Richard Marker: We Must Reconquer the Public Space

When fear grabs hold of the public space, it is time for civil society to put on its battledress.

Some of us hope that the world will take a gigantic deep breath and realize that we have stretched our acceptance of this behaviour further than the civil society should have allowed.

Richard Marker
Professor, founder of Wise Philanthropy

As the American professor of philanthropy, Richard Marker, gazes at the world, he sees a civil society under immense pressure:

Maybe we will wake up one day and realise that the democracy we believe in no longer exists

Richard Marker
Professor, founder of Wise Philanthropy

In the U.S, Donald Trump pledges to ban Muslims from entering the country and to build a wall to keep Mexicans at bay. 

In Brussels, right wing nationalists attack a march honouring the victims of a terror attack.  

And in Denmark, a young Muslim student becomes the centre of a manhunt for a suspected terrorist as he is on his way to an exam at the University of Copenhagen.

The incidents are not only problematic on their own. They are the symptoms of a civil society and a public space rapidly degenerating, Richard Marker claims.

To change the tide, the time to repel has come – especially within philanthropic circles, he argues.

“We are witnessing a catastrophic deterioration of general education the world over – not least in the U.S. Things that usually would not have been accepted have started to creep into the public discourse: xenophobia, misogyny, anti-Semitism, islamophobia. And it is even promoted by political candidates,” Richard Marker says:

“Whether they are victorious or not, the damage has already been done. The mere fact that these views have risen to the surface should make us all stop and think. That especially goes for the philanthropic community.” 

Philanthropy has a unique mandate
The man in focus is originally a historian and a former rabbi. But the civil society has been his home turf for most of his career.

Richard Marker has run a non-profit organisation and he has worked as director of a foundation. 15 years ago he founded his country’s first university program in philanthropy at New York University.

Philanthropy runs through his veins – to the degree that he repeatedly says ‘we’ as he intends to say ‘they’. And it is of great importance to him that the civil society takes centre stage in what he believes to be critical moment in history.

“We, the philanthropist, have a unique position – exactly because we serve the common good. We only exist as part of the civil society. If the civil society has become uncivilised, the philanthropic community has an implicit mandate to step in: We have to do what we can.

We have to mobilise our resources and exert all of our strength in order to restore the respect and decency of the open society,” Richard Marker says:

“Foundations and philanthropists cannot complete the task on their own. But we have to take action if we want to preserve our authenticity and legitimacy”.

Furthermore, the philanthropic community has a special place in society, which compels it to take an active stance.  

“Foundations and philanthropists have a favourable position that enables them to take risks that others cannot. Because of their independence they do can it without getting punished,” Richard Marker says and continues:

“There are no share holders; no one to be elected or re-elected. That is why foundations can engage in all sorts of activities that other institutions would be wary about.” 

Do the foundations have an actual obligation to fight this battle?

“I would not want to coerce the individual foundations and philanthropists in to rewriting their charters to address these issues,” he says: 

“But from a collective standpoint I do think that they are obligated to take on the task. There comes a time when every philanthropist and every foundation has to say: ‘We are part of something bigger and it is imperative that we assume responsibility.”

An anarchy of knowledge
But what is really at stake here?

What strong undercurrents are threatening to tear away the foundation of the civil society?

The American professor takes a deep breath.

“Allow me to return to my intellectual background as a historian for a brief remark,” he says and continues:

”We have come to an end in regards to the presumptions of the modern era: There is no longer a thing called the sovereign state, there are no fully autonomous economies and there are no pure, native and homogenous cultures left. So from a strict conceptual perspective you have to conclude that all of our presumptions about the structure of the world are eroding,” Richard Marker says.  

He speaks about the common understanding of when something was accurate that people have shared for centuries.

That shared understanding grew out of a process of interpreting, understanding and mediating between different perceptions of knowledge.

And because the process was consistent, we have been in relative agreement about factual rights and wrongs.

“Today, everything is up in the air. Everyone can go online and find the proof they need to back their own beliefs – no matter how bizarre they might be. We haven’t found a way to mediate that anarchy of knowledge.”

That – in a combination with globalisation, the economical reality and climate change – has a subversive effect, Richard Marker argues.

“We live in a time where our view of the world is changing dramatically. When the tectonic plates come back together, the world will look completely different than it did just one generation ago,” he says. 

People are scared of the changes
Richard Marker believes that the on-going changes are just as critical as those that led to the creation of the modern world, the emancipation, the national state and the developing of rational thinking.

And just as the great tremor led to new realizations and structures back then, we will be witnessing a fundamental transformation of our world today, the professor believes.

“New institutions will become the pillars of our society. It will be build differently and people will learn and understand things in new ways. That is terrifying to a lot of people,” Richard Marker says.

To stand in the middle of change shakes people to the core. And that makes them react, he argues.

“People see it. They feel it. It shows in different ways. Some react with magnanimity and altruism and by assuming responsibility for a world gone mad,” Richard Marker says and continues:

“Others feel that they are being invaded and that their identity is being violated. That leads to the outburst of xenophobia and misogyny, we are currently witnessing in the public sphere – for instance in the way some talk about refugees and in the way Donald Trump slanders Mexicans,” he says.

The reactions are understandable, but that does not mean we have to accept them.

“Any rational person can sense that it is pure nonsense, but Trump and others are just trying – in the simples way possible – to voice their worries and frustrations. We have to work hard to make sure that their answers are not acceptable,” Richard Marker says. 

Someone has to say stop
Richard Marker believes that it is necessary to reconquer the public space. To restore the peace and order that used to rule the civil society.

“In the wake World War 2, large parts of the world shared an understanding of the inviolability of certain boundaries within the public sphere. Everyone knew that the repressive feelings existed, but people understood that whatever they felt or said in their living room belonged to the private space, not to the public space,” he says.

That consensus has now been dissolved – leading to an overflow of private opinions invading the public space.

“What was previously private prejudices have now become public statements. That is a problem as the statements are given political weight: ‘Let us deport the Muslims. Do not let them enter. All Muslims are suspicious’. When you begin to dig into the xenophobia, when you begin to assume that others are your enemy, it does not take long before other groups becomes suspicious too: the Kurds, the Jews, the Armenians,” Richard Marker says.

It is something we can and must not ignore, he argues.

“Some of us hope that the world will take a gigantic deep breath and realize that we have stretched our acceptance of this behaviour further than the civil society should have allowed, and that we now need to put things back into shape. But history provides us with no guaranties. We need someone to say: ‘Enough is enough.”

What do you want them to do?

“We should not accept when someone makes racist or prejudice statements in our presence. And those who believe that the civil society has a legitimacy, should be honest and straightforward with neighbours, friends and family and say: ‘This is unacceptable’.”

There is something slightly uncomfortable about that, the professor notes.

“But we live in uncomfortable time.”

Why is it, then, that the philanthropic community should take the lead?

”Philanthropy stands for civil society. It stands for public good. It is the very livelihood of philanthropy to benefit the community. Sometimes you have to say: ‘Here is something that requires our attention’. We have to use our resources and influence to amend the damage that has been done to the civil society, which we are an important part of.” 

The foundations make political choices
Can foundations and philanthropists do that without being political?

“Everything is political to some extend because values are political. It will always be an act of balance between competing considerations. As a philanthropist you decide on the basis of values: ‘It is more important for me to support research in AIDS than in malaria’ for instance. It would be naïve to think that we do not act from a set of values,” Richard Marker says.

Even when a local philanthropist says that he will only focus on his neighbourhood and not get involved in international issues, he has made a choice. A completely fair choice, the professor emphasises:

“But there are values within that choice. He says that he is willing to discard objective norms because he has subjective values that drive him to enhance the quality of life in his neighbourhood.”

U.S. legislation distinguishes between lobbying and advocacy.

According to Richard Marker, lobbying entails involvement in a specific case, campaign or political candidate. Foundations and philanthropists are not allowed to partake in such activities.

Nothing does, on the other hand, prevent them from addressing society’s implicit values, as Richard Marker calls them.

“When we say that we are advocating, it is just another way of formulating the values we care about,” he says.

Democracy is on the line
What happens if civil society does not assume this responsibility? 

“What if it turns out that we have become cynical, defeatist; if we think that politics have gone to hell and humans only act upon their own egoistic interests?” Richard Marker rhetorically asks:

“Maybe we will wake up one day and realise that the democracy we believe in no longer exists. That the nativists have prevailed because they are louder, focus narrowly on individual cases and are prepared to define anyone as their enemy instead of relating to a world where identities are fluid, where we are exposed to conflicting demands, where people suffer and we are forced to make tough choices about the distribution of resources.”

That view of the world, he underlines, is the one he shares.

"That is a much more complicated world than a democracy. But it is the one that defines what it means to be a responsible citizen of the world."

Do you think it is possible to turn back the tide?

“History has its tides. We have seen predominantly moderate times, while other periods have been dominated by extremism. You could argue that if we just look at things in a large time frame, tides will eventually turn. The question is: to what extend do we want to remain passive onlookers?” Richard Marker says and answers the question:

“I am sure that if you are patient enough, it will eventually happen. I am just not sure that I want to wait for it. I think that we need to make it happen.”

Don't forget to vote for Altinget: civilsamfund as 'Media Initiative of the Year'

VOTE HERE