Language and Intention and Business

Although my last post was deeply personal, I return here with a systems level look at a problem facing the nonprofit and for-profit arts sectors – that we use language imprecisely – and a corporate form that could help ameliorate that problem.  I am reacting in part to a recent post by Alorie Clark about the need to change the language we use in the nonprofit arts sector to describe what the sector does and what it needs. I would argue, as Jaan Whitehead has long before me, that part of the problem is defining a group of organizations by what it is not (profit) rather than what it is for (mission).  When I was a lighting designer, I didn’t  discriminate between nonprofit and for-profit organizations as long as the work was interesting and meaningful and the artists and crew were paid adequately for their work and treated with respect.  Many young artists I work with today are less concerned about being in a “nonprofit” or “for-profit” organization and more concerned about what business form will allow them to do the work they want to do and have the impact they want to have.

Is there a way to describe an arts organization business structure by what it “is” rather than what it is not? In Arizona and 13 other states, there is – the “Benefit Corporation.”  The benefit corporation (or “B-Corp”) is being advocated for by a nonprofit corporation called B-Lab to push states to allow corporations to have a triple bottom line of social benefit, positive environmental impact, and profit.  The incentives for forming a B-corp are not strictly economic, just as the incentives for forming a 501c3 are not.  Arts organizations could do well to investigate the B-corp as a means of aligning social mission with economic reality and their language with their intention.

About lindaessig

Linda Essig is Dean of the College of Arts & Letters at Cal State LA and principal/owner of Creative Infrastructure LLC. The opinions expressed on creativeinfrastructure are her own and not those of Cal State LA. You can follow her on twitter @LindaInPhoenix.
This entry was posted in Arts entrepreneurship, arts infrastructure and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Language and Intention and Business

  1. Kevin Hackett says:

    A true non profit would be 100% donation driven and 100% volunteer staff. I have yet to find one that even comes close.

  2. Just what neo-liberalism wants. Let the private sector take care of the public.

  3. The B corporation value proposition is pretty clear–using business approaches to solve social and environmental problems. While there ARE cultural organizations that use the arts in a similar instrumental way, the vast majority exist for an altogether different purposes. The language around these missions tends towards the language of elevation, not the language of problem-solving. Having said that, the profit/non-profit dichotomy with all the false connotations it provokes IS a problem. Too often, it sends the unintended message that non-profits are bad businesspeople when the facts paint a more complex picture.

  4. Pingback: Language and Intention and Business | Symposium Magazine

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s