the term “grant” is an expression of class struggle.
How is that the exchange of money for labor or a service, accompanied by a multi-point contract in 6 point font, in the context of racial capitalism, is anything other than a sale? And yet, the cash supplied by foundations and state agencies when given to a nonprofit is framed as a “grant,” which Websters defines as “the act of bestowing,” in other words, a gift. The notion of a gift helps the narrative that the funder is providing something and receiving nothing in return. A narrative that is furthered when the agencies direct the recipient to frame this kind of income as “unearned” or “contributed.”
However, in terms of the program officer, the person typically handling the exchange of money, the “grant” can only be made if the outcomes align with either the political relationships of their own (and that’s limited), staff higher ups, the board, or a specific organizational strategy that outlines the desired social outcomes. Thus, outside the logic of political relationships, the “grant” actually reflects a purchase of social outcomes desired by the foundation’s board or the State. Achieved, these social outcomes are a contribution to funding agencies’ brand equity. The outcomes explain the funder’s value to the public and justify the tax-exempt status or, in the case of the State, the value of the political administration. Not achieved and it contributes to the narrative that the community, particularly Black/African people, can’t seem to pull it together. Thus, the term “grant” mystifies the actual transaction that is taking place and what I believe is its largely narrative purpose (remember only about 5% of a foundation’s total value is being spent annually).
This is why the term “grant” is a form of class struggle. The European Settler Capital Class, the people who make their income off of investments and ownership, and multi-national petti-bourgeois, or small business owners and high level managers, the two classes that typically govern foundations, impose this term on professional and working class people via RFP guidelines and discourse i.e. conversations with grantees, public talks, foundation website, news articles, etc. However, the notion that these classes are “granting” to classes below them supports a narrative in which they have an interest. The narrative describes their role as not one contributing to an overall withdrawal of resources from Black and European working class people, but rather as a class making a contribution. Here we see the capital class, essentially dictating to the professional and working classes the terms that must be used in order to receive money.
Of course the inevitable question is “what can we do about this?” Most importantly, I think is not to see this as a language problem, but rather that the language reflects the underlying structures and class relationships. Ultimately, I think communities will benefit from raising the quasi public nature of funding agencies and nonprofits and seek to exercise power over them. A question in terms of organizing nonprofit agencies for power over funding agencies is that the organizations can contain class divisions within them so that employees feel very little power with them because they are organized like small corporations and managers can play a petti-bourgeois role. Still, organizing on any of these levels and seeing foundations as a quasi-state entity that people should try to make accountable to them would be a good step, I think.
