I appreciate this framing especially as someone who has organized rich people to be donors but also impacted community to join membership organizations or be monthly donors. The conversations with retired teachers on fixed income and with rich folks have many parallels and some departures but they're all donors. The agitations each need are also different and often have to do with language. This is why I often ask folks to give an amount that is meaningful to them. While some rich people may not feel as implicated by those words; its a good starting point for both in a way that doesn't alienate and is accessible.
I love that ask! Such a great way to get folks to stretch from various financial situations and class positions. I know that in the cross class giving circles that Social Justice Fund Northwest and the Giving Project Network run, they also employ that type of ask quite often.
I appreciate that you allow for the provocation of the language you've chosen to stand, while also demonstrating curiosity about the reasons why folks feel provoked by this language. These conversations allow us to move beyond the impulse of discomfort and toward a greater understanding — of ourselves and each other.
Having a long history in narrative strategy and strategic communications, I often tell people that the language we use is less important than the meanings (plural!) we ascribe to that language, because that's where the deeper work lies, and that instead of arguing about language (thereby, remaining surface-level), we might find that we have more alignment at the level of meaning if only we were to ask a question rather than make and stand by our assumptions.
Yes! This! "the language we use is less important than the meanings (plural!) we ascribe to that language, because that's where the deeper work lies, and that instead of arguing about language (thereby, remaining surface-level), we might find that we have more alignment at the level of meaning if only we were to ask a question rather than make and stand by our assumptions." TY Mandy. Amen.
Good stuff, thank you. Helping me formulate some thoughts on how to speak about this with the chronically-underfunded, privately funded non-profit I am associated with. I think it's an example of donor organizing as mentioned in your footnote, but I think making it more explicit could help put more pressure for more sustaining contributions.
Yes! Thanks for commenting Lou. Glad to know it's relevant and useful to what you're up to. And love any chance to push for more sustaining contributions.
I really resonate with this. Recently as I tried to get friends to join in work with SURJ, they were uncomfortable with the word "white people." Work to be done. I keep using the uncomfortable words at times and sometimes soften it for people on a journey.
Yes to using both skills! The uncomfortable words and the love and kindness and patience. I'm constantly trying to develop my ability to do both. So needed and quite a challenge.
I appreciate this framing especially as someone who has organized rich people to be donors but also impacted community to join membership organizations or be monthly donors. The conversations with retired teachers on fixed income and with rich folks have many parallels and some departures but they're all donors. The agitations each need are also different and often have to do with language. This is why I often ask folks to give an amount that is meaningful to them. While some rich people may not feel as implicated by those words; its a good starting point for both in a way that doesn't alienate and is accessible.
I love that ask! Such a great way to get folks to stretch from various financial situations and class positions. I know that in the cross class giving circles that Social Justice Fund Northwest and the Giving Project Network run, they also employ that type of ask quite often.
I appreciate that you allow for the provocation of the language you've chosen to stand, while also demonstrating curiosity about the reasons why folks feel provoked by this language. These conversations allow us to move beyond the impulse of discomfort and toward a greater understanding — of ourselves and each other.
Having a long history in narrative strategy and strategic communications, I often tell people that the language we use is less important than the meanings (plural!) we ascribe to that language, because that's where the deeper work lies, and that instead of arguing about language (thereby, remaining surface-level), we might find that we have more alignment at the level of meaning if only we were to ask a question rather than make and stand by our assumptions.
Yes! This! "the language we use is less important than the meanings (plural!) we ascribe to that language, because that's where the deeper work lies, and that instead of arguing about language (thereby, remaining surface-level), we might find that we have more alignment at the level of meaning if only we were to ask a question rather than make and stand by our assumptions." TY Mandy. Amen.
Good stuff, thank you. Helping me formulate some thoughts on how to speak about this with the chronically-underfunded, privately funded non-profit I am associated with. I think it's an example of donor organizing as mentioned in your footnote, but I think making it more explicit could help put more pressure for more sustaining contributions.
Yes! Thanks for commenting Lou. Glad to know it's relevant and useful to what you're up to. And love any chance to push for more sustaining contributions.
I really resonate with this. Recently as I tried to get friends to join in work with SURJ, they were uncomfortable with the word "white people." Work to be done. I keep using the uncomfortable words at times and sometimes soften it for people on a journey.
Yes to using both skills! The uncomfortable words and the love and kindness and patience. I'm constantly trying to develop my ability to do both. So needed and quite a challenge.