Since 2020, PACE, the philanthropic network where I serve as CEO, has been helping grant makers combat toxic polarization. To inform that work, we talk to a lot of people on the ground, including practitioners, organizers, researchers, and others intimately familiar with the antagonism and extremes that roil our country and threaten progress.
Privately, many tell us philanthropy is part of the problem.
Now grant makers are not the primary drivers of toxic polarization. Nor do they intentionally operate as conflict entrepreneurs. But despite our best intentions, we are human and susceptible to habits and behaviors that stoke and fuel toxic polarization.
What is toxic polarization? It is different from polarization. To be clear: Diverse societies need divergence, debate, and even vehement disagreement — we can’t (and shouldn’t) agree on everything. Polarization is a necessary feature of liberal democracies and a critical ingredient for free markets and civil societies to make hard decisions and address society’s problems.
But toxic polarization, sometimes called affective polarization, is something much more than a difference of opinion. It’s when opposing sides come to see their counterparts as “the enemy” and “evil.” It’s when disagreement slides into dehumanization, creating the conditions for identity- and ideology-based hate and violence.
As this type of polarization grows in America, grant makers are increasingly asking what they can do to bridge divides and build resilience to political violence — this is a good thing. But based on our conversations with practitioners, there may be things philanthropists should stop doing if they want to address polarization.
5 Polarization Accelerators
Righteous attitudes: Foundations and philanthropists often hold strong values deeply rooted in beliefs and principles. They also usually rely on strong empirical analysis. While this combination is not inherently bad, it can instill overconfidence that can prompt leaders to oversimplify solutions and flatten their ideas of their “opponents’’ into caricatures (i.e., “woke snowflake” or “gun-clinging hillbilly”). When speaking on issues, they may take moralistic, finite, and absolutist stances that do not leave room for other good-faith perspectives. Often, despite their best intentions, a lack of proximity to the issues means they can’t see the complexities and nuances under the surface.
How Philanthropy and Nonprofits Contribute to Polarization
When those who control funding hold themselves up as the bearers or deciders of virtue, it reinforces the idea of a “right way and a wrong way” to solve problems, which can dismiss reasonable and principled differences of opinion. Those with different views can be seen as “bad faith actors” or “enemies” standing in the way of progress, fueling animosity and resentment between groups.
Zero-sum thinking: Philanthropy can perpetuate all-or-nothing mind-sets that risk insinuating that for one community to “win,” another must lose. Intentionally or not, we can imply binary choices — for example, that for women to do better, men must do worse. To support rural communities, urban centers must give something up.
Certainly sometimes resources, power, and access need to be shifted, shared, or distributed in ways that can feel like “loss” for some people or groups. But to be pro something doesn’t mean you are anti another thing, and philanthropists can do more to make that explicit — in words and actions. As Wendy Feliz, managing director of the democracy program at the Arthur M. Blank Family Foundation, notes: “When we believe there are only winners and losers in society, it becomes easy to feel that those who work on the other side of an issue are our enemies.” This “default” way of thinking can cut off discussion rather than encourage working through disagreements. When we don’t understand where “the other side” is coming from, it becomes easier to demonize them and ascribe mal-intent.
Prioritization of ends over means: Political playbooks often call for a “win by any means necessary” strategy. When philanthropy feels so strongly about the moral, human, economic imperatives of our missions, we can fall into the same trap. Practitioners told us a “success by any means” funding mandate gives tacit permission to demonize their opponents, drive large wedges around issues, and perhaps even perpetuate violent behaviors or narratives.
Take, for example, some immigration policy work. Well-intentioned efforts likely led some to paint immigration skeptics as racist and xenophobic, fueling resentment and anti-immigrant sentiment across society. In turn, this created larger cleavages between people who might have found common cause on some aspects of immigration policy, even if not comprehensive immigration reform.
To paraphrase organizational psychologist Adam Grant: “Many people believe the end justifies whatever means are necessary. But means are a measure of character. If we succeed, it is not only about whether we’re proud of what we’ve achieved but whether we’re proud of how we’ve achieved it.” If philanthropists are not careful, short-term “wins” can run counter to their long-term mission and visions.
Group think, rigidity, and purity tests: Practitioners told us their philanthropic backers operate in silos, relying too much on the analyses and approaches of their grant-making peers. They don’t naturally hear perspectives divergent from their own. Because of the inherent power dynamics of philanthropy, grantees often cannot challenge beliefs, even if their evidence and on-the-ground experience runs counter to funders’ analysis. This “group think” risks perpetuating a dynamic in which anyone who does not share an analysis is “on the other side” and “working against them” — again, a tenet of toxic polarization.
Building trust is about relationships. Relationships take time. Time is something that is rarely funded.
Eric Ward, Race Forward
Practitioners also told us of litmus tests and ideological purity. We heard story after story of nonprofits saying if they get funding from a right-leaning grant maker, they can’t even get a meeting with progressive foundations because “they don’t want to be perceived as legitimizing their work” (and vice versa).
Relationships as tactics: The most common refrain we heard from practitioners was: “Our donors only support relationships as a tactic; they don’t see them as valuable unto themselves. We need to build relationships — especially across difference — before we need them.” In other words, funding relationships as “inputs” or “tactics” can turn people into instruments and devalue their inherent dignity and worth.
Nonprofits repeatedly said they are called upon by their donors in political and social flashpoint moments to appeal to common values, turn down the temperature, restore order, and pull people back from extreme behaviors. But you can’t do that unless you have strong, trusted relationships established with “the other side” already. As Eric Ward of Race Forward poignantly puts it, “Building trust is about relationships. Relationships take time. Time is something that is rarely funded.”
None of this is to say philanthropy shouldn’t take bold stances, draw bright lines, and hold true to values, principles, and theories of change. As I said before, polarization is natural; it can be a strategic tool. But forcing “sides” can fuel division when there might otherwise be mutuality and common ground. Often the beliefs of our “others” are not as extreme as we perceive, and most people believe we have a shared responsibility to engage across differences.
Funding With a Social Cohesion Mind-Set
To help philanthropists address polarization thoughtfully and purposefully, PACE has developed resources for what we call social cohesion philanthropy. This approach aims to maximize relationships in service of problem-solving and shared purpose, and it features these principles:
- Avoid either/or, zero-sum, and “one right way” thinking.
- Consider unintended consequences and who is being left out.
- Evaluate impact, not just intent.
- Interrogate unconscious assumptions about other people and groups.
Several of these principles are aligned with what many racial equity practitioners call us to consider. Social cohesion and social justice do not have to be antithetical to each other, but toxic polarization is definitely antithetical to them both.
Social cohesion philanthropy, accompanied by a “social cohesion mind-set,” mitigates righteous attitudes by encouraging participants to approach differences with curiosity and humility, particularly toward nondominant experiences and perspectives. It also minimizes zero-sum thinking by pointing away from dehumanization and “us versus them” depictions — instead orienting toward “people versus the problem.” A social cohesion approach works toward solutions with both the ends and the means in mind. It seeks to make progress with a collaborative spirit by uplifting multiple perspectives and embracing the possibility that shared goals and values exist among diverse and divergent groups.
A social cohesion approach is not intended to paper over differences or force complete agreement. It doesn’t aim to eliminate criticism or create a “mushy middle.” Rather, it checks our accidental or casual judgments that lead to disparagement and dismissal of those seen as “on the other side” or who fail our purity tests. Instead of being siloed in our resentments and divisions, social cohesion philanthropy asks participants to imagine a society in which common cause and shared concern pull us into relationship with “the other.”
The systems and engines of partisanship and high conflict that divide us are pervasive and well-resourced. A social cohesion mind-set in philanthropy will not mitigate all the damage of toxic polarization, but it can showcase that another way of engaging is possible. At the very least, it can make sure we don’t perpetuate the same divisions we are trying to solve.
The Commons is financed in part with philanthropic support from the Arthur M. Blank Family Foundation, Einhorn Collaborative, and JPB Foundation. None of our supporters have any control over or input into story selection, reporting, or editing, and they do not review articles before publication. See more about the Chronicle, the grants, how our foundation-supported journalism works, and our gift-acceptance policy.
