In October of 1978, a committee met to explore the possibility of a merger between the National Council on Philanthropy (NCOP) and the Coalition of National Voluntary Organizations (CONVO). The vision was more than the mere marriage of two small organizations facing uncertain futures. Participants in this endeavor dreamed of an entity that would represent the entire nonprofit sector. The organization they birthed in 1979, Independent Sector (IS), was a meaningful step forward in unifying the sector. The IS board represented a broad range of sub-sectors and causes and also made strides in gender and, to a lesser extent, racial and religious diversity. Yet, there was an inherent tension in the project. Yes, it was true that people did not want to “interfere with pluralism” but they also wanted “a strong voice” to champion the sector—those involved called this dilemma a “persistent contradiction.” The tension was resolved in favor of the concerns of the powerful national non-profit institutions and foundations: tax policy, government relations, and sector advocacy. That is, the umbrella organization acted principally to preserve the sector, as constituted, and had little appetite for structural reform or discussion of competing notions of “the good” within the sector. Critics pointed to the exclusion of local organizations fighting issues that challenged societal injustice and inequitable distribution of power and resources. To them, and in retrospect to the authors of this paper, greater sector “unity” entailed consolidation of traditional power and continued marginalization of communities already on the periphery. Though four decades have passed, the same tension remains in the philanthropic sector. Contest and division between various interests and constituencies is as evident now as it was then. Enthusiastic support for the advancement of public goods often over-shadows issues of power—including the ability to impose one’s own definition of the public good on others. This critique has been leveled forcefully in recent years. Is it possible or even desirable to seek greater unity for the public good? Whose voices are privileged in the quest for greater sectoral unity? These are the questions this paper aspires to provoke and inform by examining the founding of the first major nonprofit sector association in the United States.

中文翻译：

---

独立部门：保持现状？

1978年10月，一个委员会召开会议，探讨了全国慈善理事会（NCOP）与国家志愿组织联盟（CONVO）合并的可能性。愿景不仅仅是两个面临不确定未来的小型组织的单纯婚姻。这项努力的参与者梦想着一个代表整个非营利部门的实体。他们于1979年成立的组织独立部门（IS），是统一该部门的重要一步。信息系统理事会代表着广泛的子行业和原因，并且在性别方面以及在较小程度上在种族和宗教多样性方面也取得了长足的进步。但是，该项目存在内在的张力。是的，的确，人们不想“干预多元化”，但他们也想要“强有力的声音”来捍卫这一领域，这些人称这种困境为“持久矛盾”。紧张局势得到解决，转而支持强大的国家非营利机构和基金会的关注：税收政策，政府关系和部门倡导。也就是说，保护伞组织的主要职责是维护部门的组成，对组织改革或讨论部门内“善”的竞争概念几乎没有兴趣。批评者指出，地方组织应排除那些挑战社会不公正以及权力和资源分配不均的问题。对他们来说，回顾本文的作者，更大的部门“统一”需要巩固传统权力，并继续使边缘地区的社区边缘化。尽管已经过去了四十年，但慈善部门仍然面临着同样的压力。如今，各种利益和选区之间的竞争和分庭明显。对公益事业发展的热情支持常常掩盖了权力问题，包括将自己对公益的定义强加于他人的能力。近年来，这种批评得到了有力的解决。为公共利益谋求更大的团结，是否可能甚至可取？谁的声音在寻求更大的部门统一中享有特权？这些是本文希望通过研究美国第一个主要的非营利部门协会的成立来激发和提供的问题。