Hi All: Katiria is having trouble posting, so I'm posting her entry:
There is no question about how impacting and interesting David Bornstein’s reading How to Change the World was. The reading brought forth a lot of questions and comments in our class discussion this past Thursday. For instance, did these normal everyday people discussed in How to Change the World significantly impact the world? Or is it truly necessary for someone to be a Brad Pitt or an Angelina Jolie to actually be able to make a difference? In my eyes it is unnecessary for someone to be famous to be able to make a positive impact in the lives of others. No matter how small the task as long as it makes a difference in one life this will have meant that this has significantly changed the world. I say this because I see aiding one person and making a difference in that one person’s life as something that will trickle down and have a ripple effect on others. With this I definitely believe these people mentioned in How to Change the World have already made a significant change in the world. Their actions have led to the acknowledgment of failures in the system that have caused in some systematic changes.
In relation to our discussion that quickly evolved, Professor Stein shared a quote from Slavoj Zizek, Violence in the seminar that left the class somewhat divided on whether to lean towards agreeing or disagreeing with its words. This quote was “Charity is the humanitarian mask hiding the face of economic exploitation”. This argument can clearly go either way, for charity or against it. Personally, I whole heartedly believe that charity can be a positive thing, especially when donating to the right organizations that truly help others. There are some people out there that are unfortunately in situations they cannot easily get themselves out off and it is a blessing for them to get any help they can possibly get. On the other hand, I can see myself agreeing with what Zizek expressed, from my perspective I feel that in reality there are many wealthy individuals that are using charities now in days, as a system of tax exemptions not truly not caring about who they donate to, what the cause is or if in reality their money is being put to good use and these people are being helped. They are simply caring about their tax returns. The discussions in the seminar regarding this quote simply blew me away. It was just so much back to back and I felt that there was so much more that could have been discussed regarding this topic and so much more that so many of us wanted to say that I felt this would be the perfect topic for our blog. So that we may have the opportunity to further discuss it and possibly respond to one another comments and give our thorough opinions because I feel that this is an opportunity to further or great learning experience.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
During our last seminar, I have to agree with Danielle that there were so many thoughts and comments that you are left trying to incorporate others thoughts and comments with your own. I was left very speechless with everyone's opinions that I was trying to incorporate with my own. But because we are in an interdisciplinary seminar, we are able to look and listen to all sides (something that I have never experienced before in college).
In reference to "How to Save the World" by Bornstein, I believe that the individuals made significant change. Many of individuals were from countries that have very meager income (many times the poverty level is astounding), yet they were able to make changes (even if it's just a little) in their community and/or country.
In reference to the quote, "Charity is the humanitarian mask hiding economic exploitation" - I looked at the quote in two different ways. I looked at the recipients of the charity as being economically exploited because they were given these services and/or goods to keep them where they are. On the other hand, I was also looking at the nonprofits and volunteer agencies being economically exploited. Nonprofits as we know work on very little money that they rely on a lot if foundations and/or government for. They work hard to get this money from different places and most of the time it's barely enough. They are often times overworked and run on very little money and that's why I believe that they are economically exploited as well.
As for the agency that I'm at, I am still transcribing interviews which is a very long process but I am learning a lot about the residents there & the programs that they provide to the tenants at the buildings.
Thanks, Katiria, for getting us started this week and to Lisa for commenting right away. This is a complicated question and we will be revisiting this question throughout the year (the great thing about an interdisciplinary class and a year-long class!). I wanted to point out an interesting slip -- entirely my fault -- about the title of Bornstein's book. The actual title of the book is HOW TO CHANGE THE WORLD. Somehow, on the syllabus, I changed it to HOW TO SAVE THE WORLD, which is now the way we have been referring to it. But what's the difference? Is there a difference between "saving" and "changing" the world and if so what? Does the difference have something to do with our conversation about the different models of social entrepreneurship? With our different understandings of progress (that pesky 12%)?
As a scholar of Victorian literature, I can't help but leave you with one of the most exquisite paragraphs in English literature which pretty much sums up the 19th century attitude about charity (to which I referred in class). This is from George Eliot's novel, MIDDLEMARCH: "But the effect of her being on those around her was incalculably diffusive: for the growing good of the world is partly dependent on unhistoric acts; and that things are not so ill with you and me as they might have been, is half owing to the number who lived faithfully a hidden life, and rest in unvisited tombs."
There is always this gray area between expectations and reality. While I totally agree that aiding one person does in fact make a huge difference, I’m not entirely sure i agree with the concept of it trickling down. There’s something deeper than that model that has been preached for years. I mean if helping one trickled down we would be in a much better world than we are today. Someone isn’t returning the favor. There’s always been a debate as to whether people are doing the good thing because it’s right and just or just doing it for some other reason. Its only a selected few who posses the ability to help others without seeking any glory within it for themselves. Nevertheless whose to know that the receiver will inurn have the same mindset as the giver.
It was almost like our posts earlier last week; I remember a reference to 9/11 being stopped by Joe Schmo who came up with the idea of locking the captain’s door. I was intrigued by the ability of the human mind to think in retrospect. I thought the same thing how come some one never thought about that? Nevertheless the blog went on to have sympathy towards Joe who passed 9/10 and didn’t receive any credit for his idea. This is a characteristic ingrained in our beings and inherent in our minds. We have a need for recognition. I think Joe being the man I know he is wouldn’t care about his name not being known “for the growing good of the world is partly dependent on unhistorical acts; and that things are not so ill with you and me as they might have been, is half owing to the number who lived faithfully a hidden life, and rest in unvisited tombs." Wow, I must have read this quote 10 times to digest how eloquently its been stated. It almost makes you sympathetic for Joe Schmo. So in a sense the real problem lies in the weight of the world’s sick needy and destitute being place on the backs of (Brad Pitt, Bill Gates, Bloomberg, Donald Trump, Michael Jackson the Wal-Mart family etc.) the wealthy who contributed to the problem ten-fold with the exception of pretty boy and M.J of course. I thank you for sharing that quote professor Reitz; indeed we need more unhistorical acts from “insignificant people”.
I have to confess that I feel a bit awkward posting my comment just now--Wednesday morning. I had hoped there were more comments already posted from students by the time I did so. But time is running short. We are meeting tomorrow morning, and I don't want the day to pass before I know it.
So here goes, and hopefully, I'll be short. Here's another thought-provoking quotation from Žižek: "Systemic violence (is) the often catastrophic consequences of the smooth functioning of our economic and political systems...it is inherent to (the) 'normal' state of things...It may be invisible, but it has to be taken into account..."
So if we are to understand WHY there is abject poverty (here and elsewhere), WHY there is the VIOLENT downward spiral that results from economic displacement (in the US, this includes the housing/mortgage crisis; growing unemployment; lack of sane health care policy--where health care is considered a human right; WHY there is a disproportionate number of poor, minority, young people in US prisons, WHY we have so many social "problems" (here and around the globe) that then inspires well-meaning individuals to respond charitably, we need to truly dig deep and understand what constitutes those economic and political systems that run so SMOOTHLY--and how these are directly tied to systemic violence (that includes all those crises listed above AND also includes, of course, war). Since it's so invisible, it's difficult to actually analyze, and perhaps it's then just easier for us to focus on what we see, not what we can't see. This, I believe, is what Hilfiker is trying to expose. He argues that he will continue to provide "charity," despite its limitations, but to "change the world" requires advocacy and resistance to that smooth functioning political-economic system. Only then, when basic human rights (which systemic violence can so easily trample on)are truly honored, will charity no longer be needed.
I guess I wrote more than I intended after all....
Reading How to Change the World by Bornstein, it was clearly stated that a grain of salt can truly add to the sea of social change that slowly has started to change the world. I am amazed at how many organizations are working to help someone in need. What can be found on the margins of my copy of the reading are mostly “great writing! Pleasant read! Very passionate!” and on that note I want to bring your attention specifically to the writing, the language used in this book. What stood out to me can be found on chapter seven: Ten-Nine-Eight- Childline! Counting from the first page of the chapter, seven pages further, on the left column, there’s a line that states, “After three or four days, the boy expired.” I feel this choice of wording completely takes away from the impact the reader is expecting. As you read, you already know what’s coming. The piece is written very detailed and strong and then, when it comes to state the fact, the wording used completely threw me away, it bothered me because I wanted to feel the pain, and those words tried to minimize that and took the impact from the facts.
I don’t believe we need to be celebrities to contribute to charity, and yes some people do only do it for the tax deductible advantage of giving to charity. On that aspect, charity can definitely be “the humanitarian mask hiding the economic exploitation.” Charity however is not just writing a check, (although that is greatly needed) it is the devotion of those who get in their hands and knees and are actually helping those in need. I found the reading, “Justice and the Limits of Charity”, to be very interesting. Is charity debilitating the work of social justice? Does it really stand in the way? I believe charity is necessary in order to restore the human basic needs such as a place to sleep, food and clothing. However charity does not fix the social structure that needs to be reformed in other to solve these problems. I agree with Mr. Hilfiker, charity takes away from the advocacy that is desperately needed for reformation, because government officials believe the problem is taken care of by charity organizations, when really this is not even a temporary fix, but simply giving basic needs to those who have lost them. People are definitely needed to advocate and be involved in the tedious, not as rewarding positions that deal mostly with paper work and meetings and rejection than with the hands on aspects directly expected of charity. Of this reading I really enjoyed the “we the people” found in the writing, I thought that was very clever, and I personally preferred the other title: “When Charity Chokes Justice.”
In response to Professor Reitz’s question, I believe there is a huge difference between changing the world and saving the world. Anyone can change the world. I can rearrange my room and change the world around me. I can plant a tree or donate a thousand dollars to any organization; I can volunteer at surveying homeless individuals and help them find a home. I can continue to row children at the Bronx River and have them enjoy their world a little more. Saving the world on the other hand is a lot more difficult. One can “save” a prostitute from such lifestyle by giving her a home and teaching her a skill for her to earn a “decent living.” You can “save” an addict by helping them seek treatment. It’s important to note though that it all depends on how you define change and save. One can say Hitler changed the world, and I think most of us would agree that his actions definitely did not change the world for the better, although many others might feel he indeed tried to save the world of impurity. I feel no one can save the world because then it would be one sided, and the beauty of this world is that it is full of variety, different opinions, views, cultures, religions, colors, shapes and sizes. Everyone can change the world or his or her world at least, even if it is just giving a day to charity.
I will also try to be succinct here as I grapple with the ideas on the table regarding whether undue attention to small “v” violence distracts from the analysis of systemic violence which, as Professor Waterston points out, is often so much a part of our quotidian reality as to be rendered invisible..
Today I taught an article by Jeffner Allen titled “Motherhood: The annihilation of women” in which the author proposed that women (as a mass movement) should no longer agree to have children, as their reproductive “agreement” itself was not really consensual, but merely a reflection of a patriarchal oppression so pervasive that it could not be seen. Her message, in some ways similar to Zizek’s, is that working within the system to change it is a kind of silent consent to the terms that the oppressive system has set forth. Appeasement in itself allows oppression, this author would hold.
Both Zizek and Allen want to alert us to our own powerlessness. But the other message I think that both Zizek and Allen send is that we do not realize how powerful we are. Afterall, if women stop making babies, the world ends. Hey, boyfriend, who has got the power now? If people stop cooperating with their own oppression, who will the oppressors rule?
On the ground though, while I am philosophizing, children still have to eat, guys get out of jail and have no job, women are still being beaten. In reality, it is almost impossible to opt out of the current system while one is living inside it, although of course there are “revolutions”. I think the work of individuals, particularly those “heroes” that Vaughn points to, are in a way the architects of quiet revolutions. Rebecca Lolosoli, who started “no violence against women villages” in Africa, as a bulwark against violence and oppression directed toward women, is not really changing patriarchy (at least not yet) but she is providing ground floor solutions that may hasten systemic change.
Working inside the system is not necessarily antithetical to working outside it.
Is there a difference between saving the world and changing the word? Yes, saving to me sounds so unrealistic and presumptuous. Who determines who and what needs savings? I have a problem with the word saving because it implies that the helper is somehow better off or at least thinks he or she knows better. However, changing the world sounds more plausible and less condescending. Changing means that just a 12% improvement in whatever we aim for is satisfactory. The word change recognizes that there are limits to humans and that recognition makes people more efficient.
I guess that relating this to our internships, it is inadequate to think of ourselves as knights in shining armors, ready to rescue and save the less fortunate, because it could cause pain to ourselves and those who we want to rescue. The goal should be to make a change, big or small, and know that attempting to change something is in itself a little battle won. Why? I guess because by simply being aware of the deficiencies of our society forces upon us a sense of duty towards our community. The sense of duty grows and infects people with determination to fight for what is needed.
I took Zizek's quote to mean that charity excuses the fact that such social inequalities exist. Charity aims to alleviate the symptoms of deeply entrenched social inequalities and exploitation which result in poverty and destitution. By focusing our efforts on charity we are attempting to abate the suffering caused by a circumstance that should not have been in the first place. The real underlying danger in all of this charitable work is that it becomes the norm for dealing with social inequality and as David Hilfiker puts it, "impedes the realization of justice in our society". I'm not taking a position against charity. Unfortunately, charity is the easiest and quickest way to aid those in need and millions benefit from charitable works. However, this is not where the bulk of our efforts should lie. Upholding human rights and abolishing predatory, strong arm "free trade agreements" would be a giant leap towards ending the sort of economic inequality experienced in most of the countries that our charitable aid goes to. However, which is more beneficial to our supposed philanthropist CEO's? fair trade and fair wages or tax exempt charitable works?
Regarding Prof. Reitz' passage from Middlemarch, unhistoric events and insignificant people tend to be the type that change the world. However, this isn't the type of change that echoes through history or even the media. Movie stars that visit hospitals and wealthy, detached CEO's throwing money at a problem (which is not a stretch for either of these sort of "philanthropists") will always shine brighter and longer than Bill Drayton (Ashoka), Muhammad Yunus (Grameen Bank of Bangladesh), or even Herb Sturz (Vera Institute of Justice) when in fact it is this latter group that has effected the sort of groundbreaking, permanent change that this world needs.
I have to disagree with you when you say that it is unnecessary for someone to be famous to be able to make a positive impact. I believe that they are the trend setters of charity. Many of us in the United States are fascinated by the lives of celebrities; they have become the new age role models so to speak. I know that a person doesn’t have to be famous to make a change, but people (i.e. the average American citizen) feels inclined to follow the actions of their favorite celebrity. Of course not everyone feels this way, but let’s take Angelina Jolie as an example. When she was appointed goodwill ambassador for the UNHCR, I never had heard of the organization for refugees. Her work and avocation for human rights of refugees has been an inspiration to all, especially me. Angelina takes her fame and combines it with her goodwill to spread advocacy for refugees. Celebrities do a great deal of things by donating to charity; they lead by example and bring awareness to issues that we do not normally see. Currently I am trying to do my part for the UNHCR(United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees)by writing articles about what I have seen in the Dominican Republic concerning the Haitian refugees.
I do agree with you when you say one small task, rather then donation, helps form a trickle effect. However, donation and action goes hand in hand when it comes to charity. While throwing money at people just puts a band-aid on a bleeding vein, it is necessary for some organizations to stay functional. This leads me to the quote, “Charity is the humanitarian mask hiding the face of economic exploitation.” This quote strikes us like a double edged sword. On one hand charity keeps the ball rolling, but it blinds us from the real issues. I believe in donating to the extent that we are well aware of the organization we are donating to and that our kindness doesn’t stop at that. For example, I was walking by John Jay last year and I was stopped by an HRC (Human Rights Campaign) activist who asked for a small donation for gay and lesbian rights. I stood with this young man for about a half hour discussing the strife that many suffer because of their sexual orientation. After I donated what was left in my pocket I took his card and registered to become a volunteer. The HRC happens to be a very busy organization, especially after proposition 8, and it is hard to receive actual volunteer work for them. But I still advocate for their cause and try to get many to join, so you see charity can also be the gateway to stopping exploitation.
Katiria said, “no matter how small a task as long as it makes a difference in one life…” I thought about this for a while, and I realized there’s an issue with how we view the “small tasks.” It is true, individual efforts of all sizes are essential to human progress. We can work for the “growing good” through “unhistoric acts.” We shouldn’t stop engaging in small acts of kindness, because they represent how easy it is to be a fair human being. By fair I mean the basic recognition that all people are equal (a statement that is so overused that its lost its meaning, unfortunately), that, at least sometimes, everyone needs help, and at different times we are capable of giving others what they need.
However, “a good thing” is likely long overdue in the specific populations we serve. Although we’re being helpful to an individual, and they are grateful someone with some pull will vouch for them, it is usually weighs lightly in opposition to years of abuse (systemic, domestic, any & all). The best effort toward change, is as Ana said in class, “teach him how to fish.” Any of us who are lucky enough to have a mentor know how helpful could be to have them map out their career, so you know how to get in the direction you want to be, and the discrepancy between who we are and who we could be seems less great, and personal achievement seems more do-able.
The topic Professor Waterston and Professor Stein refer to (that we’re loosing sight of the forest through the trees) is so intriguing. I hope we can begin to open this up in class because this back to basics mentality seems to have worked for a lot of these social entrepreneurs we’ve read about.
Amanda, I agree with you. Look at Brooke Shields. So many women dealt with postpartum depression in silence for years until she talked about her experience and removed a lot of the stigma. Michael J Fox, Superman and many other entrepreneurs helped diffuse some of the rumors about stem cell research.
It seems that both the poor/minorities affected by structural violence and those who are wealthy/in power are trapped in this system. Neither can truly be happy because we live in a world without peace. The distress caused by inequality has far reaching and tragic consequences like war and genocide. Also, it is harder to enjoy the good life when you walk by poverty stricken individuals on your way to work every day and the disparity hits you in the face. However, I think those in power fail to actively realize that they are negatively affected by the inequality in the world and feel no need to change the status quo. For change to take place, those in power must feel that they would benefit by leveling the social and economic fields. Just as Sturz learned, only by making people see what they would gain, will they participate in changing the existing situation. Perhaps we need to go a step past celebrities and gain the good will of those who make policies and pass laws and encourage them to help serve the needs that exist. How do we go about convincing those in power to give up some of their share and let it trickle down?
Just like high status groups like men or whites often ignore the suffering of their counterparts and are reluctant to give up power, no one wants to give up their first class ticket just because they know there are people banging around in business class. The only way to convince men to change and accept women as their true equal is to appeal to their needs. Men, by denying any aspect of femininity and living their lives as traditional males, face many physical and emotional hazards in terms of health. They are prone to many illnesses and tend to die quicker than females. In order to become healthier and happier, they must accept women as equals and share some power. So I think it’s important to ask how we can convince those in power that giving up some of their benefits can be advantageous? I agree with Professor Stein that we can work within the system to enact change and slow small changes will hopefully one day save the world.
Like i stated in my previous post, I am not against charity at all. We NEED charity and I completely agree with you Amanda. However, my point is that it is not right that we need charity in the first place. If the inequalities are addressed directly, eventually charity will cease to become necessary.
Of course celebrities do a lot of good leading by example. I just think it's sad that a celebrity "earning", for the sake of the argument, 30 million dollars a year who donates 20,000 (a drop in the proverbial bucket for him or her) is lauded as a great humanitarian, meanwhile most, if not all, of us would never have heard of Muhammad Yunus or the Grameen Bank of Bangladesh had we not been given this article.
My question is what has provided the greatest, long-lasting change for impoverished people? A one time charitable donation (after operating costs are recouped by the charitable organization of course)? Or a bank that provides micro-loans to indigent people in developing countries without the need for collateral?
Also, i think it's important to really focus on our topic. To me, "How to Change the World" and "Justice and the Limits of Charity" address the sort of social inequality that exploits people and causes so much poverty and suffering in the world. Bringing awareness to a disease or condition (e.g. Michael J. Fox and Parkinson's, Brooke Shields and post-partum depression) is, to me, a separate issue. Bringing awareness to an issue and fund-raising is, as I take it, different from the form of charity that these two articles are concerned with. Advocacy is extremely important in bringing issues to light, but it's quite different from charity. Angelina Jolie can raise all the awareness in the world and give millions to aid refugees, but if human rights are not respected, war continues, or centuries-old ethnic disputes are not resolved, the conditions that create refugees will always exist. I hope that Angelina Jolie is working somewhat towards those sorts of issues and I commend you Amanda for getting involved, I really think that's awesome. As far as diseases go though, I think those issues are beyond the scope of our topic as they are not (typically) the results of social inequality or exploitation. Maybe I'm just looking at this topic through a rather narrow lens, but that's the impression I got from the readings.
Post a Comment