Stop Asking the Gift to Fix What It Can’t

Philanthropy keeps miscasting the gift.

We ask it to do everything—patch failing systems, redeem the people involved, deliver justice, soften inequality, restore trust, and keep the whole mess moving just enough to avoid collapse.

But the gift wasn’t built for that.

It isn’t a substitute for tax policy, social infrastructure, or collective accountability. It’s not a performance review. It’s not a bailout. It’s not a public relations strategy.

The gift is something older and stranger than all of that. It moves by freedom, not force. It creates connection, not control. It works best at human scale, in real time, where people can see and feel the exchange.

When we force the gift to do things it wasn’t meant to do—when we ask it to carry the moral weight of systems, or stand in for public responsibility—we don’t just distort it. We break it.

If we want to recover the gift, we have to stop demanding that it solve problems it didn’t cause—and can’t fix.

Stop asking the gift to fix what the market or state abandoned.

This is the sector’s favorite sleight of hand: public systems fail, and we expect private generosity to absorb the fallout.

We slash social spending, then praise donors who fund meal programs. We let wages stagnate, then spotlight companies that “give back” to the very communities they underpay. We treat philanthropy like a fire extinguisher for crises that were entirely preventable—had we designed an economy that actually worked for people.

But the gift was never meant to play this role. It wasn’t built to stabilize markets or backfill basic services. It doesn’t scale like that. It was meant to move between people. To express care, solidarity, hope. To build connection—not to underwrite institutions that abandoned theirs.

When we treat the gift as a workaround for public failure, we do two things: we relieve the systems of their responsibility, and we trap generosity in an endless cycle of triage. The donor becomes a band-aid. The recipient becomes a symptom. And the underlying wound stays wide open.

If we keep confusing charity with public responsibility, we’ll never get either one right.

Stop asking the gift to redeem the giver or validate the receiver.

This one runs deep. We’ve built an entire culture around the idea that giving is supposed to make you a better person. That it’s redemptive. That it earns you moral credit. That it proves you’re one of the “good ones.”

And on the flip side, we’ve created an unspoken code for recipients too. Be humble. Be grateful. Be changed. Be good enough to deserve it.

But the gift doesn’t ask for any of that. It’s not a performance. It’s not a verdict. It’s not a spiritual redemption arc or a social validation test.

Once the gift becomes about proving something—whether it’s the virtue of the donor or the worth of the recipient—it stops being a gift and starts being a transaction in disguise. A quiet negotiation between ego and expectation. A loop of performance and applause.

That’s not how gifts move. That’s how reputations move. That’s how narratives move. And when you confuse the two, everyone gets reduced to a role: the giver to a savior, the receiver to a storyline.

The real gift doesn’t want anything in return—not praise, not purity, not proof. It just wants to be given. And received. And passed on.

That’s it.

Stop asking the gift to perform justice.

This is where things get especially dangerous—because the confusion is subtle, and the consequences are serious.

Justice and generosity often show up together. But they are not the same thing. One is structured. The other is free. One is owed. The other is offered. One lives in systems. The other lives in people.

When we ask the gift to do justice—to settle debts, repair harms, or balance power—we’re setting it up to fail. Not because the intent is wrong, but because the vessel isn’t strong enough.

You see it when foundations preach equity while clinging to endowments. You see it when wealthy donors call their giving reparations without surrendering a shred of power. You see it when institutions expect marginalized communities to smile for token gifts and perform gratitude instead of receiving real investment.

That’s not justice. That’s optics. That’s choreography.

Justice demands repair, redistribution, and the restructuring of power. The gift doesn’t. The gift says: “Here.” That’s all.

If philanthropy wants to play a role in justice, it can’t keep hiding behind generosity. It has to give up control. It has to name the harm. It has to let go.

Otherwise, we’re just dressing up inequity in the language of virtue.

Let the Gift Be the Gift

We keep asking the gift to fix things it wasn’t meant to fix. To clean up after capitalism. To stand in for the state. To double as therapy, apology, reparation, and reform.

But when we do that, we don’t strengthen the gift—we weaken it.

We turn it into a tool. A narrative. A transaction. And then we wonder why it feels hollow. Why the joy is gone. Why the energy doesn’t come back around. Why trust doesn’t grow.

But the problem isn’t the gift. It’s us. It’s what we keep asking of it.

If we want to recover the gift—truly recover it—we have to let it be itself again. Freely given. Freely received. A movement, not a mechanism.

Not a workaround. Not a quick fix. Just a gift.

-

Jason Lewis

, Founder, Responsive Fundraising

---

Writing Projects

• Read our latest article in The Chronicle of Philanthropy.

• Read our latest article in The Giving Review.

• Order your copy of The War for Fundraising Talent.

• Order your copy of The Fundraising Reader.

Job Opportunities

• Regional Partner Engagement Officer, Texas - Every Home, Colorado Springs. Learn more here.

Upcoming Events

• Free Webinars

  • Responsive Fundraising’s First Sensemaking Framework. TBD.

• Speaking Engagements

  • Bridge of Hope National Conference, Lancaster, PA, Thursday, October 2.

Work With Us

• Do you need a trusted advisor? Let’s talk. Email us.

• How about hosting a ‘sensemaking retreat’ with your team? Email us.