Advertisement

The Future Is Monstrous?

  • Diana Leat
Chapter
  • 281 Downloads

Abstract

Jacques Derrida (1995) argues that a future that is not monstrous would not be a future but a predictable tomorrow; all real innovations have something scary or ‘monstrous’ about them. Futurology is a dangerous business for various reasons. This final chapter claims to do no more than highlight some issues foundations may face in the coming decades.

Keywords

Public Benefit Rockefeller Foundation Democratic Legitimacy Real Innovation Paternal Institution 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Anheier, H.K., and D. Leat. 2002. From charity to creativity: Philanthropic foundations in the 21st century. London: COMEDIA in association with the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust.Google Scholar
  2. Ball, S.J. 2008. New philanthropy, new networks, and new governance in education. Political Studies 56(4): 747–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beck, U., W. Bonss, and C. Lau. 2003. The theory of reflexive modernization: Problematic, hypotheses and research programme. Theory, Culture and Society 20(2): 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brest, P. 2012. A decade of outcome-oriented philanthropy. Stanford Social Innovation Review 10: 2. http://www.ssireview.org/pdf/Spring_2012_A_Decade_of_Outcome-Oriented_Philanthropy.pdf.Google Scholar
  5. Brilliant, E. 2000. Private charity and public inquiry: A history of the Filer and Peterson commissions. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Buchanan, P. 2014. Beyond formulas and easy answers. Alliance 19(1): 59–60.Google Scholar
  7. Derrida, J. 1995. Points-interviews 1974–1994. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Fosdick, R. 1958. Chronicle of a generation. New York: Harper and Bros.Google Scholar
  9. Frumkin, P. 1999. Private foundations as public institutions. In Philanthropic foundations: New scholarship, new possibilities, ed. E.C. Lagemann, 69–99. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Jessop, B. 1998. The rise of governance and the risks of failure: The case of economic development. International Social Science Journal 50(155): 29–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Karl, B.D. 1999. Going for broke: The historian’s commitment. E.C. Lagemann (ed.) op.cit., pp. 287–295.Google Scholar
  12. Karl, B.D., and A.W. Karl. 1999. Foundations and the government: A tale of conflict and consensus. In Philanthropy and the nonprofit sector in a changing America, ed. C.T. Clotfelter and T. Ehrlich, 52–71. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Kravero, K. 2014. Quoted in achieving social change: What role for grant making? Alliance 19(1): 52.Google Scholar
  14. LaMarche, G. 2009. The ‘public option’ for philanthropy: Foundations and government in the Obama era. http://64.34.162.109/news/news/the_public_option_for_philanthropy_foundations. 14 Sept.
  15. LaMarche, G. 2010. Reclaiming the moral life of philanthropy. http://atlanticphilanthropies.org/learning/speech-recaliming-m
  16. Marinetto, M. 2003. Governing beyond the centre: A critique of the Anglo-governance school. Policy Studies 51(3): 592–608.Google Scholar
  17. Mavity, J.H., and P. Ylvisaker. 1977. Private philanthropy and public affairs. In The commission on private philanthropy and public needs, research papers part 1, vol. 2, 795–836. Washington, DC: Department of Treasury.Google Scholar
  18. Naim, M. 2013. The end of power. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  19. Odendahl, T. 2005. Comments in a panel discussion. The costs of caution: Advocacy, public policy, and America’s foundations, April 21. http://www.cpnl.georgetown.edu
  20. Patrizzi, P., E.H. Thompson, J. Cottmay, and T. Beer. 2013. Eyes wide open: Learning as strategy under conditions of complexity and uncertainty. The Foundation Review 5(3): 7.Google Scholar
  21. Pickering, A. 2015. New opportunities, bigger barriers: How to open space for philanthropy. Alliance 20(3): 38–41.Google Scholar
  22. Reich, R. 2005. A failure of philanthropy. Stanford Social Innovation Review (Winter): 26–30.Google Scholar
  23. Rosenman, M. 2005. Grant makers must focus on government’s role. Chronicle of Philanthropy, March 23.Google Scholar
  24. Schmidt, B. 2015. Time for a new foundation for philanthropy. Alliance 20(2): 52–54.Google Scholar
  25. Skloot, E. 2001. Slot machines, boat-building and the future of philanthropy, inaugural address to the Waldemar A. Nielsen issue in philanthropy series. Washington, DC: Georgetown University, October 5.Google Scholar
  26. Smith, J.A. 2002. Foundations and public policy making: A historical perspective. R-P 11, May, www.usc.edu/philanthropy
  27. Stevens, B.A., and L.D. Brown. 1997. Expertise meets politics: Efforts to work with states. In To improve health care 1997: The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation anthology, ed. S.L. Isaacs and J.R. Knickman. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
  28. Veenhoven, R. 2012. Happiness: Also known as “life satisfaction” and “subjective well-being”. In Handbook of social indicators and quality of life research, ed. K.C. Land, A.C. Michalos, and M.J. Sirgy, 63–77. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ylvisaker, P. 1999. Small can be effective. In Conscience and community: The legacy of Paul Ylvisaker, ed. V. Esposito. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Diana Leat
    • 1
  1. 1.Cass Business SchoolLondonUK

Personalised recommendations