Philanthropy is not just generous checks at press conferences or plaques at the entrance to museums. It’s a way to influence, unite, raise questions, and sometimes even change the rules of the game. But depending on context, country, and social stratum, the very notion of “philanthropy” looks different. So is it a concern, a strategy, a reputation, or the new face of solidarity?
When Fame Becomes a Resource
Celebrity philanthropy is one of the most visible phenomena of the last decade. Artists, athletes, and Influencers are turning their names into political and social tools. It’s no longer just about donations; it’s about mobilizing attention. A foundation, campaign, or protest looks more convincing when someone recognizable joins it.
Some researchers have called this “selanthropy,” a fusion of celebrity and philanthropy. At a time when governments are reducing their involvement in the social sphere, celebrity philanthropy often plugs the holes that used to be patched by government budgets. But that doesn’t negate the questions: who sets the priorities? And can we seriously consider philanthropy a substitute for systemic solutions?
Money From the Homeland
Another rapidly developing form of philanthropy from the diaspora involves not only money transfers to relatives but also foundations, initiatives, and social businesses, as well as supporting humanitarian missions and rebuilding schools or hospitals in the home country.
What makes diaspora philanthropy different?
- It is based on knowledge of the cultural context;
- Donors are migrants themselves or their descendants;
- These projects are willing to work with sensitive topics;
- They are often more sustainable over time than international NPOs.
A deep personal connection with the homeland allows them to do what external structures often cannot do.
Less Control, More Trust
One of the notable shifts in modern philanthropy is the move from the traditional “donor knows best” model to one that prioritizes trust. Trust-based philanthropy offers a simple but radical idea: those who work directly in communities and with problems understand needs better than outside funders or administrators.
Instead of rigidly targeted grants and endless reports, organizations receive flexible funding that can be used as they see fit. Emphasis is placed on sustainable relationships and strategic development rather than quantitative measures. This allows NPOs not just to survive from grant to grant, but to build long-term programs, invest in their teams, and increase efficiency and sustainability.
This is especially important for marginalized communities, which in the traditional funding model often face mistrust and inflated reporting expectations. This is true for organizations working in poverty as well as those promoting unpopular or “uncomfortable” topics such as migrant rights, sexual and reproductive health, racial equality, or decriminalization of drug policies.
Voice of the Community
African American philanthropy is an example of how philanthropy can be a tool for political subjectivity and collective self-organization. Rather than filling gaps left by the state, it builds a parallel infrastructure of care, leadership, and support embedded in the community itself.
This approach goes beyond emergency assistance. It includes systemic investments in education, mental health, entrepreneurship, digital literacy, and cultural identity. Many of these foundations focus on “invisible” areas like taboo topics of mental health among black men or supporting girls in STEM fields. These are initiatives that don’t just improve performance, but change conditions, shape the next generation of leaders, and broaden perceptions of who has a voice.
Characteristically, such foundations are often organized and managed by representatives of the communities themselves. This avoids a paternalistic approach and creates mechanisms that truly take into account cultural context, traumatic experiences, and unique barriers to well-being.
Philanthropy in this format becomes not just a response to crises, but a platform for strategic change. It is a pathway to rebuilding trust, strengthening self-determination, and empowering citizenship. And it is through this that it becomes a powerful and autonomous voice for the community, rather than an extension of external control.
A Question With Many Answers
Philanthropy can take corporate, individual, institutional, anarchic, formal, or emotional forms. It can be loud or invisible, local or transnational. But it’s not the format that matters, it’s the action. What does it change? Who gets a voice? What issues remain at the center of attention?
So when we ask, “What is philanthropy for you?” we are essentially asking, “What do you want society to be like?”