New Years’ Honours – More Celebration and Less Derision

Another year, another trial by public outcry for New Year’s Honours on social media.

Whilst there are very valid criticisms of the system that deserve to be aired, social media is a place rarely fêted for nuanced conversation. How much damage is being done to the reputation of philanthropy if our national recognition for achievement is viewed only through a negative lens?

More importantly, who is it who will suffer most if we continue not to fully recognise philanthropists and those who support them? Certainly not the great and the good who the system is often criticised for venerating.

Sky Sports journalist Jeff Stelling’s TV takedown (below) proved particularly popular on 1st January, receiving over 46K likes, 10.3K retweets and multiple clapping hand emojis for his (not my words) ‘New Years’ rant’.

https://twitter.com/philrandall/status/1477413802471735309

The generously shared clip stating that celebrities, politicians or well-paid people who were simply doing their jobs should not be awarded honours was always going to land well in the Twittersphere.

“Only honour everyday people who’ve done extraordinary things for charity, heroism or terrific community work” he said, and it seemed that many people agreed.

As an intention it sounds principled, but does it stand up fully to interrogation?

What is most notable about Jeff’s well-meant comments is that they encapsulate a widely held view about what constitutes ‘charity’, who should be rewarded and how. They highlight the misconception that charity is something that is only done for free or, at most, on a shoestring. This does nothing to elevate the important work of civil society in our communities and in our democracy.

As an essential professional sector that is a major part of the UK economy and employs around 827,000 people, it deserves more credit than it is currently getting. 

Many of the negative posts about philanthropy in relation to the 2022 New Year’s Honours inevitably focused upon the knighthood given to Conservative donor and billionaire hedge funder David Harding.

This singular view of what a major donor looks like continues to be a lightning rod in arguments about wealth and inequality and fails to recognise the vital role of philanthropy as an enabler for civil society.

Giving, generally, and philanthropy, specifically, create much needed social capital in our society by bringing doers and givers together with a common purpose.

Philanthropy isn’t only the domain of those who have huge fortunes to donate; it is within the realm of everyone who wishes to see positive progress within civil society and who is willing to bring their resources to the task. 

It was therefore particularly heartening to see Dr Beth Breeze and Garfield Weston Director Philippa Charles both receiving well-deserved OBEs this year.

Beth Breeze, Director of the Centre for Philanthropy at the University of Kent has been a trailblazer for philanthropy in the UK, bringing a gravitas and a sense of inquiry to it as a serious subject of study.

Under Philippa’s direction, Garfield Weston’s nimble and extraordinary response to the needs of the pandemic has not only helped communities on the road to recovery but has shone a light on how forward-thinking grant-making can and must be.

^{Dr Beth Breeze (L) and Philippa Charles (R) both received OBEs.}

We know too that when it comes to reputation, language matters. It is interesting to see how social media’s bête noire ‘philanthropy’ – and its evil twin ‘philanthropist’ – continuing to struggle to get airtime in the Honours List. Whilst both words appear a total of only 9 times, other related words feature more often than in the previous year. Certainly encouraging.

However, does this also highlight how ‘charity’ (53 mentions), ‘community’ (299 mentions) and ‘voluntary’ (41 mentions) remain the acceptable face of the non-profit world whilst ‘philanthropy’ is still considered a tainted label? 

Philanthropy’s image could be considerably enhanced if it were established in the public consciousness as an umbrella term for creating public good by private means whomever might be wielding the cheque, the helping hand or the address book. A higher profile in the honours system and more positive media coverage is critical to aiding this ambition.

The two Honours lists in 2021 featured only 6 awards mentioning philanthropy or philanthropists in total.

While the 2022 New Year’s list already beats that total at 9 out of a possible 1,278 opportunities, it is clear that the term philanthropy rarely makes it into nomination entries or citations, which more frequently refer to services to charity or voluntary service.

Continuing to hold a narrow and negative view of philanthropy will do little to encourage wealthy donors to step up and give. The net result is that it is vulnerable people who will feel the impact.

We need more celebration and less derision of the broad church of individuals who help to make civil society thrive. Anyone who has ever given a gift knows, there is nothing inherently wrong with the desire to be thanked and recognised. As a human impulse that creates reciprocity, it is an essential part of bringing people together. Who doesn’t need more of that?