The Activist faced such intense backlash it eventually pivoted to a documentary, but the actually uncanny part of its premise was not that the show was divorced from reality—but extremely close to it. Real-world activists and nonprofits reliant on money from philanthropists, foundations, and corporate social responsibility (CSR) teams are regularly subjected to arbitrary requirements to “prove” their cause is worthy of an annual gift. As a result, the goals of nonprofits often become misdirected by funders far removed from the root problem.

 

As Paul Vallely writes in The Guardian, “Philanthropy is always an expression of power.” Despite the positive impact major philanthropic ventures like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation have had, these organizations “can become fixed on addressing a problem which is not seen as a priority by local people…[for example, their work on] education philanthropy in the US where [Bill Gates’] fixation on class size diverted public spending away from the actual priorities of the local community.” This reliance on the whims of the wealthy once again removes autonomy from those supposedly being served by nonprofits. As professor & activist Dean Spade summarizes in his book Mutual Aid,

​

“Rich people’s control of nonprofit funding keeps nonprofits from doing work that is threatening to the status quo.”

 

Time and time again, the case for removing someone’s agency rests on an argument for paternalism. That is, a justification “on the grounds that the person affected would be better off, or would be less harmed, as a result of the rule, policy, [action], etc.” (Stanford) One salient reminder of how deeply paternalism is embedded in our society is the #FreeBritney movement, which gained enormous traction this past year. This was in part due to the Netflix show Britney Vs. Spears, which followed Britney Spears’ fight for liberation from her 13-year-long conservatorship. While Britney’s story is one with a happy ending, it reveals how our everyday acceptance of having agency taken away from us manifests even under the most extreme situations. As Britney—who is one of the most successful pop stars of all time—admitted publicly, “I honestly didn’t know that [I could petition the conservatorship to be ended].”

​

Beyond Britney, there are still 1.3 million people in a conservatorship or court-appointed guardianship at any given time in the U.S. While conservatorships are meant to be used when an individual can no longer care for or manage their affairs themselves, that is not the case for many, including the elderly, disabled, and previously incarcerated individuals whose conservators may seek financial exploitation. The question remains:

​

How can we regularly and consistently question the ease with which the law strips various people of their rights?

 

Many of the rules governing our daily lives are arbitrary and heavily influenced by those with power (e.g., mandatory minimum differences between crack versus powder cocaine due to racial demographics), how can we more closely examine who currently has (versus should have) authority over the far-reaching decisions that affect our agency?

We can all recognize that capitalism has concentrated this power in the form of money. With the ever-widening chasm of income disparity, it’s unsurprising that many of us are feeling further and further away from obtaining real control over the outcomes that affect us. Perhaps that, in addition to rampant voter suppression, is why voter turnout remains low year over year in local elections (although those often have a very immediate impact on our daily lives) and many candidates face little-to-no competition in some congressional races. The resounding exhaustion and lack of motivation indicates the system is working precisely as designed: to minimize and undermine the determination of the masses to work towards radical change.