*** DEBUG START ***
*** DEBUG END ***

Radio review: Tainted Money and Analysis: What the Foucalt?

04 June 2021

Keith Morris/Alamy Live News

Sir David Cannadine explored the pros and cons of philanthropy in Tainted Money (Radio 4, Tuesday of last week)

Sir David Cannadine explored the pros and cons of philanthropy in Tainted Money (Radio 4, Tuesday of last week)

GIFT horses are rarely welcomed into the stable now without a full physical examination. As Sir David Cannadine explained in his documentary Tainted Money (Radio 4, Tuesday of last week), institutions are increasingly cautious about accepting donations without full ethical clearance, and the bequests that they trousered long since are routinely reviewed for any hint of defilement.

Museums and universities have the biggest job on their hands, as the places with the most prestige and the least money, while under the most scrutiny are donors such as BP and the Sackler Trust for their involvement respectively in fossil fuels and painkillers.

Nevertheless, money can do wonderful and transformative things. Dr Beth Breeze, of the Centre for Philanthropy at the University of Kent, thinks that the recipients should be more robust in their pushback, and the British Museum at least has done what the Royal Shakespeare Company failed to do, in defending its association with BP. But we are naturally suspicious of donors, preferring them to behave to type. As Wafic Saïd, named sponsor of the Oxford Business School, commented: had he spent his money on a splendid yacht, nobody would have batted an eyelid.

To be suspicious, even cynical, is human. But we heard also from those who hold a principled objection to big-bucks philanthropy. It is a deflection from the real issue of inequitable tax structures that, were they fixed, would squeeze more from these billionaires than their small change. One would need to adopt a wide-eyed and unhistorical view of government spending priorities to believe that any of that extra dough would find its way to arts and cultural organisations. John Studzinski, of the Genesis Foundation, here offered an alternative vision: of philanthropists’ operating in partnership with their beneficiaries, sharing ambitions and accountability.

Blame all this moral ambiguity on Foucault. He and his pesky post-modernist friends have taught us to mistrust our motives, history, and learning. The starting-point for Analysis: What the Foucault? (Radio 4, Monday of last week), presented by Shahidha Bari, was a speech by Liz Truss. She recalled an education whose fixation on institutional racism and sexism precluded effective teaching of basic literacy. Moral relativism and the current enthusiasm for decolonisation both stemmed directly from Foucault.

Not so, say the experts. And, while the academics helpfully explained how it was all much more complicated than that, the journalist Agnès Poirier provided a helpful cultural gloss. The fact is, we just don’t like polo-necked French intellectuals’ telling us how to think. This attitude is exemplified in a recent blog in which Dominic Cummings rails against Oxford English graduates who bore on at dinner parties about Jacques Lacan, the shocking thing in this statement being that anybody might invite Mr Cummings to a dinner party.

Church Times Bookshop

Save money on books reviewed or featured in the Church Times. To get your reader discount:

> Click on the “Church Times Bookshop” link at the end of the review.

> Call 0845 017 6965 (Mon-Fri, 9.30am-5pm).

The reader discount is valid for two months after the review publication date. E&OE

The Church Times Archive

Read reports from issues stretching back to 1863, search for your parish or see if any of the clergy you know get a mention.

FREE for Church Times subscribers.

Explore the archive

Welcome to the Church Times

​To explore the Church Times website fully, please sign in or subscribe.

Non-subscribers can read four articles for free each month. (You will need to register.)