“Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.” Readers of Orwell’s 1984 may remember that Big Brother banned all disagreement with the Party, and this phrase conveys the terror of absolute oppression and enforced uniformity of thought. But Big Brother suggested a comforting effortlessness implicit in never having to question and engage in the struggle of doubt.
We have an independent sector precisely to welcome the struggle and to continuously question the orthodoxies that seek to envelop us. We reject orthodoxy in part for aesthetic reasons – there is more variety to behold and experience. But more importantly we reject it because it is by confronting conjectures about truth with their refutations that we discover new knowledge and better ways to be together in society.
Readers of The Chronicle of Philanthropy are aware of a vigorous discussion spurred by an opinion piece embracing heterodoxy in philanthropy. The essay united leaders from across the political spectrum to voice their support for “philanthropic pluralism.” The essay and the responses to it should be required reading as they lead us to ask why we have organized philanthropy in the first place. The authors don’t concern themselves directly with the conditions of open inquiry, but in seeking to dampen the clash of contradictory public purposes, they remind us that discovering better knowledge about the world and ourselves is a fundamental if underappreciated value of the independent sector.
The presidents of the Ford, Templeton, and Doris Duke Foundations were joined by the heads of the Council on Foundations, the Philanthropy Roundtable, and Stand Together to express their concern that pluralism in philanthropy was under siege, and to commit themselves to respecting different approaches to donating, while promising to engage their deep-seated disagreements respectfully.