Rationalities of goodwill: on the promotion of philanthropy through sports-based interventions in Sweden

ABSTRACT

Organised in public–private partnerships, sports-based interventions for social inclusion are often seen as sites of strategies involving sport associations, social entrepreneurs, volunteers and sponsors in the provision of welfare. Here, we spotlight two midnight football practices acted out in two mid-sized Swedish cities promoting social inclusion, examining, from a governmentality perspective, how supportive community actors conceptualise their charitable contributions enabling opportunities for under-privileged youth to participate in sports. Analysis outlines how actors articulate their particular background, experiences and social networks as resources to provide support, stressing that provision needs to make a difference and support the less fortunate in the community. The provision imbues a political potential, as a means of promoting social change, guided by certain notions of the good society and of the good citizen. Involvement provides a site for realising particular visions of social change, while animating the contributions provided as non-political acts of goodwill.

KEYWORDS:

• Welfare
• governing
• social inclusion
• philanthropy
• charity

Introduction

Sports-based interventions have emerged as an integral feature of social policy, not least as part of strategies to promote social inclusion (e.g. Collins & Haudenhuyse, 2015). Organised in public–private partnerships, they are often seen as sites of strategies involving sport associations (e.g. Stenling & Fahlén, 2016), entrepreneurs (e.g. Peterson & Schenker, 2017) and volunteers (e.g. Reid, 2012), among others, in the provision of welfare. In this article, we highlight two specific sports-based interventions: midnight football (MF) practices in two mid-sized Swedish cities and promoting social inclusion specifically targeting youth in what are referred to in dominant political discourse as areas of exclusion (cf. Dahlstedt & Ekholm, 2019).

In particular, we investigate the roles and contributions of charitable community actors and financial supporters, focusing on their contributions that facilitate these activities. More precisely, the aim of this article is to examine how supportive and facilitating actors describe their charitable roles, collaborations and contributions in providing resources that enable sports-based interventions and thus facilitate opportunities for youth in suburban areas of exclusion to participate in community sports. Based on a governmentality perspective (cf. Dean, 2010; Foucault, 1982; Rose, 1999), highlighting neo-philanthropic governmental rationality (cf. Dean & Villadsen, 2016; Villadsen, 2007), we address the following research questions: How do these community actors describe, motivate and legitimise the goodwill and contributions provided? How are the rationales of means and ends of social change articulated in relation to the goodwill and contributions provided? These questions are investigated through an analysis of statements made by representatives of the community actors involved and financial supporters. From this point of view, we examine how notions of goodwill, charitable contributions and rationales of philanthropy are embedded in strategies of providing social support and in promoting social change. Consequently, we explore how welfare provision is formed (and transformed) today, how a variety of community actors engage in welfare and how rationales of neo-philanthropy are intertwined in contemporary society.

Setting the scene

In the wake of increasing socio-economic divisions, ethno-cultural segregation and intensified polarisation in the urban landscape in Sweden, there has in recent years been a heated debate concerning tensions and conflicts ascribed to and located in areas of exclusion (Sernhede, Thörn, & Thörn, 2016). In Sweden, there has been a particular focus on the situation of youth in suburban residential areas of exclusion, where a range of interventions have been proposed as means of responding to social exclusion (Dahlstedt & Ekholm, 2019). In influential political discourse, these areas have been constructed as sites of otherness and positioned as outside the mainstream Swedish society, supposedly constituting a threat to community and social cohesion (Sernhede et al., 2016). Segregation, urban polarisation and conflicts are not limited to a Swedish context; rather, these issues have been noted as recurrent challenges by policymakers in many countries and continually observed and discussed in scientific discourse (Dikec, 2017).

One of the problems addressed is the lack of participation in youth sport activities and other organised leisure activities in these areas, viewed as one of the results of unequal living conditions (cf. Stockholm Municipality, 2015). In this policy landscape, civil society has been highlighted as a site where social inclusion could be created, and even as a site of social policy implementation (Skille, 2011) – not uncommonly in short-term projects acted out in public–private partnerships (Herz, 2016). Sports associations, in particular, have been highlighted in this regard (cf. Stenling & Fahlén, 2016). In Sweden, expectations on sport associations to contribute to social policy objectives are formalised and are increasingly conditioning financial support (e.g. Norberg, 2011).

Internationally, this development has been conceptualised as part of a neo-liberal trend in sport and social policy (e.g. Hartmann, 2016), described in relation to austerity policies (e.g. Parnell, Spracklen, & Millward, 2017) sharpening the conditions for sport provision, especially in distressed residential areas (e.g. Bustad & Andrews, 2017). Such a development has also been observed in Scandinavia (Agergaard, Michelsen la Cour, & Treumer Gregersen, 2015) and in Sweden (Ekholm, 2018). Researchers have highlighted sports-based interventions, performed on the basis of expected social benefits, as sites of public–private partnerships involving for instance municipal agencies (Hoekman, Breedveld, & Kraaykamp, 2017), sport federations and local sport associations (Stenling & Fahlén, 2016), social entrepreneurs (Peterson & Schenker, 2017), market-based corporations as sponsors (Stinson & Pritchard, 2013), non-governmental organisations (Sherry, Schulenkorf, & Chalip, 2015), community groups (Rosso & McGrath, 2017) and charity organisations (Bunds, 2017), as well as parents and youth (Ekholm, 2018; Ekholm & Dahlstedt, 2017). Practitioners and providers of such interventions have been noted to be motivated by both a love of sport and the desire to make a difference in society (Peachey, Musser, Shin, & Cohen, 2017) – motivations not uncommonly underpinned by neo-colonial notions of aid and support and an evangelistic faith in the power of sport (e.g. Giulianotti, 2004; Peachey et al., 2017). Consequently, interventions risk being carried out on the terms of the providers rather than on the conditions of the recipients and participating youth (Giulianotti, 2004).

Philanthropy in Swedish social policy

In this article, we draw attention to the role of charitable contributions and philanthropic underpinnings of certain actors partnering in the sports-based interventions scrutinised, a dimension that so far has received rather little attention in the literature. Still, philanthropy is not primarily a question of to which extent voluntary actors are involved in social support; rather, the main objective is the epistemology of help and social support, i.e. how activities are thought about, how subjects are constructed and targeted and how interventions are formed (Villadsen, 2008b). We focus on how a range of representatives and promoters, in funding and supporting roles, articulate their roles and contributions facilitating the sports-based interventions. Philanthropic rationalities and technologies of welfare provision are regular features in contemporary Western societies, when it comes to social and individual support as well as in labour market policies (i.e. empowerment, moral responsibilisation, help to self-help and community ideals) (Villadsen, 2007, 2008b), primarily in more liberal and conservative welfare regimes (cf. Esping-Andersen, 1990).

Even though charity and philanthropy throughout the history of the Swedish and social-democratic welfare state have been present in the social support provided (Trädgårdh, 2013), charity and philanthropy in Swedish social policy is a conflicted topic. In the Scandinavian context, philanthropy often has a negative connotation associated with arbitrary provision of goods based on goodwill rather than egalitarian principles of social rights (cf. Trädgårdh, 2013; Villadsen, 2011a). Furthermore, welfare generally has a more positive connotation than in liberal welfare states, emphasising social rights and social solidarity by means of risk-collectivisation (cf. Esping-Andersen, 1990).

With respect to contemporary political debate and forms of welfare provision, philanthropy has explicitly been emphasised as an innovative way to revitalise social support provision. Social entrepreneurs, modern-day philanthropists, are sometimes seen as pioneers breaking ground and influencing welfarist social support (Palmås, 2011). In addition, philanthropists often exhibit less accountability with respect to their contributions than other actors (Weinryb, 2015). Importantly, as Villadsen (2011a, p. 1061) notes, analysing philanthropic provision of social support is not only about highlighting certain actors and their charitable roles, but more about interrogating “how their involvement may contribute to transforming social policy and our thinking about social problems”. This makes exploring the (re-)emergence of philanthropic rationales and forms of involvement in the provision of welfare in a Scandinavian, and particularly Swedish, welfare-statist context an intriguing point of departure.

Empirical material

The analysis is based on interviews with representatives and promoters, in funding and supporting roles, explicitly addressing charity, financial or other forms of support, of the two sports-based interventions mentioned.

The MF practices were initiated by a national foundation specialising in sports-based interventions that promote social inclusion, involving local associations in carrying out the programmes. The foundation hosts, charitable, national and local corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives supporting the local programmes. The goals are described as “to promote integration through sport” and “to develop a sense of responsibility and participation in society as well as employability […], to prevent social exclusion [and] to contribute to crime reduction”. East City MF is run by a local sports club and an elite football club in collaboration with the foundation; West City MF is run by one local sports club in partnership with the foundation. Both activities are performed in suburban areas in the respective cities. The activities are funded primarily by local sponsors and sponsors within the national foundation, as well as by grants and subsidies from municipal administrations. The activities consist of organised, yet spontaneous, five-a-side football, held indoors on Saturday nights between 8pm and midnight. Participating youth are generally aged 12–25. Notably, almost all the youth participating in the activities are boys. The two MF activities are related to each other through the foundation, even though they are do not collaborate formally. Both MF activities have received significant media attention and both have been nominated for prizes for their contribution to social inclusion. Similar MF activities are carried out with the foundation as a partner in 10 additional cities.

The analysis is based on interviews with the following seven respondents. The foundation executive initiated the MF concept and was part of the social network that started the foundation initiating the practices. He describes himself as an “entrepreneur with a mission to build up” the foundation. The foundation manager is a former elite football player who is now responsible for collaborations between the foundation and the local partners. The insurance company sponsor representative manages the company’s CSR efforts and sponsorships, in which the two MF activities are pivotal. The sports gear CSR representative is responsible for the social responsibility commitment of his company, supporting the two MF practices and the foundation initiating the practices. The factory owner supports West City MF financially and provides contacts within his social network. He is the third-generation owner and managing director of a family business, which is now a major manufacturer of industrial goods operating in the global market. The gentlemen’s club secretary represents a local subdivision of an international charity trust and fellowship, which supports charitable projects in West City, including the MF activity. The elite club CSR representative works for the elite club and is in charge of its CSR activities.

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with each representative at locations decided on by the respondents themselves, primarily workplaces and offices, during 2017. These interviews were conducted within the same period as interviews with the management and coaches of the interventions that laid the ground for mapping the overall organisation of the interventions. The respondents were deemed to be the most important for – and well-informed about – the intervention. The questions asked in the interviews concerned the interventions in particular, and sport as a means of social inclusion in general. There was a particular focus on how they understood the goals of the interventions and the problems addressed, the organisation of the interventions, the respondent’s role and driving forces in relation to the interventions, and their collaboration and networks with other actors and agencies. One recurring topic concerned how all respondents highlighted their charitable contributions, goodwill and drive to make a difference in various ways. All interviews were transcribed verbatim.

Theoretical and methodological framework

Interventions aiming to promote social change and reform the conduct of subjects or conditions of inclusion imbue dimensions of governing. Analytically, we approach governing as a productive force performed by actors seeking to lead, guide or shape the behaviours and ways of thinking – the conduct – of individuals and populations (Foucault, 1982). Accordingly, ways of governing means structuring power relations and therefore needs to be approached as political practices (cf. Dean, 2010). From this perspective, analysing how practices imbue political dimensions become theoretically amenable.

Notably, social policy interventions such as the sports-based interventions investigated in this article are seen as assemblages of governing technologies designed to lead social change, by shaping the conduct of the targeted youth. Accordingly, governing imbues conceptualisations of problems as well as means and ends of social change, and the relationship interconnecting these constructions of problems, means and ends together forms a governmental rationality (Dean, 2010). A particular governmental rationality – characteristic of advanced liberal welfare states, and analytically important with respect to informing the analysis put forth in this article – is neo-philanthropy, theoretically elaborated on by Villadsen (2007, 2008b, 2009, 2011a, 2011b). The concept of neo-philanthropy draws attention to the re-emergence of both philanthropic social support practices, such as donations to those defined as being in need, and knowledge about and political faith in such support, often seen as innovative and authentic forms of welfare provision (Villadsen, 2007, 2011a, 2011b). Here, civil society and community have a certain significance, formed as arenas where governing interventions can be performed “at a distance” from the state and the public sector (Rose, 1999). From this perspective, civil society and community are analysed as discursive formations (Foucault, 1972), animated in discourse forming targets of governing interventions (Rose, 1999). It is within these domains, seen as autonomous from statist government, human beings can perceivably engage in free and voluntary activities, engage in community and ensure welfare provision (Villadsen, 2007, 2009). Importantly, it is the discourse about these domains that makes certain governing interventions (of philanthropy, for instance) possible. Therefore, we need to analyse the discourse intertwined with and underpinning these practices in order to understand the rationality, how they are formed and the role that charitable contributions play in this respect.

Philanthropic organisations were pivotal for social support and assistance at the end of the nineteenth century, providing for instance education, health care and poverty relief to those seen as being in need. Such practices later influenced the emerging welfare states (Donzelot, 1979; Villadsen, 2011a, 2011b). Importantly, such provision was often underpinned by notions of pragmatism in contrast to religious charity. Here, philanthropic support was seen as a strategic means to attain actual outcomes and the betterment of the beneficiary’s living conditions, while religious charity was criticised for its way of conceptualising donations and support as an end in itself (Donzelot, 1979; Villadsen, 2011b). However, such support was based on goodwill rather than social rights, which, in turn, was the basic principle of welfarist governmental rationality of support during the twentieth century (Dean, 2010; Villadsen, 2007).

At the end of the twentieth century, welfarist rationality was criticised for its allegedly centralised and statist planning, social engineering and bureaucratisation, passivising its citizens and corrupting the moral fabric of the population, and furthermore stifling civil society – perceived as more authentic – forms of social support (Dean, 2010; Villadsen, 2007, 2008b). Accordingly, in recent decades, social policy and strategies of support have increasingly relied on public–private partnerships, voluntary work, community-based social work and the mobilisation of social networks, as well as on social change emphasising empowerment technologies, moral and spiritual nourishment and help to self-help strategies – all characteristics of neo-philanthropic governmental rationality (Villadsen, 2007, 2008b). This development involves a normative state phobia, stressing that civil society provides more authentic alternatives to the authoritarian public sector (Dean & Villadsen, 2016) where the emphasis is on individual willpower and morality rather than structural explanations and social reform (Villadsen, 2007, 2008b, 2011a).

The strategies of analysis adopted concern analysing governmental rationality structuring the statements articulated in the interviews. In practice, this means interpretations guided by the theoretical framework presented. First, inspired by the theoretical conceptualisation of philanthropic support, we managed to elaborate on themes recurring in the empirical material. Three themes were constructed, highlighting positions and motives of goodwill as well as the political potential, significance and underpinning of the statements examined. Second, on the basis of these themes, the interpretation of the statements was elaborated on further and reworked using the theoretical concepts presented as analytical tools. The constructionist epistemology adopted allows for a critical approach by problematising how notions and ideas are formed and how they underpin the contributions made and the technologies of governing promoted, as well as the effects they enable (cf. Foucault, 2004). The rationality of the intervention is contingent and constructed in relation to the specific practices and needs to be critically assessed (cf. Dean, 2010).

Analysis

The analysis highlights three recurring and intersecting themes illustrating the governmental rationality imbued: First, we highlight how the respondents position themselves and articulate their particular background, experiences and social networks as powerful resources to provide for charitable contributions. Second, we interrogate the specific motives underpinning the contributions made. Importantly, a pragmatic rationale is highlighted stressing that provision needs to result in real social change. Notably, the will to do good articulated is elaborated on in relation to the responsibility to provide for the less fortunate and the desire to form and be an active force in community. Third, we paid attention to how the provision of charitable contributions imbue a political potential, as a means of promoting social change, of forming a good society and a good citizen. Altogether, this rationality highlights how goodwill and charitable contributions become means of governing social change.

The position of goodwill

In the interviews, the will to contribute, to do good and to help those in need is a recurring topic. Such desires are allowed to flourish within the realms of civil society engagement, according to a recurring figure of thought made explicit in statements. Notably, statements concerning such wills are articulated from similar positions. Even though the respondents represent a fairly diverse group of actors, they position themselves in similar ways with respect to their contributions. In one instance, respondents describe their own background and experience as the primary motive for their contribution. In another instance, the respondents emphasise their social networks and social position as resources that can be used to provide contributions to society.

In the following excerpt, the foundation executive of MF expounds on his particular background, characterised by exclusion and hardship being important for his engagement in MF and his understanding of the targeted youth.

When I was 15, I burned down a gymnasium, stopped doing sports and started hanging around punk rockers. Then … there were hooligans, skinhead gangs. […] I use to say that it’s a broken soul, kind of. How is a soul broken? You recognise these things. And that is something I recognise so well among the kids out in the suburbs. It’s the same. […] So, you feel excluded … you kind of connect with that.

Here, the foundation executive positions, and constructs, himself as part of the same community as the targeted youth. Thus, the mutual experience of being and feeling excluded provides a bond (“connect”), perceived as a particularly authentic bond, between the provider and recipient of social support. The bond and mutual experiences, resulting in a “broken soul”, is described as the main motive for engaging in providing social support for the youth. Accordingly, given the fact that he has now left his previous life behind him and achieved another social position, he now has the resources to give something back. This voluntary engagement could be channelled through and associated with civil society.

In other excerpts, community is emphasised in other terms, not explicitly on the basis of recognition and shared experiences of exclusion, but rather on the experiences and position of being included and privileged in society. Also, in these cases, previous experiences form a basis for the contributions made. In the following excerpt, the gentlemen’s club secretary describes his position as geographically as well as socially quite distant from the targeted youth. Moreover, he describes his networks and connections in society as resourceful and ready to be mobilised. The gentlemen’s club secretary describes a distinctly different biography to the one presented in the previous excerpt.

I am part of [the gentlemen’s club], which is … yes, it is a male fellowship. […] I believe that it is important, that when you are privileged as we are, even though we are not financially wealthy members, we have social networks and we are well off enough to spend money on being in a fellowship … So, then you have a responsibility, a social responsibility, I believe. […] None of us live in [the area]. And … so, it was part of a discussion about giving money … there were thoughts about the integration challenge. What can we do about this? We are … we have our social networks, as we grew up in and live in a certain part of the city. But there is a different part of the city, that we are not familiar with. And … about the visit there … really, it was like coming to another world.

In the excerpt, the members of the club are described as privileged members of society. Though not always necessarily rich in economic terms, the members are described as being sufficiently well off to spend money and time on club membership. Furthermore, none of the club members reside in the excluded area. Rather, they all live in other parts of the city. As stated in the excerpt, the members do not even know much about the non-privileged parts of the city. When talking about his recent experience of visiting the area during the MF activity, he makes his own position distinctly different by describing it more or less as visiting “another world”.

Moreover, in the excerpt the geographic residence of the members is intertwined with their social connectedness and resourceful networks in civil society. As described, having these resources and networks, the members have a social responsibility to provide for the less fortunate, in a variety of ways. Accordingly, the sense of responsibility and the importance of integration recognised provide motivation for engagement from the position of the representative. Here, there is an explicit focus on “the integration challenge”, by means of supporting and facilitating the MF initiative. As connectedness and resourceful social networks are powers of the privileged, living in the privileged parts of the city, the provision of social support is directed from the “inside”, from those having the means of providing charitable contributions, to the excluded “outside”, those who are in need. Even though the respondents position themselves differently in terms of their previous experiences and geographic residence, they all express an explicit and voluntary desire to provide – thus, governing provision – for those who are in need. They are all in the position of having the means of making such contributions, in terms of social networks and resources. Also, provision of support is articulated as a way to form community and moral recognition across the divisions. In this way, relationships and positions of provider and recipient of social support and charitable contributions are constructed in statements.

The motives of goodwill

The positions of goodwill elaborated on above are intertwined with certain motives and ways of understanding goodwill. The will to do good is guided by certain ethical underpinnings, not least involving an assessment of need and a willingness to help the less fortunate. Yet, at the same time, help is articulated as a means of forming moral bonds and relations in community.

In the interviews, the relationship between the resourceful providers and the less fortunate is constructed as a hierarchic form of goodwill, in two instances. This goodwill involves, first, assessing the “weak” areas and their challenges and, second, providing for the needs assessed. In the following excerpt, the foundation manager elaborates on the role of the foundation with respect to the help provided.

We support and help get started … in various socio-economically weak areas, finding some alternative meeting places for the youth, so that they can be in safe spaces and in secure places at sensitive times, on Friday and Saturday nights … And the effect of this has been immense.

Here, certain areas are constructed as “weak”, thus distinguishing different areas in the city from each other. According to the rationale, the “weak” areas have a certain need for safe places where youth can meet on Fridays and Saturdays, as an alternative to destructive surroundings. Such articulations further reinforce a distance between provider and those in need of support. Still, this distance could be overcome through the support provided, establishing moral bonds in the community – something that is illustrated in the next excerpt.

For the local elite sports club involved in East City MF, establishing such morality and community appear to be the primary motivation for involvement in the activities. Here, the help provided becomes a means of establishing moral bonds and relations within the community. For instance, as illustrated in the following excerpt, the representative of the elite sport club underscores the importance of both forming and playing an active part in the community, given the club’s prominent position in the city.

The driving force is to always have social engagement. It could be a bit philosophical … […] We have such a strong platform in this city, so we must be able to stand for more things than only during the 90 minutes of a football match […] What kind of engagement do we want from ourselves? That is something we have worked on for some years now. There are core values that our club stands for. […] There are connections to elite sports, if we talk about integration. We have over fifty nationalities in our youth teams. If these are challenges that the city, that is society at large, confronts … well, then maybe it is something that [the elite sports club] should be dedicated to as well. […] So, we felt that we could reach a target group that we believe is really important to reach. That is youth aged 18 to 25 in socio-economically vulnerable areas. […] And we have a role to play here, so of course we want to do that.

As described, the elite sports club, based in the city centre, support the clubs based in the “socio-economically vulnerable areas” to carry out MF as part of its CSR work. Accordingly, social inclusion and integration are issues that the club needs to deal with in its regular youth activities, as these are challenges faced by society at large. The representative stresses that such “core values” of the club, instigating engagement, concern health and integration, which are issues were sport has a formative role to play and that are objects that the club wants to be associated with. By reaching out to youth, particularly those from ethno-cultural minority backgrounds, concentrated in areas with challenges of social exclusion, the elite sports club can regain its central position in the local community.

Although faith in goodwill seems to be firm in the statements analysed, ambiguous reflections on moral concerns with respect to charity and goodwill recur. For instance, the insurance company sponsor representative stresses that it should not be “like some superheroes coming into the area saving the kids from the suburbs out there … that’s not the real purpose, and it could be so wrong if they get to hear that way of talking about it”. According to him, the kids “don’t want our compassion … and that’s not what it is about, at all”. Such reflections concern how charitable actions are underpinned by notions of compassion and feeling good as well as how these actions relate to socio-cultural and socio-economic segregation and inequality. Reflections also concern navigating between different rationalities of goodwill, where goal-oriented and pragmatic provisions of goods (according to a philanthropic rationality) are repeatedly advocated, rather than value-based charity (associated with a more religious rationality of mercy and charity). In the following excerpt, the gentlemen’s club secretary puts forward such argument, stressing the importance of pragmatism in the support provided.

We can’t donate football boots, that would be a bit “von oben”. We want to do something, but it can’t be … They don’t want donations from us. They don’t want that. What can we do, where we help out with stuff, but not like some kind of … I don’t know … for us to ease our bad conscience and so on … It shouldn’t be about that. […] There is still an inner conflict in me about being in this kind of fellowship. […] But, I was afraid that it would appear as if we would … that they would receive charity, and that we would appear only as … if you know what I mean … like the white man helping out with money and donations to relieve his conscience. And it wasn’t like that, we really put our effort into making a difference. […] In the end, it is charity. Because we have the means to do this and they don’t. […] It’s a little weird with charity, because … it feels nice and in a way it’s good that we’ve done something. But, at the same time, when you have given something, it feels like, damn, you could have done even more.

In the excerpt, it is clearly stated that support should not be provided only to ease one’s conscience for having a privileged position or for making a good impression. Instead, by means of the support provided, the desire is to make a difference in the lives of the beneficiaries (and thus to govern the social change envisioned), and it is to be “making a difference” that provides the fundamental motivation of engagement. Importantly, the provider explicitly disassociates himself from a way of conceptualising charitable contributions as a condescending, “von oben”, activity. Such reflections on the provision of charitable contributions clearly illustrate an emphasis of pragmatism. Still, the provider stresses that feeling good for providing charitable contributions is a notable by-product.

The political potential of goodwill

However, feelings and actions of goodwill are not isolated actions of charitable help. Rather, in the statements analysed, the charitable actions are rooted, explicitly or implicitly, in notions of an ideal society and citizenship, involving the promotion of social change, constructed as a will to make a difference in society and to influence community. They also imbue notions of how this ideal society and citizenship may be enacted, and how their contribution to provide means for enabling community youth sport may be part of this governmental project (acted out at a distance from statist intervention). Accordingly, notions of goodwill imbue a political potential.

Most notably, this political potential involves a will to make a difference. By means of the contributions provided, the respondents wish to facilitate social change, in terms of help to form a good society, inhabited by good citizens. In the following excerpt, the sports gear CSR representative illustrates a pragmatic notion of making a difference, when describing the desired result of the charitable provision.

We aren’t so active in the political debate, unfortunately. But where we can make a difference, with local entrepreneurs, we are active there. […] It comes from “the heart”, so to speak … because sport and exercise can change the world. It sounds a bit cheesy, but if you want an answer, then that is what it is about. […] There are different levels of philanthropy … […] Within the industry, sports and sports in fashion, we make efforts for local entrepreneurship, to make sure that kids get the chance to be physically active at an early age, and not being out vandalising and making trouble on Fridays and Saturdays. If we can provide some money and contributions that would make a difference, then we should do that. […] I can see the need here. It becomes very clear. We can see and feel that we actually make a difference. I can come back to the office and give a report from real life, which is valued very highly in this company, that you are not only making donations, but that you were also engaged and have visited there.

Here, making a difference and promoting social change is not explicitly described as a political project. However, by means of taking an active role in promoting social change and by being an active force in society, the technologies of provision promoted are indeed a way of engaging in a project to make a better society. Not least, supporting entrepreneurship within civil society becomes a way to empower and activate the local community. Such engagement is not described in terms of political involvement. The engagement is underpinned by genuine ambitions to do good and to promote a better society. Most notably, the contributions provided are associated with “heart” and a sense of generosity. However, at the same time the contributions provided are underpinned by a pragmatic and goal-oriented rationale. These seemingly contradictory notions of charitable contributions illustrate quite well how a good society, desired and formed as a result of “making a difference”, is construed as a society characterised by personal and reciprocal relations between provider and those in need (i.e. a moral local community). Specifically, the political potential depicted in the statements analysed takes two main expressions: the formation of the good society and the good citizen.

In the following excerpt, the characteristics of the good society are detailed by the factory owner. Importantly, civil society is constructed as a domain with a certain potential of community, authenticity, social relations, autonomy and an assumedly genuine solidarity. However, such anti-statist sentiments are reluctantly talked about in political terms.

Our society becomes what we make it. And I’m not a big fan of the state and the municipality and that they should run everything. […] I don’t want to be political, but for me … […] My beliefs are that if you integrate everything into the public sector, then you won’t solve these problems. Because it has to be from one human being to another. I mean civil society, that is individuals, associations, families, that’s all kinds of constellations based on voluntarism in some sense. […] Municipal government … well, you can’t live without the municipality in this country, but, please, makes us at least economically independent from them. […] I mean, it is incredibly paralysing for people. […] Then it is a forced solidarity. Solidarity in itself, I mean … the word as such means that you do things by the will of your heart. But, I think that we lost that … when the state and municipality … […] You take away the will power of individuals, a will power I believe is genuinely good.

In this excerpt, the potential to form a good society is once more made explicit. As “society becomes what we make it”, the specific form of this society becomes the target of governing. In this endeavour of providing social support, the provision becomes a way to promote activities conceptualised in terms of (and constructing) civil society, its authenticity and powers of voluntarism, in contrast to the powers of coercion associated with the municipality. Accordingly, social problems should be countered by genuine personal relations and community between moral subjects, preferably without public intervention. Thus, social inclusion should be provided by voluntary measures. In this respect, the MF initiative serves as a way to reform the provision of social support, to enact social change and to re-vitalise civil society.

Also, in the following excerpt, the good society is manifested as an assemblage of good citizens. Accordingly, as described by the sports gear CSR representative, the good society is built by good human beings, for good people.

We want to create activities for children and youth. We want to make sure that children and youth at risk of social exclusion are prioritised. […] That is our ambition, the great vision and mission. And, we say that we want to create an active life for all, and absolutely, that is part of it all. In the strategy we have set up for our social initiatives, that is the basis for all that we do. […] Both in terms of being a good citizen, but also taking part in forming good citizens in some way and … so, I want to say, the concept of the good citizen is quite tellingly.

In this excerpt, the youth targeted by the MF initiative are described as being at risk of social exclusion. Here, the social support provided is focused on enabling social inclusion and an active life. Thus, being active and included is articulated as a good way of being a citizen. As described, by taking corporate social responsibility in providing for social support, the sports gear brand demonstrates what it means to be a good citizen and to be an active part of the community. This demonstration is described as being aimed at facilitating an educative and edifying activity that in turn may form good citizens.

Discussion and conclusion

In relation to how sport participation is legitimised as a social policy objective by means of the envisioned social benefits expected, we here discuss how philanthropy is introduced in social policy through the use of sports-based interventions such as those investigated. The analysis of how actors in supportive and facilitating roles articulate their charitable contributions in providing resources to enable sports-based interventions underscores how their goodwill allows youth in these particular residential areas to participate in football activities. We can reasonably assume that the charitable contributions made contribute by providing opportunities for youth to participate in sport – opportunities that would probably not have been available otherwise. This may be a benefit of the practices: providing opportunities for youth to participate in sport and to enjoy what they feel is a meaningful social and sporting activity (cf. Hartmann, 2016). However, this benign provision of opportunities raises at least three concerns regarding the rationality of goodwill and its political significance, beyond the obvious concerns about the projectification of welfare provision highlighted (Herz, 2016) following on from this analysis, that need to be addressed.

First, the analysis underlines that the targeted youth have unequal opportunities to participate in sports compared to youth living in other areas. Importantly, the conditions of participation for youth in areas of exclusion are underpinned by notions of need and social utility as well as conceptualisations of risk. Here, sport participation is articulated as a means provided for those in need of social support, as youth from these particular areas allegedly pose a risk both to themselves and to society (potentially resulting in delinquency, drug abuse and crime). Consequently, sport participation is provided as a means for social objectives rather than an end in itself (sport participation for fun and amusement) for the targeted youth.

Second, as these sport practices are conditioned by the anticipated social benefit, they become a means of welfare provision, as a part of the plethora of social policy measures and interventions promoted as a response to challenges of social exclusion (cf. Ekholm, 2016). In terms of welfare, the charitable contributions are based on goodwill rather than social rights. Accordingly, for the targeted youth, both welfare and sport participation are conditioned on the grace and goodwill of the provider, of being provided with opportunities for inclusion in and through sport (cf. Collins & Haudenhuyse, 2015).

Third, the above observation concerns how philanthropic rationales and forms of organisation influence social policy. By forming a kind of practice – sports (generally performed within the realm of civil society) as a means of providing for social support – corporate and civil society actors become involved in social interventions. In addition, the emphasis on goodwill and charitable provision rather than social rights and equal opportunities illustrates how philanthropic rationalities inform social policy in practice. Sports-based interventions performed in public–private partnerships become an opportunity for modern-day philanthropists to engage in social work practices. Such practices emerge through a philanthropic rationale and involvement.

These observations could be viewed in light of a discourse, predominant in relation to welfarist forms of governing, concerning the perceived threat of statist governing colonising civil society, as seen in both social policy and social research (Villadsen, 2008a, 2009). Although public sector and civil society sector divides are contingent and continually re-apprehended, there might be developments in social policy illustrating how (neo-)philanthropy informs public sector interventions and practices (Villadsen, 2009). Such a discourse animates the kind of contributions provided, and focused on in this article, as non-political and non-governmental acts of goodwill, community and provision of support for those in need – incidentally positioning the charitable contributors in various contexts in favourable ways, and establishing themselves as part of the local community (cf. Chouliaraki, 2010). Such discourse is instrumental for setting up the technologies steering the conduct of youth and instigating social change (cf. Foucault, 1982), not least by means of constructing moral relations (and by making the morality visible and explicit) between provider and recipient of social support (cf. Rose, 1999; Villadsen, 2009, 2011a) – based on notions of need, moral reform and supposedly authentic goodwill. Seemingly paradoxical, such discourse positions provider and recipient distant from each other – on the “inside” and on the “outside” of society – yet, with underpinning notions of forming moral community (but, with maintained and non-articulated power relations).

However, this discourse includes obvious political notions of social change and, importantly, the analysis highlights the power relations between provider and recipient embedded in the social support provided. The kinds of personal engagement and contributions illustrated in this analysis recognise injustices when it comes to poverty and exclusion; however, the form of intervention promoted does not address these problems or support collective actions and reform, but rather utilises them to legitimise a certain kind of provision of support and a particular form of governing social change (cf. Chouliaraki, 2010). In this sense, the motivations for charitable contributions highlighted could be seen to align with a neo-colonial discourse on the support provided to those deemed to be in need, when provided from the position of the included to those assumed to be in need, that is excluded youth (cf. Chouliaraki, 2010; Giulianotti, 2004). Involvement in sports-based social interventions such as the MF initiatives provides opportunities to realise particular visions of social change (albeit while maintaining these power relations) based on certain notions of a desired society and an ideal community rather than other alternatives; and that, essentially, is a matter of politics and contestation.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

ORCID

David Ekholm http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6252-9220

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by The Swedish Research Council for Sport Science [Grant Number 25-2016] and The Swedish Agency for Youth and Civil Society [Grant Number 1086/17].