must start with a deep and honest look inward.“

Debate and disagreement are part of the lifeblood of liberal democracy and civil society, especially one as large and diverse as the United States. Reasonable and principled people can often come to diametrically opposed conclusions, even when presented with the same information. 

As such, a degree of polarization—especially along ideological, philosophical, and political lines—is natural, healthy, and even necessary in a democracy. But extreme forms of social and political fracture (such as toxic polarization, hyper partisanship, and/or high conflict) are forms of division that cause people to weaponize differences—often along lines of identity—and that is dangerous, illiberal, and anti-democratic. Those forms of toxic division are about more than just disagreement— it is believing that those who are different, or believe differently, from you pose an existential threat to your way of life. It’s when “they are wrong” shifts to “they are evil,” and when differences in beliefs and identities are turned into weapons. While others might categorize the challenge of division we are experiencing differently, and there are studies that suggest our perceptions of “the other” are more extreme than those differences are in reality, there is plenty of evidence that we must build our capacity for tolerance, pluralism, civility, and other related virtues in order for liberal democracy to survive.

In their most severe forms, toxic divisions can lead to political violence, curtailment of freedom and rights, support for authoritarian leadership, and illiberalism. Toxic polarization fuels animosity that creates the conditions that foster hate and violence. Science tells us that toxic polarization is often identity-based, and is exacerbated when people see one identity (such as their race, gender, or religion) as superseding all the others (thereby making everyone and everything that is not “that” identity the “other”). Recent research identifies a perception “that people with different social identity also have different ideological beliefs” with the result being that “people with extreme beliefs tend to downgrade the humanity and individuality of people with whom they assume they’ll disagree” and that creates the conditions for identity-based prejudice and illiberalism. Toxic polarization also has significant downstream consequences, such as unhealthy animosity, political gridlock, and the inability of a society to address shared problems and issues for the common good.

 Efforts to combat toxic polarization can often be over-simplified and misunderstood. 

Social cohesion describes the strength of relationships and sense of solidarity among members of a community, and the capacity to ensure the well-being of all its members— in short, it’s the “glue” that holds a society together. Social cohesion matters in a liberal democracy because “A shared sense of identity and purpose is implicit in the phrase ‘we the people.’ In a democratic society, members [must] recognize each other’s right to a voice in the political process and [be] willing to collaborate for common ends.”

While social cohesion is not just one thing— it can be a composite of factors spanning civic participation, shared values, perceived unity, emotions, and more— toxic polarization and dehumanization of one’s opponents are arguably the biggest barriers to achieving it. It can be complicated to A) discern what toxic polarization is, B) recognize it when it is happening, and C) determine how to counter its destructive dynamics. 

These realizations have inspired the Social Cohesion Philanthropy campaign— while it may be complicated, we need to be conscious, self-aware, and have honest conversations about where our intent and impact may be misaligned.

America is extremely divided; some suggest more so than at any time since the Civil War. This isn’t just a matter of political gridlock or a lamentable loss of “unity,” though that certainly has consequences. Increasing numbers of people say those who are members of the opposite political party are “downright evil” and pose a threat to America and our way of life. Recent polls find: 

• 71.74 is the level of concern voters express over political division (on a scale of 1-100 with 100 being “civil war”); 3 in 10 people say political polarization is within their top 3 concerns for the nation 
• 1 in 4 people believe violence against the government is at least sometimes justifiable 
• 75% think political instability within the US is a larger problem than threats from foreign adversaries
• Nearly 6 in 10 people say our nation’s democracy is in danger of collapse.

Further, according to the FBI, hate crimes are at their highest level in more than a decade, and polarization and violence recently led to America being added to the list of “backsliding democracies.” This has potential for global consequences as well; most of the democratic decline occurring worldwide is attributable to the U.S. and its allies.  

While these are large and arguably global challenges for democratic societies worldwide, they are not merely academic concerns; ripple effects of these realities touch our own lives on a daily basis. Philanthropy—whether intentionally or not— can contribute to toxic polarization and actively make it harder for nonprofits and other public leaders to combat it. Funders wield power and influence. Not only can we allocate resources in ways that invest in more thoughtful processes and contribute to cohesion, but our actions influence culture and norms, so we have a responsibility to model the type of leadership and engagement we expect from others. 

Practitioners that advance solutions to toxic polarization have reflected the following observations to us about philanthropy: 

• In attempts to “move the needle” in quantifiable and urgent ways, some funders may overemphasize (and prioritize funding for) work that exists in the extremes or fringes of the problems, which are most likely to be polarized and polarizing.
• In attempts to articulate passion and the importance of mission, funders may have a tendency to over-utilize moralistic framing or over-simplify complex and nuanced problems. Funders may cast anything or anyone perceived to be on the “other side” of our mission as an existential threat or a “bad faith” actor.
• In attempts to make much-needed societal progress and culture change, funders may advance “by any means necessary” approaches. But “means are a measure of our character,” as organizational psychologist Adam Grant says, and that “if we succeed … the question is not only whether we’re proud of what we’ve achieved, [but also] of how we’ve achieved it.”
• In attempts to advance thoughtful, specific theories of change and move the needle on quantifiable metrics, funders may disincentivize the building of relationships and minimize the importance of stitching our social fabric. 
• Funders may prioritize or emphasize the satisfaction of short-term gains, even if they may run counter to achieving their long-term vision.
• Funders may think more about their own intent than their impact while simultaneously judging others by their impact without considering their intent. 

Beyond these large societal-level concerns, there are also practical reasons funders should work to combat these dynamics. In a February 2022 op-ed, Hilary Pennington and Mark Freedman reflect that:

Grant making can’t flourish if the toxic divisions of our time are allowed to metastasize. These divisions promote rigid thinking. They limit the exchange of ideas. And they inhibit the kind of collaboration and partnership necessary to make and sustain long-term progress.”

Arguably, no philanthropic mission can be achieved when toxic polarization is at play; cohesion creates a foundation for cooperation in a diverse and tolerant society. Further, polarization makes grantees’ work harder as well—especially if their mission is predicated on relationships and collaborative problem solving and not on rote service-delivery. Not to mention, the “do/undo” cycle (especially of policymaking) is perpetuated when buy-in is not maintained across groups and leaders, or when a community is fractured. This can lead to short-term “wins” having unintended long-term consequences. 

It is important to acknowledge that cohesion and belonging are not necessarily natural states of being. It is not natural or easy for any human to value others (or others’ rights) as much as they value their own. Our brains are often hard-wired to assign judgment, sort into groups, and protect our own beliefs, values, and interests; this is a biological safety and protection mechanism. This is why it is so important to recognize where we might be weaponizing differences in the way we behave and do our work based on bias or assumptions. This requires developing an active practice, as well as the associated mental muscle to expand thinking and analysis with a tilt toward cohesion and inclusion.

Sometimes efforts to advance cohesion or decrease toxic polarization are characterized  as “civility” or “unity”. These are concepts that can tend to privilege dominant cultures and paper over injustice. What is the most productive way to balance healing and accountability with forgiveness and progress? Power and belonging? Intersectionality with individuality? There are no easy answers, to be sure, but justice and cohesion cannot be considered antithetical to each other; justice cannot exist amidst violent fracture, and cohesion cannot exist without justice. We need to consider “both/and” approaches. 

Some of the ability to combat toxic polarization relies on a shared idea of what is true. But the reality is not all truth is fully objective or universal; while many things can be proven true or false, there can also be “exceptions to the rule.” Further, people’s personal truth can vary based on their own beliefs, interpretations, and lived experiences; no one else can be the arbiter of that. 

Many of these tensions are similar challenges articulated by leaders working in diversity, equity, and inclusion spaces. Several practices in racial equity work are also present in social cohesion work; they both invite us to: 

• Avoid either/or, zero-sum, and “one right way” thinking
• Consider unintended consequences
• Assess and evaluate impact, not just intent
• Interrogate assumptions and biases 
• Don’t over-prioritize urgency + “objectivity” 

Further, in 2019, PACE Fellow Decker Ngongang penned a series of essays about ways philanthropy can embed equity into bridging processes. He suggests funders can use our leadership to: 

• Provide context and acknowledge history, while working toward a positive vision for the future
• Model norms and expectations for good-faith engagement
• Embrace complexity and avoid oversimplified binaries
• Prioritize fair processes and moderating forces

PACE has curated some resources from organizations that regularly navigate questions of ethics and morality in bridging work, and their lessons might provide some insights for your consideration. 

There is much that requires clear-eyed judgment and thoughtful discernment.  There are also several things that do not have objective determining factors, and certain limiting principles may need to be considered. Two examples:

• Much of the work to combat toxic polarization is predicated on people operating as good faith actors and giving/offering/assuming good faith from others. But what are the ways to determine if someone is acting in good faith? What conditions make granting good faith possible? Who decides? 
• What is the litmus to discern between principled (even if vehement) disagreement and dehumanizing beliefs? What is the line of demarcation between disagreement, polarization, and toxic polarization?

As we expand the diversity of experiences, identities, and viewpoints represented at “the table,” we may encounter situations that could pose ethical or moral dilemmas. It’s not PACE’s place to “solve” these dilemmas– to be honest, there are usually no universally “right” answers, and most decisions are likely to be inherently subjective and context-specific. But we acknowledge these are legitimate and complicated questions, and we have curated some resources from organizations that navigate these dilemmas often, and might provide some insights for your consideration. 

PACE articulated “bridging and polarization” as a learning stream of our work in 2020. Since then, we have been learning on these topics in a variety of ways from a variety of people; our journey has not necessarily been linear, particularly as the political and social dynamics that surround our work change so rapidly. Following a series we partnered on with CEP in the spring of 2021, we started receiving questions from funders along the lines of “I get this a problem, but what can I *do*?” and “how do I know if I’m contributing to it?” We have heard from peers and colleagues that these questions are coming up for them more frequently and urgently as well. 

To help respond to those questions, we engaged a diverse (racially, geographically, and politically) working group of strategists, nonprofit leaders, and donor advisors who work to advance both the theory and practice of building social cohesion and combating toxic polarization. 

• Mike Berkowitz, Democracy Funders Network
• Suzette Brooks Masters, strategy consultant
• Claudia Cummings, Indiana Philanthropy Alliance
• David Eisner, Convergence Center for Policy Resolution
• Wendy Feliz, Center for Inclusion and Belonging
• Andrew Hanauer, The One America Movement
• Ted Johnson, Brennan Center for Justice
• Danielle Marshall, Culture Principles
• Uma Viswanathan, New Pluralists

Since that time, PACE, DFN, and New Pluralists began working together to design a campaign with the hope that many types of funders adopt social cohesion practices and express support for advancing social cohesion in philanthropy with us. 

We have been inspired by the way the concept of Trust-Based Philanthropy has influenced the practice of philanthropy over the last few years; that is the spirit of culture shift we are hoping to inspire over the next 12 months through this campaign.