Time flies! I haven't been dry on ideas to write about, but I have been pretty lazy about actually getting them down on paper/blog...
In my not so lazy moments I've been doing a little bit of leisure reading: "Energy Services for the Millennium Development Goals," a 116 page UN report addressing energy needs and approaches for developing countries. It really is fascinating. Last week I began to delve into it during my flight to CU Boulder, where I checked out their Environmental Engineering for Developing Communities program. These things said, lately I've been thinking about what it means to provide help for a developing country. How can we help them? What do developing communities really need? What does "poverty" or "third world" even mean? I have more questions than I have answers, so please, share your thoughts!!
I'll introduce my thoughts with a story. When I was in Nigeria two years ago, my friend and I met a pastor whose wife just gave birth to their son. He was radiant, and we began to talk about family and life in Nigeria and America. I commented on how wonderfully genuine the families were in Nigeria, and how its friendliness made it such a beautiful place. He agreed, but admitted that Nigeria was nothing like the grandeur of New York City, in which he dreamed of living. My friend and I looked at each other with skepticism... is it really worth sacrificing a beautiful culture for independent, impersonal skyscrapers?
Everyone is familiar with the basic third world needs: food, clean water, medicines, etc. Seems straight forward, right? But when you look into it, there is a lot more than meets the eye. Agriculture can be improved with machines, education and economies can be improved through electricity and computers with internet, and communication through cell phones. These improvements enable women to work and children to go to school. Infrastructure can be installed and buildings built, and the list of possible improvements goes on. These can all be very good, but I do question the motivations and the aims of these developments, both as a means of challenging my own convictions as well as ensuring the best for these communities. The big question I'm asking is, "what is our end goal?" What would the world look like if tomorrow all the objectives were achieved and everything was "developed" to a sufficient point so as no one was in poverty? Here are my meager ramblings:
#1 The UN report focuses on moving communities from poverty to the first rung of competitive global economics, which means training professionals, creating small businesses, and introducing modern technology. Should every world culture have computers? Can poverty only be eliminated through a globalized economy? Should all women in all cultures work? Should electricity and agricultural machines that help increase productivity also introduce developing communities to electronic entertainments, reliance on oil, specialization, and the replacement of human labor with technology? Our goal is not to "westernize" these cultures, but how do we develop communities without just making them more like us? Where do we draw the line between aid and assimilation?
#2 On a more philosophical note, perhaps my question poses no real answer. Not because it is impossible to meet the objectives set out by the UN and eradicate poverty, but because the definition of poverty will always change over time. The global poverty scale is measured by monetary value per day (extreme poverty equals less than $1/day USD). Of course, this must be relative to the rest of the world's living standard. What used to be the norm is now considered poverty. In the future, will those with land line phones, bulky slow computers, and gasoline powered cars be poor? There must be some distinction between cultural poverty and subsistence poverty.
#3 Is it accurate to define poverty by monetary value alone? I think that money is just one factor, albeit a major one, that affects poverty; but at the core, it should not define it. Money is merely a tool by which we reach more fundamental needs: nourishment, safety, freedom, and fulfillment, for example. While these are more difficult to quantify, I think they need to be considered in order to properly address poverty. In a general sense, I would define poverty as anything that oppresses people from meeting these goals, whether it's monetary, social, political, emotional, mental, or spiritual. For example, Nigeria has been ranked the friendliest country in the world, yet America's divorce rate can't boast the same accolade. From my own personal experiences, and many others, those with less are usually more thankful and of all things, generous, than those with more. From this point of view, poverty is all around us. Which leads me to my last thought...
#4 The gospel. I'm finding more and more that all throughout the Bible poverty is viewed by this holistic perspective. Yes, the gospel is about spiritual freedom, but at its core it is also a social and physical message. It's about feeding the poor, caring for orphans and widows, and sheltering the homeless. Moreover, it calls us to serve the broken-hearted, to live in an interdependent, accountable community, to care for the environment, to commit to sacrificial love, and to heal the sick. And these are not just practices that Christians are supposed to do; they are the change, restoration, and reconciliation that define the Christian faith. And so I think the Bible has a lot to say about poverty, about getting rid of oppression. And I think it's a good place to start laying a foundation for how to address poverty.
All that said, there are still a lot of questions, and a lot of room for interpretation. Here are my thoughts. What are yours?
4 comments:
ok,i am at work and dont' have much time to respond... but first, i like your paragraph #4 about how the Bible takes a holistic approach to poverty. we all need to realized that poverty is a spiritual, physical, moral, and emotional state... and christians need to respond to all of these facets of poverty.
Secondly, if you look into sociology, you will find many "theories" or definitions of poverty, which define it in many ways... i could try to dig into some old course work for you to find that material...
and lastly, what's the context for your question about if all women should work in all cultures?? i think all women should have a right to work if they want to... obviously a topic we could delve into much more in person. see you soon!!!
I read an article harshly critiquing the pursuit of technological growth arguing that although new technology was meant to have a positive effect no one stopped to think of the negative effects that may come about. The problem I realize is that one way to fight poverty is to create more jobs, and the way we know how to create more jobs is to develop new technology. Eventually, however something has to give.Is there a way to give people the resources they need to rise above the poverty line and still preserve their loving community structure? Which is more unjust? To have a culture that is individualist and unfriendly, or poverty?
Kristen:
i'd love to see some of those sociology books.
As for the context, when writing this post, i was thinking very generally. I meant to look at it from the context of a western worldview where women are encouraged and even expected to have an education and a job. But should we place the same expectations on women of other cultures? In response to my own question; I agree with you that women should be allowed the freedom of choice. To force labor or to force non-labor would be wrong; and furthermore, I do not think we should impose the expectation of labor or non-labor on other cultures either. At the same time, I'm not against cultures learning from one another or even cultures teaching other cultures about lifestyles and practices that can improve lives (for instance, maybe a certain culture would really benefit if woman worked). Dialogue and learning from others' experiences isn't only good, it's just common sense.
Laura:
Technology can be a double edged sword. When I was at eMi training, they gave examples of engineering projects gone wrong: the intent was good, but the project was shortsighted and led to more problems. A lot needs to be taken into account, from the materials available for repairing technology, to the training of natives, to including and motivating the community so that they understand and even want the technology. It's challenging, but still relatively straightforward; the questions you bring up about technology are even deeper. A couple things...
"...one way to fight poverty is to create more jobs." Definitely true, but it goes without saying that poverty is so much more as well. We can fight poverty without creating jobs through medicines, sanitation, education, good economic practices, etc.
"...and the way we know how to create more jobs is to develop more technology." First, maybe we can create jobs without increasing technology in a community. Afterall, technology cuts jobs as well as creates them. It would be interesting to see the statistics of how many jobs different types of technologies create versus how many they cut, depending upon how developed a country is. Does technology really help underdeveloped countries but only up to a certain point of diminishing returns? Anyhow, perhaps more jobs can be created by improving organization of a cultures commerce, through specialization, or, well, through education - all of these are great alternatives to technology.
Secondly, technology can be applied in different ways, some more beneficial than others. Instead of replacing all the field workers with large tractors, use technology to improve infrastructure such as roads, which enables more trade and increases the demand for more workers.
Great questions in your last few sentences. I don't know, but II do think it's worthwhile to point out a few assumptions you've made:
"Eventually, however something has to give." Will it really give out? If technology always increases, and if it always produces more jobs... but is this always true? What exactly do you mean by "something has to give?"
"Which is more unjust? To have a culture that is individualist and unfriendly, or poverty?" Hmm. Is technology the reason for our individualistic society?? Looking back in history, I think there are plenty of other reasons why America has tended to reject interdependence, community, and family. Not to say that technology hasn't had a role (electronic games and communication can sometimes promote self-oriented goals and thinking and hinder interpersonal communication). Although, with the rise of technology comes the age of "networking." Ironic??
Good post, Kyle. A few things came to mind while I was reading it. You posed the questions "What is poverty?" and "What is third-world?" and "What do developing communities really need?" I think the first question is subjective, the second objective-dependent (I mean, it depends on first and second world definitions; we brushed upon in sociology), and the third is unchanging.
What is poverty? This is subjective to the community, I think. Like you said, it involves a holistic view. I think that I can include "mental" or "academic" in there, and retrofit "moral" with "spiritual". All these aspects breakdown the human response to life. God created us in His image, therefore we have freedom to express the physical, emotional, mental, and spiritual aspects of this body in praise of our creator. Food, shelter, and the basics to satisfy our physical needs. Culture and art and friends and family to satisfy our emotional needs. Education, work, study, and exploration to satisfy our academic needs. And the body of Christ and the word of God to satisfy our spiritual needs.
The definitions of first, second, and third worlds are intertwined, depending on how dependent or independent nations are. I don't remember how, but I think we can think of it as upper, middle, and lower class. There is even a fourth world.
What do developing communities really need? If you are talking about real "needs", then all anyone needs is the Gospel. I mean, the Gospel of truth that produces genuine love for God. And as heralds, we love others as we love ourselves, and we would give to them what we give to ourselves, because that's what Christ did.
Post a Comment