Abstract Among Arab-American Muslims, secular ethnic and humanitarian giv- ing, focused on ‘results’ and ‘measurable impact,’ is displacing religiously inspired giving, that is driven by ‘charity’ and ‘love of mankind.’ This trend is supported by evidence of the way donors position themselves and philanthropic organizations appeal to their donor base. The case is supported by qualitative data drawn from interviews with key informants and from trend data on giving. I propose a new model of giving based on identity and giving, using Grounded Theory methods. This model challenges our understanding about the connection between community and philanthropy and proposes that philanthropy can create ‘community.’
Résumé Je propose un nouveau modèle de charité basé sur l’identité et le don à l’aide des méthodes de la théorie ancrée. Ce modèle questionne nos connaissances de la relation entre la communauté et la philanthropie et propose que la philan- thropie peut créer une «communauté».
Zusammenfassung Unter Anwendung der Grounded-Theory-Methodologie schlage ich ein neues Spendenmodell vor, das auf Identität und Spenden basiert. Dieses Modell hinterfragt unser Verständnis über die Verbindung zwischen Gemeinschaft und Philanthropie und legt nahe, das die Philanthropie eine ,,Gemeinschaft‘‘schaffen kann.
Resumen Propongo un nuevo modelo de dar basado en la identidad y la donación, utilizando métodos de la Teorı́a Fundamentada (Grounded Theory). Este modelo cuestiona nuestra comprensión sobre la conexión entre comunidad y filantropı́a y propone que la filantropı́a puede crear ‘‘comunidad’’.
S. Khan (&) Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA e-mail: khanpgg@vt.edu
123
Voluntas DOI 10.1007/s11266-015-9553-7
Author’s personal copy
Keywords Philanthropy ! Community ! American Muslims ! Identity
Introduction
I seek to answer the following question in this paper: How does giving (philanthropy) create community? While the relationship between belonging to a community and how that leads to philanthropy has been well researched, the question I have posed has not received much attention. While the literature on religiously driven philanthropy is quite extensive (Schervish 2008; Giving USA, 2013; Siddiqui 2014, Schnable, 2013; Wiepking and Bekkers 2011a, b; Wuthnow 1991; Wuthnow 2004), the linkage between giving to ethnic groups and the identity factors that play into this philanthropy—especially during crisis situations—have not been explored much in depth. I seek to fill this gap in literature, especially as it relates to American Muslims. There are some studies that attempt to do this, for particular ethnic groups (Weber 1930; Brikenhoff 2008; Clark 2004). Using Schervish and Susan Ostrander’s notion of philanthropy as a ‘social relation,’ I offer a model that is identity based, using Grounded Theory methods, involving interviews with 10 leaders of non-government organizations (all U.S. based), which have a predominantly Arab-American donor base. This paper attempts a synthesis of ideas in social capital, ethnic philanthropy, and community development and offers my insights grounded in research. While there is some literature on Arab and Arab- American giving (Jamal 2005; Najam 2006; Ibrahim and Sherif 2008), it has not been sufficiently theorized. This paper aims to address this gap in literature.
What is the context for this discussion, one might ask? The most recent context for this debate is the concern raised by many civil liberties, activists, and scholars on the perceived difficulty of many ethnic groups and minorities—of Arab origins—in fully participating in the public sphere in the U.S. A related concern is the growing ‘administrative’ control over charitable giving that is occurring as a result of these developments. In an important report called Charitable Giving Among American Muslims: Ten Years after 911, by ISPU, Washington D.C., the lead author, Dr. Zahra Jamal, argues that there has been a politicization of the process of charitable giving among American Muslims and Arab Americans.
As she suggests in the report, while American mainstream has generally accepted people of all faiths, ethnic backgrounds, there has been a gradual trend of ‘othering’ American Muslim participation in public life. This, she argues, has been due to several factors—including the securitization discourse, post 911 politics that often conflate religion and violence, etc.
Added to this, issues of race, ethnicity, and religion seem to have been conflated—yet again—post 911 and this process has had a detrimental impact on charitable giving among Arabs in America, this report suggests. ‘‘Their deeper and broader civic engagement has been met with a range of sentiments from cooperation and collaboration to suspicion of hypocrisy or terrorist leanings,’’ she suggests. This process has impeded processes of Arab-American participation in mainstream political life, she suggests (Jamal 2005).
Voluntas
123
Author’s personal copy
On a related note, as Dr. Una Osili reminds us, the linkages between philanthropy and social capital are well understood and have been theorized by some scholars. But this process can be further developed, as Bruce Sievers has argued (Sievers 2010). Sievers has called for looking at philanthropy as one of the key seven pillars of civil society—and one that is indispensable for its formation and sustainability. He argues using the example of 17th century Dutch Republic that the early formations of civil society showed a remarkable degree of philanthropy and social cohesion that continues in modern day Netherlands. Similarly, Osili tells us that ‘‘Charitable giving and other forms of civic engagement have been shown to affect norms of trust, connectedness, and the ability of individuals and communities to enhance their economic and social well-being through cooperative behavior.’’ (p. 89). She further argues that looking at the giving behavior of immigrant ethnic groups can give us insights into how they ‘interact with America.’ All these scholars seem to agree that there is a need for greater philanthropy and also understanding of the norms of giving, to address global problems of ‘common good,’ though in varying degrees. They could be also seen as arguing for looking at the ‘social construction’ of philanthropy in America.
While this is one perspective of looking at ethnic groups, other scholars have called for a ‘relational understanding’ of how ethnic and religious groups have evolved and continue to evolve in the U.S., rather than setting up a binary of Americans vs. foreigners. Ghaneabassiri’s argument is that this relational devel- opment of institutions and practices (including philanthropy) can inform us about the way that these communities grow, assimilate, and adapt or do not adapt to American ways of life. This is a different methodological approach than the one taken by scholars such as Osili, Ostrander, and Schervish. I build on the methodological approach that Ghaneabassiri offers, to locate the practices of giving among American Muslims, contextualizing its analysis in the day-to-day practices, rather than in the ‘philanthropic ideals’ or ‘thought’ that is embodied in the founding texts of Islam or other religious texts. I contend that this approach is more useful to existing problems, as there is immense plurality of thought in Islam in America, and most groups and communities have sought to interpret Islamic teachings in a ‘pragmatic’ manner, rather than a purely ideological way.
Aims of the Study
This paper seeks to understand the relationship between giving and identity and proposes a model of how giving might be occurring in crisis situations. By a close examination of the giving patterns toward 10 Arab American NGOs, I offer a theory of how giving occurs in crisis situations and the various responses that can occur from different types of donors, as described by the leaders of these NGOs. While this is a small, qualitative study and the results are not statistically generalizable, I believe that they are analytically generalizable across the types of organizations studied. The findings can offer us a theoretical perspective, grounded in empirical data on some of the key aspects of giving toward these types of ethnic organizations, and also help us re-examine our ideas of ‘community building’ and ‘identity-based philanthropy.
Voluntas
123
Author’s personal copy
Literature Review
Is identity the primary factor determining charitable giving? By identity I mean how someone affiliates oneself, with a group—either a religious or ethnic group. This is different from ‘culture,’ in that identity can be self-defined and socially constructed. As Ghaneabassiri reminds us in A History of Islam in America (2010), early Asian immigrants to California and the Western coast in the 19th and 20th centuries defined themselves as ‘white,’ to circumvent the radically discriminative practices that existed in the U.S. Thus, they defined their identity, despite their race and nationality. Further, one must admit that while identity is socially constructed, it is also border crossing and fluid, especially in a country such as the U.S., that has immigration from almost all parts of the world. The nature of ‘identities’ in the U.S. also challenges ideas and notions of racial purity and identity politics that is set in stone, as Homi Bhabha reminds us when he says ‘‘the syncretic, adaptive politics and culture of hybridity questions the imperialist and colonialist notions of purity as much as it questions the nationalist notions.’’ (1989, p. 64).
Speaking of the importance of identity and identification in philanthropy, Schervish and Havens (1998) have argued that ‘‘charitable giving comes from identification and identification comes from contact and contact comes from relationships.’’(p. 2) This seems to suggest that social capital is the key, as they argue that associational capital is indeed important for philanthropy. So, how does one understand the changing contours of these relationships, in a dynamic environment—where immigration, changing social and political priorities are constantly changing the needs of a society? This model assumes that identity and relationships are static and unchanging. In a similarly constructed argument, Schervish and Ostrander (1990) have argued that philanthropy can be seen as a ‘social relation,’ one that involves both giving and receiving, and the one-sided view of looking at it purely as a donor-driven activity should not be overemphasized. Philanthropy occurs mostly in the local community, they remind us, and it seems that this fact may guide us to better understand the motivations for giving and also the role of certain organizations, in this mix.
I will cover two aspects of literature in this brief literature review: (1) Changing conceptions of ‘community.’ (2) Mechanisms driving giving behavior. Each aspect illuminates in a specific way how ethnic giving is related to notions of community. While this review is by no means exhaustive, I hope to provide a framework of ideas that will be helpful in understanding the arguments made in this paper.
Different Notions of ‘Community’ and Social Capital Among Arab Americans
In Habits of the Heart (1985), Robert Bellah and his co-authors argue that despite the individualistic traits in most Americans, they find ways to contribute to the common good and one’s community—defined in a geographic sense—and find meaning through this process. They say ‘‘We are less concerned with whether they are average than they represent the ways in which Americans use private and public life to make sense of their lives. This is the central issue with which our book is concerned.’’ (p. 21). Further, they argue that how Americans think of community,
Voluntas
123
Author’s personal copy
individualism, success, and happiness are often rooted in tradition and for us to understand how they are reacting to rapid changes, then closely examining these traditions is crucial. Related to these changes in individualism and communitarian- ism are other factors such as changing demographics, the broader political economy, and how people find and sustain relationships, a fact well investigated by Robert Putnam in his classic Bowling Alone (Putnam 2002). These changes have occurred across the board, impacting all groups, including Arab Americans, who traditionally are said to have greater communitarian ethos. While community is being seen as receding into the background, there is a greater focus on the role of the individual and state to fix problems in the public domain. Philanthropy’s role in ‘fixing’ problems such as security, human rights, employment and related concerns is manifested in both the increase in non-profits and also the increased efforts of the governments to ‘outsource’ many of the functions to these agencies, the most famous example of this being the faith-based initiatives undertaken by the George W Bush administration (Wineburg 2007).
In another study in Detroit, titled Citizenship and Crisis in Detroit (2009), the Detroit Arab-American Study groups argue that there is lesser bridging (social capital outside the group members) and bonding social capital (social capital among homogenous group members) among Arab Americans, as compared to the general population. However, they suggest that the global social capital of Arabs is higher, due to identity factors. Although immigration from the ‘Arab world’ is seen in monolithic terms, it comprises over 20 countries, each with their own culture, dialect, etc. So in this sense, a unified ‘Arab identity’ is seen as a bonding social capital, rather than the diverging cultures. This is an interesting finding for the discussion that follows, in terms of identifying how this social capital impacts philanthropy. How might this be changing in the context of broader changes in social capital formation in American society needs further investigation.
Other scholars have explored notions of community and its changing importance in America. Amitaz Etzioni has become one of the most important proponents of communitarian ways of thinking and living. He argues for balancing the role of ‘autonomy’ and ‘true needs’ of all community members by building multiple layers of loyalty to different communities. He has argued for the development of an overarching ‘community of communities’ to respond to the needs of constituent communities, as those who are responsive to the needs of their members (Etzioni 1995). Responsiveness is a key to the relevance of the ‘community’ to its members, argues Etzioni. While there can be no perfectly responsive community, at least the contradictions can be reduced, he says. When we look at organizations such as ACCESS and National Network of Arab Americans, these come across as examples of what Etzioni was perhaps referring to.
The question of how to approach the study or examination of community is rather multi-faceted.1 On the other hand, Frazer (1999) argues that community can also be approached as a descriptive category or set of variables, or rather as a value. What we hold as important can form a ‘community.’ This could be a group such as the Anti-Abortion activists or Alcoholics Anonymous. Further, Cohen’s
1 For a detailed description and other definitions of ‘community’ see http://infed.org/mobi/community/.
Voluntas
123
Author’s personal copy
(1982, 1985) also offers us another perspective, saying that ‘communities are best approached as ‘communities of meaning.’ In other words, ‘community plays a crucial symbolic role in generating people’s sense of belonging’ (Crow and Allan 1994, p. 6).
I contend that in the case of Arab-American Muslims, this construct is multi- faceted and multi-layered for various reasons, and it can best be conceptualized as a ‘self-defining’ construct. The self-definition of an Arab-American Muslim as an ‘Arab’ and ‘American’ and ‘Muslim’ is crucial for their identity formation and development. In the absence of this, no matter how others define it, their role in the ‘community’ of ‘Arab-American Muslims’ will be limited. I am interested in philanthropic practices of this group of people, and hence arguing that how people themselves define their reality is critical to understanding how they behave, following a social constructivist approach (Berger and Luckmann 1967). They also remind us that to be a part of a society or ‘community’ is to participate in its dialectic process.
This is not to say that the idea of ‘community’ has not been criticized. Scholars such as Stacey (1969) have given up on the notion of community as a ‘non-concept’ and instead sought to explore local social systems. Stacey suggests that it is networks that are of more importance, networks that offer meaning to one’s life, rather than any abstract notion of ‘community.’ This may well be worth keeping in mind, since diaspora groups, ethnic groups that are too far away from their home ‘community,’ may actually behave in ways that are similar to that of Stacey’s conceptualization (Ionescu 2006). But no matter how one conceptualizes ‘commu- nity’ and whether one believes it or not, there is no denying that groups of people and networks do operate on ‘common good’ problems in the public sphere—and this phenomenon is worth investigating.
Finally, we must note that ethnicity and religion—i.e., Islam, in particular— have been conflated in the case of Arabs. While the majority of Arabs in the U.S. are Christian, owing to earlier migration from the Levant, there is a mis- perception of the number of Arab Americans in the U.S., and this has led to varying degrees of hysteria as well as Islamophobia (Haddad and Harb 2014). Similarly, Ghaffar-Kucher reminds us that there is a ‘religification of identity’ among certain segments of Americans, and she uses the example of Pakistani American youth to illustrate this point. By ‘religification,’ she means that religion is becoming the primary marker of one’s identity, both by mainstream American society, as well as by the groups themselves. She tells us that these youth imagine themselves as part of the ‘Muslim community,’ even though this group is increasingly ostracized by the mainstream. ‘‘It softens their ‘outsider’ identity by giving them a place where they belong even within an inhospitable environment.’’ (p. 18). She has argued in her work that religious identity trumps other forms of identification such as race and ethnicity, and this hypothesis could possibly be true, given claims made by other scholars such as Yvonne Haddad and Nazir Harb (2014).
Voluntas
123
Author’s personal copy
Mechanisms Driving Giving Behavior
Robert Wuthnow (1991) has argued that religious giving is motivated by ‘conviction’ and ‘community,’ similarly Schervish and Havens (1998), Havens and Schervish (2007) has called for looking at philanthropy through a ‘moral biography’ lens, and he is famous for his ‘identification’ theory of philanthropy, that claims that ‘identification is the mother of all philanthropy.’ Of the five factors that he mentions as being responsible for why people give, Communities of participation, frameworks of consciousness, models form youth, requests to give and discretionary resources communities of participation seems most relevant to our discussion here. ‘Community of participation’ ranks as the most critical one. Schervish argues that philanthropy occurs because people feel obliged, in many cases to give, as an ‘obligation.’ Schervish has further argued that the problem of our times is not a shortage of wealth, but rather one of managing the surplus—at least in the industrialized West—and this will lead to questions of ‘meaning’ and related substantive aspects of philanthropy. Rather than asking how wealth can be created, Schervish has argued that many millions of people will be on the lookout for ‘ideal’ ways to spend, so as to create meaning for their lives.
While these scholars have explained how identity shapes philanthropy, their models and theories assume identity to be a static, unchanging construct. I seek to challenge this notion of identity and argue that in a crisis situation, the very idea of identity can undergo a shift and there can be a radical rethinking of how people think of what their ‘community’ is. This perspective and insights can offer us new ways of looking at identity and philanthropy and question the many taken for granted assumptions of philanthropy and identity.
Similarly, in trying to draw out the motivation of giving among different faith- based groups in Netherlands, Carabain and Bekkers (2011) have argued in their paper Explaining Philanthropic behavior among Hindus, Muslims and Christians in Netherlands that among Muslims, ‘faith is built through community and community is built through faith.’(p. 4). Further, they argue that Muslims in Netherlands exhibit more religious philanthropic behavior than Hindus. Bekkers and Carabain point to work by earlier scholars such as Wuthnow (1991) who has shown that religious giving is motivated by ‘conviction’ and ‘community.’
Bekkers and Weipking have similarly outlined eight factors that drive philanthropy. Their claim is based on research and literature review of over 500 articles, all based on empirical research. They suggest that the eight factors are Needs, Solicitation, Costs and benefits, Altruism, Benefits, Reputation, Values, and Efficacy (Fig. 1).
The diagram above illustrates the relationship between the variables involved, as existing literature characterizes it. While the existing literature argues that philanthropy is a social relation and that giving occurs to one’s ‘community,’ however, that is defined, my preliminary research has led me to the tentative conclusion that giving can form ‘communities.
Toward a New Theory of Ethnic Philanthropy?
Schervish’s identification theory posits that communities of participation can motivate people to give. This has been accepted as the standard, conventional
Voluntas
123
Author’s personal copy
wisdom and for good reason. But, in our global, connected world, where identity, ‘community’ is fluid and there is a greater awareness of need, on a global scale; I ask: can giving form ‘community’? Can philanthropy inverse the relation that we have taken for granted? (Fig. 2).
The hypothesis that I have proposed is that ‘giving can form communities.’ While the interviews I have conducted seem to reinforce this hypothesis, there needs to be further research to validate my findings. Schervish’s model of ‘‘identification theory’’ assumes that ‘community’ remains static. My argument pushes the boundaries of this theory and suggests that community is evolving and changing, as a result of various factors—technological, sociological, as well as personal. The theoretical concept of ‘fluid and situational philanthropy’ can be helpful in thinking about philanthropy among Arab Americans. My initial findings through Grounded Theory approach have also led me to conceptualize the idea of ‘communities of conscience,’ i.e., groups or networks of individuals who come together to solve problems, often through existing organizational structures, as the interviewees
Giving
Community
Ethnicity
Crisis
Fig. 1 Giving and its relation with ‘Community’
1. Identification theory : Community Giving
OR
2. My proposition : Giving Community
Fig. 2 Community leads to giving or can Giving form communities?
Voluntas
123
Author’s personal copy
suggested. These, I argue are the beginnings of a possible theory of community formation through philanthropic giving.
Scope and Methodology
The sample chosen here is a theoretical sample, chosen to help develop a theory of giving among ethnic NGOs. There are a growing number of Arab-American-run NGOs in the U.S., though there is no known database or exact number of such organizations.
I chose NGOs that are active in the Washington D.C. area to represent Arab- American giving in a large metropolitan area and those in rural communities like Blacksburg, VA and Syracuse, VA that have a smaller (largely student) population. Many of the NGOs in the sample are spread throughout the U.S., representing the diversity of the Arab-American population and its vast geographic spread, across the country. As this is a study based on Grounded Theory methods, theoretical sampling is used, which means that I am not seeking representation but rather understanding and theoretical saturation of concepts.
Data Collection Methods
As this research has largely focused on qualitative data, the following is a brief description of the methods used in conceptualizing this study and implementing it. To gather data and start putting the ‘pieces together’ I conducted semi-structured interviews with 10 leaders of Arab-American NGOs.’ The purpose of these interviews was to get the respondent’s perspective on the motivations for why donors give money, the key issues that attract the most donations, and the framing of issues in their marketing activities.
The sample for the interviews consisted local NGOs as well as two trans-national NGOs and I followed a ‘theoretical sampling’ methodology. As Charmaz suggests ‘‘Theoretical sampling is done by sampling to develop the properties of your categories until no new properties emerge.’’ (Charmaz 2014, p. 193). Given my previous professional association with NGOs in the Washington D.C. area, it was quite convenient for me to connect with Arab-American-led organizations that catered to and had donors who were (predominantly) from the Arab world (and were Muslim). The most well-known ones were selected and a letter to request participation was sent (after IRB approvals of protocol, consent form, and letters, etc.). A set of questions was prepared in advance of the semi-structured interview and shared with the participants. Some of the questions were along the lines of a) What are the key issues your organization focuses on (and raises funds for)? b) What do you think the key priority areas for your donors are? c) What are your learnings in the field of fundraising for short-term emergency funds vs. long-term development needs? d) How do you frame the issues, and causes that you raise money for? e) Which issues receive the most support, and why? While these were ‘guiding questions’ I did improvise on the questions, as the interviews went by and I sought more clarity on the emerging concepts that became important for my study.
Voluntas
123
Author’s personal copy
All interviews were recorded and transcribed and later coded to identify common themes, with close coding. What emerges is a picture of discourses surrounding giving in some of the Arab-American NGOs and a ‘mid-range’ theory of how ethnic-based NGOs in the U.S. are impacting and being impacted by philanthropy.
Data Analysis: Grounded Theory methods
Given that my research primarily consisted of semi-structured interviews, they were of sufficient depth. Also, given my participation in the local community activities— in both fundraising as well as a donor gave me perspectives that would not have otherwise been available to others. As Charmaz suggests, the number of interviews needed to reach ‘saturation’ depends on the depth of information gathered as well as the analytical clarity that we seek to have (Charmaz 2014). In the case of the present study, I was able to reach this with about ten interviews, though I did conduct a few more (a total of 15) but the remaining data were not analyzed, as it did not address the ‘emergent’ categories that came from these ten interviews.
Charmaz suggests two levels of coding: initial coding to analyze data for its analytic import and then focused coding for better and precise analytical conceptualizing that could bring together the most frequent codes to sort, synthesize, and organize large amounts of data, that could lead to a ‘mid-range’ theory of what is going on, in the process under study or among participants (p. 113). The coding process proceeds by comparing data by data and asking questions of it, to make sense of what the data are saying and what all of this means. I used the sensitizing concept of ‘social capital’ to spur my analysis and thinking about the codes and data, in general.
This followed looking for relationships between the categories that emerged during the focused coding stage.
Findings and Discussion: Formation of ‘Communities of Conscience’ Through ‘Fluid and Situational Philanthropy’
From analysis of the interviews and related material, there are two key emergent concepts that could help us formulate a ‘mid-range’ theory of giving among ethnic- based NGOs. The first of these is the notion of ‘Fluid and situational philanthropy.’ This idea or code emerged more than a few times, in my interviews with ISNRV, ACCESS, Islamic Relief, and others. They all suggested that their donors, while predictable for the most part—do have surprising behavior at times—especially, when certain situations of identity or ‘social capital’ come up. For instance, during the fundraising efforts for the Arab-American Museum in Dearborn, MI; the central idea that was used to pitch this toward the Arab community in the Michigan and broader area was of providing a ‘voice’ to the Arabs in the U.S. This story worked well with the donors, pointed out Maha Freij, the Deputy Executive Director of ACCESS. She said that given the negative stereotyping of Arabs in the media as well as lack of awareness of how many Arabs there are in the U.S. and how many of them are Christians and how many are Muslims, there is a lot of conflation of ethnicity and religion. She seemed to suggest that most Americans are not nuanced about these
Voluntas
123
Author’s personal copy
issues, and it is the job of organizations such as ACCESS to address these gaps. ‘‘We consciously try to stay away from positioning ourselves along any religious lines, as our work is secular and we cater to people of all races, religions and ethnicities.’’ Indeed, during my visit to ACCESS in Summer 2013, I noticed a large number of Hispanic and African Americans who were present at the health clinic of ACCESS. This center serves as the nucleus of programming for ACCESS, with job counseling, health clinic, and other basic services provided to those who need it.
The idea of ‘telling the Arab story’ in America seems to be a dominant motif among the donors to ACCESS. This followed the perception that being civically engaged is the key for Arab Americans, nationally.
I did look for variation in the philanthropic motives among donors of these organizations and did find substantial variation. But the variation or negative proof of the theory hypothesized did not amount to substantial variation. For instance, those who stopped being donors of the organization in question did so either because a) they moved geographically from the location or b) they did not relate to the needs of the organization anymore or c) they did not benefit from the organization’s services (Fig. 3).
ACCESS—A Paradigmatic Case of a ‘Community of Conscience’?
One interesting example of ethnic mobilization that goes beyond religious lines is that of ACCESS, based in Michigan, with Maha Freij as its Deputy Executive
Educa!ng community about philanthropy
American Muslim excep!onalism
Emo!onal giving
Crea!ng Communi!es of conscience
Fluid and Situa!onal Giving
Telling their story
Ecumenical approach
Belief in civic engagement
Fig. 3 Theory of giving during crisis situations, based on my GT analysis
Voluntas
123
Author’s personal copy
Director and CFO. ACCESS is an umbrella organization which has the Arab- American national museum, Center for Arab-American Philanthropy and the National Network of Arab-American Communities as its constituent parts (ACCESS Web 2014). ACCESS may be considered a community foundation, with assets of over $55 million. It works primarily with Arab Americans in the state and across the country. During the interview, she pointed out the dynamics of how the donors of ACCESS prioritize giving. She pointed out that ‘‘The longer the Arab- Americans have been here, the more they support local causes. If I am dealing with a 6th generation Arab, they support causes that affect America and their local community though they may do something on and off internationally, from a humanitarian perspective. They are progressive enough. For example, if there is an earthquake in Japan, they will support it. But, with the recent immigrants, we get support for international and religious causes more. This is understandable as they come from countries where they are not required to build institutions, and it is the prerogative of the state. So, many of our donors don’t know that they should support [local] civil society.’’ This reflects some of the tensions and understandings of philanthropy among Arab Americans in the U.S.
Aisha, a youth volunteer with Muslims with Borders pointed out that her organization believes in doing development work, without a ‘political’ or ‘religious’ agenda. This comment, coming from a young, socially committed Muslim, using the language of development and not religion is indicative of some of the discourses about aid and development among American Muslim NGOs. Coming from another perspective were insights from Imam Hendi of Georgetown University who added ‘‘People give because they know the chaplain or the University, and also been positively impacted by the program. The campus or Imam supported them, things like that. Because it impacted their upbringing, they feel they should help their community. Some feel that they should help Muslim causes. At the end of the day, I am a Muslim and I want to help a cause and what is better than helping a Muslim cause.’’ This identification model that he proposed, as a theory to explain conforms closely with what Paul Schervish has proposed, his identification model (1998), where identification with the donor’s community may be a key factor in determining contributions.
I hypothesize that as a major humanitarian disaster or crisis strikes, there is a greater awareness of need and a consequent drive to generate support for the cause—both financial and material—resulting in enhanced fundraising efforts. Bekkers and Weipking (2011) have argued for this ‘awareness of need’ to be a critical component of the success of a philanthropic effort. With greater awareness of need, through media campaigns, online and social media outreach, a greater number of people are being mobilized for activism and fundraising. Among the organizations studied here, there seems to be a growing sense of ‘correcting the narrative’ of Arabs in the U.S., and hence any story or initiative that furthers a positive image of Arabs and Arab Americans is supported. This fact was mentioned by both the representatives of Islamic Relief, ACCESS and ISNRV among others.
As I have theorized, this is the moment when there could be a move from ethnocentrism to ethnorelativism that would correspond to a move from having a very narrow definition of one’s own ‘community’ to a much broader and expanded
Voluntas
123
Author’s personal copy
version. A very ‘identity-based’ philanthropic model gives way to a more pragmatic ‘fluid-situational philanthropy,’ that I have posited, based on the data and interviews. Communities of singular identity can and often do become ‘Commu- nities of conscience.’ To use an example from mainstream American society, this phenomenon was evident in the case of attacks of September 11, 2001—when there was a mass outpouring of sympathy and support for victims of these attacks. These patterns seem to have occurred in the case of many of the organizations under investigation in this study. CAIR, ACCESS both went through a phase of intense soul-searching and internal dialog, immediately following the attacks of 911. While there are some differences between the way these organizations reacted to the negative backlash, all of them seem to have realized the need for an inclusive language and strategy towards their donors and potential donors are both deploying the language of pluralism in their communications. This was evident during the interviews as well as is plainly visible in their marketing material.
While the leaders of ACCESS talked about giving a ‘voice to the Arabs’ in the American public sphere, CAIR seeks to ‘capitalize on the diversity in America and promote pluralism.’ This, I argue can be seen as an example where philanthropy formed a ‘community’ of donors, who came together to address problems of the common good, that faced a local community.
Theoretical Import of What the Data are Telling Us
My search for an explanation of ‘what is going on,’ in the case of these ten organizations led me to follow initial coding of the phenomenon and processes of giving. While this involved coding the transcripts of the interviews, it also involved looking at the annual reports and revenue figures of some of the organizations. While this was possible for some organizations, it was not for others—especially those that did not have publicly available annual reports.
The relationships between the secondary level coding—or the focused coding is what led me to start the process of theorizing. While I subsumed categories to form slightly more abstract theoretical concepts such as ‘Creating greater civic engage- ment’ and ‘Telling the story,’ some of these were ‘invivo codes,’ as the interviewees themselves used these categories to describe what was going on. I followed closely the memos that I had written during this phase of my research to look for emergent concepts and theoretical ideas that I could use, to construct an emergent theory.
A further step in reaching abstraction was to create ‘theory,’ which can be defined as ‘defining the relationship between abstract concepts and may aim for either explanation or understanding. The explanatory theory that I offer, which suggests that philanthropy among these organizations is ‘fluid and situational’ and is often linked to or rather leads to ‘creating communities of conscience,’ is based on a pragmatic understanding and interpretation of the dynamics in which Arab Americans find themselves. This form of giving is informed by both the political as well as social conditions that Arab Americans find themselves.
Comparing the data available about these emergent categories leads us to put things in perspective. The theory seems ‘valid’ from the perspective of the organizations (validity can be checked with member-checking), since Arab Americans are facing a
Voluntas
123
Author’s personal copy
‘hostile’ environment in the U.S. since 1979. Despite constitutional protections in the U.S. and the First Amendment protections available to all Americans, there is a growing awareness among scholars that there is a growing trend of Xenophobia in the U.S. against minorities, especially those of Arab world. The attacks of 911 just made it worse, as Nazir Harb and Yvonne Haddad have argued (2014).
Conclusion
I have argued for a view of ethnic philanthropy that takes us beyond the ‘melting pot2’ hypothesis in America. I have suggested above that philanthropy can actually form ‘communities,’ and have proposed a concept of ‘fluid-situational philanthropy,’ as an analytical category to theorize about the philanthropy occurring in organiza- tions such as Dearborn-based ACCESS and others, studied here. Similar patterns of giving is found in organizations such as Islamic Relief, which attracts donors who are not only Muslims but also non-Muslims and atheists, thus challenging our understanding of who gives to these organizations and their motivations.
Further, I have offered a tentative hypothesis that ethnicity, ‘community’ and other markers of identity vary in their importance, when it comes to giving behavior, in times of crisis; philanthropy can actually form ‘communities of conscience,’ across various boundaries to address concerns that are common to all Americans.
As Bekkers and Wiepking (2011) remind us, one must be careful before proposing any model of philanthropic giving, as there are several factors that go into what motivates giving. They say ‘‘Philanthropic acts are commonly the result of multiple mechanisms working at once. However, formal models of philanthropy have focused on only one or sometimes two motives. More than 10 years ago, Brown (1997, p. 183) described the state of affairs with regard to theory as follows: ‘‘No single model captures all the motivations that underlie charitable action.’’ Although it is probably impossible to capture all mechanisms in one elegant formal model, Brown’s assessment still holds and provides a challenge for model builders.’’ (p. 945). Bekkers and Wiepking have called for greater critical examination of any model proposed and for cross-examining hypothesis that are part of any model. I have tried to do the same in this model, by comparing existing literature with an existing model of identity formation and proposing a possible model of philanthropy, grounded in data. While their approach has been positivistic, my approach is grounded in a pragmatic orientation, drawing from Constuctivist Grounded Theory paradigms.
As Frumkin (2006) argues, ‘‘giving back to one’s ‘community’ can be a powerful motive and that it can be linked to dreams and realizations about what institutions and forms of assistance might have been helpful along life’s way, rather than on what help was actually received by the donor.’’ (p. 366). With the ethnic and religious communities studied in this paper, there is definitely an element of this
2 Melting pot thesis argues that as immigrants assimilate in America, their primary identity ‘melts’ into the potpourri that is America. Many Sociologists and policy makers such as Nathan Glazer and Daniel Patrick Moynihan argued against it and said that ethnicity is still the key marker of identity for most Americans. For a more detailed treatment of this, see American Mythos, Wuthnow (2008).
Voluntas
123
Author’s personal copy
form of ‘giving back’ to the community, where one comes from, no matter how one defines it—either religiously or in terms of ethnicity. Following this, I would also argue that giving to religious institutions or religiously motivated giving can be what Havens and Schervish (2010) has called ‘religious discernment,’ referring to a more motivated, personally meaningful, and financially magnanimous and cultur- ally formative philanthropy; which in other words could be considered ‘expressive philanthropy,’ while ethnic giving could be considered ‘instrumental philanthropy’. While there are elements of both in religious and ethnic giving, the interview data show that there is a greater instrumental reasoning in ethnic giving.
The plurality of giving within the Arab-American communities is manifest in the data shown in this paper. This plurality of giving is manifested not only in the projects to which people give, but also in the choices that donors make. These choices are, as I argue, becoming more and more directed by the needs of the community for assimilation, better infrastructure in the form of schools, institutions for grooming and political advocacy—such as the Arab-American Institute, etc—or in social service programs for the poor. There is also an increasing awareness of the political rights and opportunities to participate in more public issues, among the communities examined. While Peter Weber argues, using his case study of a German cultural organization in Indianapolis, operating during WWI that it survived the battle for survival, but lost the battle for pluralism—given the hysteria around ‘Germans taking over America.’ (Weber 2014). Weber suggests that similar hysteria surrounds Arab-American and Muslim organizations in the U.S., and this phenomenon has had a deleterious impact on the philanthropy of these organizations as well as their ambitions of promoting and contributing to pluralism in America.
My research suggests that apart from bringing disparate people together—across ethnic, religious, and racial lines—crisis situations have helped build new ‘commu- nities of conscience.’ Two examples of this sort of philanthropy follow: (1) The past president of the ISNRV in Blacksburg mentioned that the local community of Muslims (majority of them being Arab donors) contributed to the rebuilding of a local community member’s home—after it was burnt down, accidentally by fire. Even though the person impacted was a non-Muslim, the community members decided that she was deserving of help and they sought her out, to help her with money. (2) The fundraising director of Islamic Relief suggested that many of their donors are in fact non-practicing Muslims. While this may sound counter-intuitive, he suggested that this could be because they see practicing in philanthropy as a way of being connected with the issues and concerns of the broader Muslim world, given that Islamic relief operates in the most disadvantaged parts of the world.
My findings also challenge the notion of ‘assimilation’ of immigrant commu- nities. While some communities do assimilate and their philanthropy is grounded more in a non-identity-based framework, the organizations studied in this sample seem to have created communities through their giving. This complicates our understanding of philanthropy and as I suggest, this can be a new way of theorizing about philanthropy among ethnic groups in the U.S. The data offered in this paper are a preliminary beginning to what can be a more thorough investigation.
Voluntas
123
Author’s personal copy
References
ACCESS. (2014). Website at www.accesscommunity.org. Bellah, R., et al. (1985). Habits of the heart: individualism and commitment in american life. New York:
Harper and Row Publishers. Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of
knowledge (Anchor (books ed.). Garden City: Doubleday. Bhabha, H. (1989). Location, intervention, incommensurability: A conversation with Homi Bhabha.
Emergences (Fall 1989), 1, 63–88. Brikenhoff, J. (Ed.). (2008). Diasporas and Development: Exploring the Potential. Washington, D. C.:
Lynne. Brown, R. (1997). Social psychology. New York: Free Press. Carabain, C. L., & Bekkers, R. (2011). Religious and secular volunteering: A comparison between
immigrants and non-immigrants in the Netherlands. Voluntary Sector Review, 2(1), 23–41. Charmaz, K. (2014) Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis.
Thousand Oaks: Sage publications. Clark, J. A. (2004). Ccharity, and activism: Middle-class networks and social welfare in Egypt, Jordan,
and Yemen. Indiana: Indiana University Press. Crow, G. & Allan, G. (1994). Community Life. An introduction to local social relations, Hemel
Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf. 229?xxv. Etzioni, A. (1995). The spirit of community. Rights responsibilities and the communitarian agenda,
London: Fontana Press. 323?xii pages Frazer, E. (1999). The Problem of Communitarian Politics. Unity and conflict. Oxford: Oxford University
Press. Frumkin, (2006). Strategic giving: The art and science of philanthropy. Chicago: Uni of Chicago Press. Giving USA 2013. Lilly Family School of Philanthropy and Giving USA Foundation. Philadelphia,
Indianapolis. Haddad, Y., & Harb, N. (2014). Post 9/11, Making Islam an American Religion. MDPI Havens, J., & Schervish, P. (2007). Geography and giving: The culture of philanthropy in New England
and the nation. Boston, MA: Boston Foundation. Havens, J., & Schervish, P. (2010, Jan/Feb). Center on wealth and philanthropy giving model: Forecast
for 2009. In Advancing Philanthropy Magazine. Ibrahim, B. L., & Sherif, D. H. (Eds.). (2008). From charity to social change: Trends in Arab
philanthropy. American Univ in Cairo Press. Ionescu, D. (2006). Engaging Diasporas as development partners for home and destination countries:
challenges for policymakers (pp. 85). International Organization for Migration. Esposito, John. (2011). Islamophobia. New York: Oxford University Press.
Jamal, A. (2005). The political participation and engagement of muslim americans mosque involvement and group consciousness. American Politics Research, 33(4), 521–544.
Najam, A. (2006). Portrait of a giving community: Philanthropy by the Pakistani-American diaspora. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Putnam, R. (2002). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of american community. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Russell Sage Foundation. (2009). Citizenship and crisis in detroit. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Schervish, P. (2008). Receiving and giving as spiritual exercise. IUPUI: Lake Institute of Faith and
Giving. Schervish, P. G., & Havens, J. J. (1998, May). The Not-For-Profit CEO Monthly Newsletter 5, No. 7,
pp. 1–3. Schervish, P., & Ostrander, S. (1990). Giving and Getting: Philanthropy as a Social Relation. Schnabel, A. (2013). Religion and Giving for International Assistance. Sociology of Religion. Siddiqui, S (2014). Navigating identity through charity: A history of the Islamic Society of North America
(1979–2008). IUPUI. Sievers, B. (2010). Civil society, philanthropy and the fate of the commons. Medford: Tufts University
Press. Stacey, M. (1969). Methods of social research. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Weber, M. (1930). Protestant ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. London and New York: Routledge Press.
Voluntas
123
Author’s personal copy
Weber, P. (2014). Ethnic Identity during War: the Case of Germans. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly.
Wiepking, P., & Bekkers, R. (2011). (a, b) Who gives? A literature review of predictors of charitable giving. Part Two: Gender, family composition and income. Voluntary Sector Review, 3(2), 217–245.
Wineburg, R. (2007). Faith-based Inefficiency: The Follies of Bush Initiatives. Westport Co: Praeger. Wuthnow, R. (1991). Acts of compassion caring for others and helping ourselves. Princeton: Princeton
University Press. Wuthnow, R. (2004). Saving America? Faith-based services and the future of civil society. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Voluntas
123
Author’s personal copy
- New Styles of Community Building and Philanthropy by Arab-American Muslims
- Abstract
- Résumé
- Zusammenfassung
- Resumen
- Introduction
- Aims of the Study
- Literature Review
- Different Notions of ‘Community’ and Social Capital Among Arab Americans
- Mechanisms Driving Giving Behavior
- Toward a New Theory of Ethnic Philanthropy?
- Scope and Methodology
- Data Collection Methods
- Data Analysis: Grounded Theory methods
- Findings and Discussion: Formation of ‘Communities of Conscience’ Through ‘Fluid and Situational Philanthropy’
- ACCESS—A Paradigmatic Case of a ‘Community of Conscience’?
- Theoretical Import of What the Data are Telling Us
- Conclusion
- References
