Reference no: EM132291384

1 Summaries the case study (100 word)

2 Literature Review (200 word)

3 Critical analysis (160 word)

Case Study

Summing up the mediated gift

More recent analyses of gift giving via organisations by Titmuss (1973), Silber (1998) and Elder-Vass (2015) claim that the value of gifts to strangers facilitated by a third party such as a non-profit organisation, lies in their ability to create gifts free of any reciprocal obligation for vulnerable beneficiaries. However, conversations with fundraisers suggest that these theorists fail to recognise the journey the gift makes from giver, through the organisation, to the beneficiary. In doing so, they conflate "what is actually a number of transactions and social relations into just one - that between donors giving and [beneficiaries] in need." (Dalsgaard, 2007, p.108) Whilst acknowledging the role of organisations in creating and mediating opportunities to give to strangers, the role of the fundraiser in processing the gift from solicitation to delivery and then addressing how organisations maintain longer term, reciprocal giving relationships, remains unrecognised in these assessments of charitable giving. What this research uncovers, is the way in which fundraisers, instead of removing the obligations that come with the gift, redefine and reaffirm Mauss's (1954) original observation of the three-fold gift cycle to give, receive and reciprocate. In doing so, fundraisers position themselves as exchange partners who mediate and manage the obligations inherent in the gift exchange between donors, organisational staff and beneficiaries. In this way, new obligations and relationships of power are established that have implications for the way in which non-profits engage both the supply and demand-side of their "business".

The Mediated Gift: Implications for practice
The placing of the concept of the mediated gift at the heart of philanthropic practice raises a number of questions about our theoretical understanding of both fundraising and charitable gift giving, as well as contemporary gift practices. This paper ends with a short consideration of what two of these questions may be for consideration in future research.

1. What does the aligning of the quality of reciprocation and depth of connection with the economic value of the gift mean in terms of the equitable treatment of givers?
Cluff (2009) observes that it is common practice for "most organisations [to] set a financial level for gifts - above which the donor is considered a major donor, below which he or she is not" (p. 373). She contends that this poses a fundamental problem in engaging donors, as they are often not given the opportunity, once classified to give larger gifts or are even asked to. Cluff's observations are corroborated by the fundraisers in this study who describe, because of the limitations of how many personal relationships any one fundraiser can build, how the depth and quality of reciprocation and engagement a giver receives is determined by their perceived capacity to give or level of gift. Many of the fundraisers interviewed express corresponding unease that this kind of relationship is essentially being purchased by the donor or is only offered to those givers who give at a certain level. This raises questions about how the construction of tiered reciprocal relationships, contributes to existing social inequalities and exclusion, if those who are perceived to give less, are asked less often to give or their giving goes unreciprocated or underacknowledged.

2. How are social solidarity and close social bonds between strangers created, if the connection between giver and beneficiary is a constructed narrative?
In McDonald et al (2011), Greiling highlights the social distance inherent in the non-profit sector where those "who finance the services are also often not present when the service is provided" (p. 164) The gift literature suggests the gift, whether it takes place via organisations to strangers or in close relationships, serves to reduce social distance by creating social cohesion and solidarity (for e,g, Titmuss, 1974; Komter, 1996). This data demonstrates, however, that whilst the mediated gift creates a sense of social bond between the giver and the beneficiary, the relationship actually exists between the fundraiser and the giver. In this way, fundraisers in effect establish another layer of separation between the recipient and the giver. In their attempts to balance donor "dominance" and ease the obligations of the gift for beneficiaries, do fundraisers inadvertently widen the gap between those who have and those who do not? (Clohsey, 2003)

Thus, whilst fundraisers may well serve to create the idea of solidarity with their beneficiaries, the idea expressed by Ostrander & Schervish (1990) that philanthropic givers and the recipients of their gifts could come together to co-create a more equitable world may seem rather utopian as long as they act as gatekeepers to the gift relationship. Thereby, contributing to questions of whether fundraisers act as agents for change or reproduction when it comes to social inequality?