6.12 | Four Models of Matriarchal
Wealth Redistribution

>> Isha Vela: Welcome to Waking Up Wealthy, the podcast for visionaries and rebels who are ready to revolutionize their relationship with money and create powerful collective ripples with the money they make. I’m your host, Isha Vela, trauma psychologist, somatic practitioner, financial professional and minimalist, bringing you practical money tools, unconventional wealth perspectives, and Aquarian era business strategies to guide you in building wealth that’s aligned, ethical and empowering. Let’s wake up to the true meaning of wealth together. 

Hello, welcome to the Waking Up Wealthy podcast. I’m Isha Vela, your host. I’m a psychologist, licensed financial strategist, somatic practitioner, and founder of the Wealth Ecology Institute, where the inner and outer work of matriarchal economics meets ecological regeneration. And I wanted to talk today about decolonizing philanthropy because up until recently, I used to drool at the thought of becoming a professional philanthropist. I had this image of donating my time, full time, and wads of money, my energy, funding women’s businesses and ecological projects all over the world. And that image to me felt like the peak experience. Right? Like doing that would let me know that I had arrived. And then when I started studying matriarchal economics around six months ago, and specifically wealth distribution models, I had to rethink some things because philanthropy is the dominant model of redistribution inside the extractive economy we are all swimming in. And it’s structurally designed to leave the power differential intact. And so before I go into anything, I just want to say, philanthropy isn’t nothing. It has its place. It funds real work. It sustains organizations that wouldn’t otherwise be able to exist. It moves resources that would otherwise stay concentrated. The problem with philanthropy is that the control still lives with the philanthropist. So the philanthropist decides where the money goes, when it goes, under what conditions it goes, and towards what outcomes. And the community or the organization on the receiving end, they don’t have any control over those decisions. And they are structurally dependent on the philanthropist’s goodwill, their interest in the cause, and their. Yeah, their continued belief that the cause is worthy. And that’s pretty much the opposite of sovereignty. And then on top of that, the philanthropist’s wealth and the system that produced it isn’t really questioned. And the giving just redirects a small percentage of what the extractive system produced back towards mitigating some of the damage the system caused. And think of this as like, let’s say your boat is drowning and then somebody gives you like a bucket and you were able to scoop out enough water to relieve the drowning. And then you’re like, woof, we’re not drowning anymore. We’re still, you know, we’re still swimming. But the redirection, right, the, the giving of the money provides just enough relief to release the pressure that might otherwise force you to build something that is actually sustainable, right? You know, to have. Make structural changes. So if you were actually drowning, you would be like, this isn’t working. We need to do. We need to get out of this boat and do something different. Right? It would actually force you to change your situation. And so the giver class does not fund its own dismantling, right? So in today’s episode, I want to give language. I want to provide language for four things that get collapsed into one, which is philanthropy. And I want to show you what it looks like to practice them within, I’m going to say a matriarchal, but also like, you know, just a, matri. When I say matriarchal, I mean like class and racially conscious framework. and the intention here is to explore power dynamics because, you know, matriarchy is really about, you know, we talked about. I’ve talked about, you know, moving from a triangle to a circle, and that’s all about power. That is really where, you know, where the power exists. And so we can’t. We can’t not talk about class and race as part of that. So there are four general categories of distribution, and we just talked about one of them. Philanthropy. Reparations is the second, and it involves the structural repayment of a specific historical debt. And it’s basically, I want you to think of it as distribution with accountability. You’re recognizing that wealth, you know, has a history of extraction. And that extraction was specifically on black bodies, black labor, indigenous bodies and indigenous labor. And black and indigenous people were never compensated for that labor and were systematically and often violently kept from being, to being able to participate in the. In the economy. So the reparations seek to repair not necessarily the dehumanization, but the, the marginalization. Right? Because it set. It was a form of. Think of it as a form of financial abuse on top of the human rights abuse. And so reparation seeks to at least not resolve, but kind of like pay back on that debt. And so as part of reparations, there are some pieces that are important to name. You want to trace the debt. Like, you want to explore where did your wealth actually come from? Did it come from inherited land, a family business, a degree, from an institution, a neighborhood that appreciated in value because another neighborhood was redlined? Right. It’s reparations require naming the specific extraction and the specific community it was extracted from, not humanity in general. And you want to pay the identified community. Not, again, not a general cause. This feels very specific. If your family wealth traces to land back, that takes that, you know, that goes back to a specific indigenous nation. For example, reparations means paying back the nation or the descendants of it, or not indigenous causes broadly. And if it traces back to enslaved labor, it means paying descendant organizations working on black reparations, not a general racial justice fund. Right. Specificity is what makes it accountable instead of a donation. And so you want to, when practicing reparations, you want to let the receiving community set the terms. What is the amount, what is the form, what’s the timeline those reparations get, get to be paid back. Right? It’s, it’s dependent or determined rather by the people who are owed, not by what feels generous or sustainable to you. And some individual reparations practices work, like recurring, rent on land paid to a tribal nation or a trust indefinitely because the occupation is ongoing. It’s not a one time. So, they can be. This can take the form of direct cash transfers to descendant individuals or families. sometimes this happens through like there’s, there’s basically platforms that are designed for this that already exist. There is land return or rematriation where the land itself goes back to the nation it was taken from, not just money, which is actually much more empowering. there can be estate and inheritance redirection, right? You name, you write a specific community into a will or a trust as a named creditor. You can cancel debt where an institution forgives specific debts owed by a historically harmed community. and then there’s like institutional reparations like, ah, Georgetown University, there’s an example of this funding descendants of the enslaved people it sold. Or Evanston, Illinois, paying residents harmed by historic housing discrimination directly in cash through a formal municipal program. and so the, the what I want, what I want you to take from this little, this little section here on reparations is that, you know, you want to watch out for like the vagueness of the reparations, like you don’t want to say something like, or you don’t want to just give 10% of your income to racial justice. That sounds like reparations, but it functions like philanthropy because there’s no specific debt and no specific creditor. And the test is whether you can name out loud exactly whose loss this repays. And if you can’t, it hasn’t really left your control there’s, there’s going to be a point at which it’s going to get uncomfortable as the giver, as you look into, as you trace the thread of where your wealth came from or who you’re going to be paying back and why, it’s going to get uncomfortable for you there you’re going to have some feelings about it. Maybe shame comes up or, or remorse, or grief. Right. So the more comfortable you are, like, the less it really is about reparation. So you wanna, you wanna get into that discomfort a little bit.

>> Isavela: Hey, real quick before we get back to the episode. You keep saying you want an indigenous matriarchy now, and I believe you. And it’s gonna require a relationship with money that’s completely outside of the tradfi model and a body that’s mapped to ecological systems. So I made something for that. Flow is a matriarchal money masterclass followed by five emails over five days each providing you an internal shift and a concrete action step to match walks you through the somatic and ancestral patterns running the show and the structures that

>> Isavela: let money move through community.

>> Isavela: Instead of stagnating in scarcity. By the end of the week, you’ll be moving money like a matriarch. So find the link in the show notes, sign up and flow will come straight to your inbox. Okay, let’s get back to it.

>> Isavela: So the third type of redistribution, because we, the first one was philanthropy, the second one was reparations, and the third is solidarity funding. And solidarity funding is the power building work of communities changing the conditions of their own marginalization. It’s not just the services that help people survive inside the conditions. So an example of this would be funding a food pantry. That’s a symptom level response. It feeds the people who are immediately hungry, hungry this week. It’s necessary. It keeps people alive, it keeps people fed, but it doesn’t solve the problem of why people are going hungry or why they can’t buy groceries. The pantry continues to exist this year, the year after, but the underlying conditions are never moved or changed. So the solidarity level response to that would be funding a black farmer owned land cooperative or a community led seed bank, or a group organizing to get zoning changed so a neighborhood can legally run its own urban farms instead of relying on like liquor stores or convenience stores that are in the neighborhood instead of a food co op. Right, and that helps fund the community’s access to food, giving them control over their food supply. You know, be land, seeds, legal standing and distribution infrastructure. So it’s, it’s the investment in the community becoming sovereign and free of the emergency service systems. Same thing with domestic violence. You can fund a domestic violence shelter, and that is at the symptom level. It’s essential. It saves women’s lives, but it doesn’t change anything about why the violence happens. So funding a community’s economic cooperative that gives women financial independence from abusive partners is solidarity level. It changes one of the actual conditions that makes leaving impossible in the first place. And then you also want to target misogyny. Right? So there’s organizations that I know of that support the education of, of, I’m going to say men. But, you know, women are misogynist too, but misfortune, misogynist, men in particular, and helping them become allies to women. So the fourth type of redistribution is mutual aid. So mutual aid is the most ecologically precise of the four redistribution types. This is direct, non hierarchical exchange based on need and capacity with no institution standing between them. And examples of this would be rotating saving circles that we talked about in another episode. The original bank was usually, check that out if you want to get the full, get the full info on that. And the time bank. A time bank can also be included in this category. Time banking is a system of moneyless exchange where people trade services using hours as currency. that means an hour of your labor equals an hour of somebody else’s labor, regardless of skill. Right. and mutual aid is the behavior that results from having relational infrastructure. Somebody shows up with dinner after you’ve had a family loss, for example. We, not, we may not always see these behaviors as mutual aid, but it’s important for them to really understand them, like to really give them a name. Because we’re like, well, this is just, I’m just doing this for a friend, but helping, huh? you know, categorizing it or naming it helps us understand what is happening, when it’s happening and when it isn’t. Right. And a mature redistribution practice moves through all four, or has all four as part of the redistribution portfolio. in proportions determined by your specific position in the ecosystem. Basically, how much wealth do you steward? what communities are you in relationship with and what do they actually need? And before I move on to the next section, I, you know, I want to name something that, that I shared, online in a post that everything I teach about matriarchal economics, the rotating savings circle, community trusts, mutual aid networks, and the relationships that make it all possible. Black and brown women have been practicing this for centuries. Basically, they Never stopped. And I’m thinking specifically about, you know, of black women in the United States, indigenous people in the United States and Canada. You know, I. They didn’t call it matriarchal economics. They called it community work. They called it activism, church, living according to the ancient ways. And they built it without formal frameworks, without anyone calling it revolutionary, without having it be you know, original or a paradigm shift. They built it because that’s what their communities did and because they weren’t, you know, they weren’t part of the, they weren’t groups of people that the bigger culture supported. They knew no one else was coming and they just showed up. Because that’s what you do, right? And the piece that’s important to name is that the consensus culture regarded it as less than the kind of thing that happens in communities that are struggling, that haven’t learned yet to make it in the system that was basically built on their exploitation and forced labor. And, you know, I am, I, you know, whenever I talk about this stuff, I am, I am learning as well. Right? Like, I didn’t think of this as matriarchal three years ago, you know, and you know, when I say that the extraction economy was so thorough in its colonization, I’m talking about me. It was so thorough in its colonization of our imaginations that we looked at some of these sophisticated community wealth building technologies and we called them fringe, or we thought of them as less than. Right? And I want to, I want to name in, again, in the United States, black women as the real architects of matriarchal economics. And I’m sure black women all around the world are doing this and are sort of the keepers of these traditions. And they’ve kept this alive with zero acknowledgment or applause. And that’s why I always tell people, like, listen to black people pay black people, you know, you know, these are, they’re the innovators, right? so going back to charity, or going back to philanthropy and talking about charity for a moment, right? Because talked about church for, for a hot second. and charity is a one way transaction. Like, what’s the difference between charity and philanthropy? Let’s, you know, let’s pull that thread. charity is also a one way transaction. It keeps the giver powerful and the receiver dependent. Right? When you give a homeless person a dollar or two dollars or any currency of money, it doesn’t really change any of the structures. It doesn’t change where your money comes from. It doesn’t really empower the homeless person, it allows them to buy a sandwich. but redistribution is structural, right? The intention is to close the gap between those who have and those who don’t have very much. So let’s, let’s walk through this together, piece by piece. So in redistribution, power is shared, right? Philanthropy is motivated by generosity, guilt, legacy, maybe even a tax strategy. But redistribution is motivated by ecological accountability. So the recognition that the system is out of balance and the resources need to move in order to correct that imbalance. In philanthropy, the receiver has to demonstrate worthiness. They have to be grateful, or it’s expected that they’re grateful. They have to comply with the giver’s vision and mission. And in redistribution, the receiver doesn’t have to do any of this. The, the, the worthiness or the dignity isn’t contingent on any sort of approval. And like I said earlier, philanthropy leaves the systems it produced untouched, right? The, the disparity, it doesn’t get really examined or looked at. Redistribution, again, exists specifically to change those systems. Philanthropy centers the giver’s preferences because the giver decides where, how much, towards what outcome, on what timeline. And in redistribution, the giver’s comfort is completely irrelevant. It’s the ecosystem’s need that determines the direction. Right? Who needs it most? And the philanthropy is accountable to the giver’s values and vision. Redistribution is accountable to the communities receiving the resources. So it’s really just, it puts the power with the receiver rather than the giver. The philanthropy builds dependence. And this continued kind of like, you know, like grants, like non profit grants, for example, they’re always like, oh, what grant can I get? I have to write a grant and basically try to get money from people who are wanting to donate it to specific causes. Redistribution builds collective capacity that doesn’t require the giver to keep showing up.

>> Isavela: Right?

>> Isavela: it builds sovereignty over time. And philanthropy sustains the extractive system. It provides, again, just enough relief to reduce the pressure. Redistribution names the extractive system specifically, and it begins dismantling it from the inside. Philanthropy asks, how much can I give while staying comfortable? And redistribution asks, what does the ecosystem, what does the ecosystem actually need? From my specific position in it, okay, when, like I said earlier, when we talk about matriarchal systems, we’re automatically talking, talking about the redistribution of power. And when we talk about decolonizing philanthropy, we’re moving from the triangle to the circle. And in the triangle, resources are extracted from the bottom and flow to the top of the pyramid, where the power is held. And in the circle, power Is. Is decentralized and flows outward. Right? And that’s how the decentralized, decentralization happens is by the flowing outward. So decolonizing philanthropy is not about improving the giver’s ethics. It’s about moving or removing the single giver as the structural center of the transaction and dismantling your exclusive control over it. So there’s, there’s power that the, philanthropist has to give up. And so I’m going to outline that specifically. And this is where, you know, it stops being about theory. If you’re the one holding the wealth, the one in positions to make philanthropic moves, it’s really about removing your control over what happens to the wealth. And, you know, matriarchal economics is not asking you to. For your wealth to disappear, it’s asking for your wealth to circulate. The same way ecosystems on Earth move resources through itself without hoarding or destroying them. And you need to stop being the only person who decides what happens to your wealth. Right? You’re. In ecological terms, you stop. You have to be invested in not being the dam. Right. Versus a, flowing river. Here’s what that looks like in practice. Stopping. Stop attaching strings to your giving. Right? Instead of saying, here’s money, but only for the specific project done in the way that I want it to be done, you have to give without having conditions. Or even better, join a group where pe. Where the people who actually are receiving the help get to decide who receives the funding instead of you deciding. Right. A lot of families set up foundations, design designed to exist for generations, right. To keep the control in the family the whole time. And that’s the opposite of giving up power. Instead, pick a deadline and give everything away completely. Right? Is, that specific amount, not all of your wealth, but the specific amount. If you’re on board of something you fund, make sure the community gets an equal vote, not just a seat at the table. While you still call the shots.

>> Isavela: Right?

>> Isavela: While you still have veto power. And maybe you stop demanding reports and proof of worthiness before you trust people with the money. Making someone prove they deserve it over and over is like a guilt trip set up, and it’s disguised as accountability and just don’t do it. And I want you to expect this to feel uncomfortable. Right? Expect it to feel bad and, and do it anyway. Right? Like normal. There’s this, like, normal feeling good. That’s like you write the check and you’re done. You give it away and there’s kind of like this, this relief. And I’m Going to talk about that somatic signature in a second. But normal giving feels good because you write the check and then you’re done. But real power sharing again is going to feel uncomfortable. It’s going to mean staying in the relationship even after you’ve stopped feeling needed or important. And that discomfort is the actual work, not a sign that you’re doing it wrong. And like I said, when you write that check, this is about the somatic signature. When you write the check, there’s this buildup of tension. Right. as you prepare to write the check. Right. There’s maybe like some. Maybe there’s some sensation. and then when you actually. When you actually, you know, press send on the transfer or write the check or, you know, it gets withdrawn from your account, there’s this loosening that says, there, it’s handled, I did it. It’s a little bit like discharging guilt. Or maybe it’s exactly like discharge discharging guilt. It’s kind of like, I did what I had to do and I feel complete now that I’m done with it. And redistribution has a completely different somatic signature. There’s less of that relief feeling and much more of that full presence that’s often actually very uncomfortable because you’re having to stay in the relationship instead of just absolving yourself of guilt and then leaving. Right. So you’re not. You’re staying in the relationship and you’re just like, okay, I’m still here and I’m still connected, but I’m not like, I’m, You’re doing something else with the money.

>> Isavela: Yeah.

>> Isavela: And it’s not about distrusting what feels good. It’s about tracking where that feeling of relief is coming from. Right. Really looking at the source point. And if you’re building any redistribution vehicle, whether it’s a giving circle or a family trust or a community fund, you want to put that governance in writing before that first amount of currency moves. Right. The document is what keeps power distributed instead of quietly recentralizing around whoever holds the biggest checkbook. And three, you know, you want to build the vehicle that survives you. it can be a community trust, it can be some form of collective wealth holding structure. Maybe a, financial facility, like a bioregional financing facility, instead of just one person’s preferences. And those are. Those are structural. Those are, they’re governed. They’re like community gov. There’s community governance around that. So there are specific stewards that are named to, you know, to decide on a collective level what happens to Them. So again, you’re giving up power there. yeah. And it’s, it’s again, it’s a community that receives the money, that makes the decision that they are the ones that govern. And that’s the difference between funding a project and funding sovereignty specifically. So the fourth part of like the somatic signature piece is letting need, not comfort, set the direction. So philanthropy asks the giver what they want to fund and redistribution asks the ecosystem what it needs. So practically that means resourcing the people who are closest to the harm to set the terms. They determine the amount, the timeline, the definition of what, what a successful giving experience is. And your job is, you know, shifts from, you know, the architect of, you know, keeping the system in place to becoming a conduit of wealth. Right? To be a channel of wealth, a steward. So in closing, what I shared in this episode doesn’t mean that should, you should stop giving, making donations or anything like that. Everything I talked about today is just looking at the, how you give. Right. These are, there are many energetic pieces to this as well. And I just touched on a tiny piece when I talked about the Somatics. But again, the energy of like the scarcity piece, that’s an episode I did the last episode I did that you can, that you can listen to. There are many ancestral aspects and energetic aspects that, that come into this as well. and I can talk about those energetic pieces on another episode. But this is really about not equating giving with redistribution. Right. You want to be looking at when, whenever you’re giving money, you want to be able to have the, the financial education to understand what it is that you’re actually practicing. And philanthropy is always going to exist on some level. It isn’t a terrible thing, it’s just incomplete. Right. And you wanna, you don’t wanna be the center of that philanthropic practice. yeah. And philanthropy is just one tool among four. Right. We talked about philanthropy, reparations, solidarity and mutual aid. And because matriarchal economics will always center the relationship, it’ll always make the relationship a, priority. So whenever, any money, you want to make sure that the distribution of power is happening through that relationship. And that is the priority. All right, thanks a lot and have a beautiful rest of your day. Thank you for listening. Thank you for listening to today’s episode. Remember to hit the subscribe button to get notified of new episodes dropping on the new and full moons of each month. And if you haven’t already, leave us a five star review on itunes to make sure that everyone who needs this transmission receives it. Until the next episode, I’m sending you fierce, fierce love.