Anonymous philanthropy as the pillar of change

In the age of public and very visible billionaire philanthropy, anonymous giving appears like a fringe activity and is sometimes looked at with suspicion. And indeed, anonymous transfers of money can be linked to activities ranging from obscure politics to the drug trade. Can they also be a force for good?

At the Altruist League, we believe that they can. We think that anonymous (or at least non-public) altruism will in fact be growing in importance and volume in the coming period. Here are some of the reasons.

Anonymous giving is already popular

There is no data on global anonymous giving that I have found comprehensive and fully credible. Some circumstantial evidence points to a couple of trends:

First, anonymous philanthropy in the USD 1 million+ gift range has been at least stable over the past decade. 

Second, when measured more broadly in the population, anonymous gifts online already stand at anywhere between 10 and 21 percent of all giving, depending on how the phenomenon is measured. These are people who donate to their religious organization or their favorite YouTuber without expecting anything in return and without wanting their names “immortalized” in marble above the entrances to museum wings.

Crisis leads to a spike in anonymous philanthropy

Some data indicates that after the Great Recession anonymous charitable giving rose dramatically (here and here). If that data has any relevance then the multiple crises we are going through at present (pandemic, racial injustice, wealth inequality, threats to democracy) will work to rekindle the trend.

Financial altruists increasingly want to avoid the “philanthropist” moniker

The status of being a philanthropist is increasingly difficult for some people to identify with. In fact, in our internal surveys, our members point time and again to this as the primary reason for why they donate anonymously. They wish to avoid the caricatured portrayal of the contemporary wealthy giver: mainly focused on feeling good and looking good while giving, potentially negating the effects of their giving elsewhere in their portfolio and paying suspiciously little in taxes.

The trend has only become worse in recent times. Think Jeffrey Epstein’s donations to Harvard’s grotesquely named PED center. Think Tufts University unceremoniously scrubbing the Sackler name off their buildings. This, to some altruists, is the face of public philanthropy, and they don’t like it.

Peer scorn 

Change is the enemy of the short-sighted plutocrat. The giver who really invests in a world that is more just and fair is, by extension, an enemy to those in power. In some circles, investing in racial justice is frowned upon. Economic opportunity is tantamount to communism. Climate justice is a hoax. Not to mention issues like gun control. But those are just the social dangers …

Physical danger

Many of our members invest in democratic changes in countries from which they originally come, typically autocracies with a penchant for targeting political opponents. Some brave souls oppose those openly and to make a point; others, understandably, prefer to do what they can while keeping their families safe. 

Avoiding a flood of requests

An extension of not wanting to be labeled as a “philanthropist” is not wanting to be flooded by requests from different charities. Sometimes the most visible charities are not the best. In fact, out of the 20,000 civil society organizations in our dataset, less than 5% have the ability to go and actively fundraise, write grant proposals and get themselves on the radar of billionaires. Some openly reject doing so. So if you’re waiting to be approached you’re likely to be (sometimes, not always) dealing with the usual suspects that have been part of the status quo.

Recently, we built a portfolio for a member investing in women’s rights in Southeastern Africa. It was amazing to explore the difference between the “professional” gift recipients and the real social movements. The “professionals” have their websites in English (not the local language!) and are happy with development-speak and the colonial approach. The others speak the local language(s), have vibrant social media following, and have minuscule or nonexistent websites; sometimes you can’t even figure out how to give money to them.

So refusing to be a red muleta out there can save time to go and find the real changemakers and construct sophisticated portfolios.

Technology

One word: bitcoin.

Humility?

There is a degree of humility that comes with anonymous donation, no doubt – you don’t want to receive the credit. But, to many anonymous donors, that credit doesn’t mean much in the first place. They don’t have a particularly high opinion about global philanthropy ecosystem. So humility might not be the right word, but arrogance isn’t either… which brings me to the next point…

Identity and creativity

I already wrote about the idea of creativity and symbolic immortality-seeking as the basis of systemic philanthropy. This goes beyond simply not wanting to be labeled, boxed in or disturbed.

I read recently a biography of Jean-Francois Champollion, the man who deciphered the hieroglyphs. the most fascinating part was the time after he had actually done it. He went over to Egypt and visited the temples at Karnak and Abu Simbel. The first person in more than 1,500 years, he could simply read the inscriptions on them and discover on the spot which temple was from which dynasty and to which deity it was devoted. It must have been a unique, indescribable feeling. 

Like Champollion, some givers want this feeling of working on a personal mission only known to them and a couple of people around them, and building a new world through that mission. Think of Chuck Feeney as a prime example. Think of how many other people like him there are out there who will never be publicly known.