Welcome to the class blog! The John Jay - Vera Fellows Program is a collaborative effort between John Jay College and the spin-off agencies of the Vera Institute of Justice, combining an internship and participation in a seminar taught by faculty from John Jay's Interdisciplinary Studies Program. (To see a video about the John Jay - Vera Fellows Program, click here.) Part of the seminar experience is weekly participation in the class blog, which keeps the conversation going from week to week and will be a place for you to share your thoughts and concerns about the materials discussed in seminar as well as the internship experience. The opinions expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect the views of the Vera Institute of Justice or its spin-off organizations. While the blog is open to the public and anyone, theoretically, can comment, only class members and invited guests will be able to post. You can also look for us on our student and alumni page on Facebook.
Each student has been assigned one week to write the "post." Please post within 24 hours after class. Every week, each student must comment on the post (feel free to comment more than once). Please comment by Monday afternoon to allow time for further questions and responses and so that we can read all the entries before class.

Thursday, October 21, 2010

Help

Since it is midterms and everyone is stressed, I thought I would post this week and try to keep the lively conversation going that started in seminar this morning. What I am posting here is an essay I wrote for a contest last year (it didn't win). The prompt was "When was the moment you became a grown-up?" The essay that follows reflects on the experience I shared with you this morning about my summer in Mexico. So in some ways it is about structural violence and how an individual interfaces with social forces. In some ways it is about how a 19-year-old compulsive "helper" reacts to situations very much like those described by Professor Stein this morning during our role-playing exercise. It is also about trying to decide what to do with your life when you only semi-know who you are. Please feel free to respond to it on any of those levels or to keep talking about what we were talking about this morning: how your own style/sense of self works with or against the culture of your agency.

AMIGOS

I was leaning against a gnarled tree trunk, inches away from a half-constructed latrine and what seemed like a million miles away from my Ohio home. As I drifted in and out of an amoeba-induced stupor, sun-encircled silhouettes of Mexican villagers wandered by to check on la chica who had come from so far away to build latrines, educate them about the disease cycle, and pass out toothbrushes.

Full of bright-eyed idealism and very little Spanish, I arrived in Mexico three weeks earlier with my shiny copy of Donde No Hay Doctor and a vague notion that I needed to befriend someone with a donkey (concrete being very heavy). While I must have looked ridiculous to my hosts – my look in those days, not to mention my worldview, was heavily influenced by “Out of Africa” and first-wave Banana Republic -- it seemed only natural for me to be there. I had always been very idealistic, from canvassing my conservative Cincinnati playground for Carter to spending my spring breaks building playgrounds for kids in the hollers of Appalachia.

When my younger partners first entered the two-room house where we would spend the next six weeks, they chuckled at the Pepto-pink wall paint and the picture of the Last Supper duct-taped above the table. As the veteran work-camper, and relative old lady at age 19, I sanctimoniously reminded them of the generosity of our hosts in moving their ten-person family into one room so we could have the other. We did not have to share their decorating tastes, we just had to build them some latrines. My partners looked both chastened and irritated; I dropped iodine into my canteen, unrolled my sleeping bag and went to find a man with a donkey.

While doing volunteer work in a Mexican village was consistent with childhood dreams, it was also a key step in my adult plan to do diplomatic work overseas. I was planning on majoring in Soviet Studies, to help those folks turn their swords into ploughshares. My complete inability to learn Russian or Economics during my freshman year of college disappeared in the bright light of my desire to save the world and my fantastic British-empire-meets-army-surplus wardrobe. And now, even as I faced resistance from the villagers – latrines would get half built and everyone would continue to use the same places not the “requisite distance from the water source” (Donde No Hay Doctor) – I was undaunted.

Until I was undone by a popsicle at a soccer game. While I religiously treated my drinking water, at 19 I could still have my head turned by the ice cream truck and never thought for a moment what popsicles are made of. After about a week of racing from that pink room to the half-latrine, I decided abjectly to camp out under the nearby tree.

As I shifted my rapidly-decreasing weight off the trunk, a villager stepped out of the sun and into view. It was my man with the donkey, who had been delivering bags of concrete to latrine sites for us. He sat down next to me and asked “mala es stomacha?” I nodded. He nodded back and said sympathetically, “Same thing happened to me in Detroit.”

While it could have been the amoebas, or the sound of a latrine caving in (let’s face it, I didn’t know what the hell I was doing), I felt as if I was suddenly aware of a shell, forged by countless volunteer hours, church pot-lucks and illusions of how the world worked, cracking open. In a kind of reverse birth, my adult self emerged from it, sticky, disoriented and asking questions. Was this generous donkey man just like me: someone who, in the course of his life journey, found himself far away from home, drinking from a hostile water supply and falling ill? Or was the point that he was nothing like me – he was a failed migrant worker with no safety nets while I would soon go home to excellent healthcare, a supportive family and a college education? And which one would have made me more comfortable? Why was I here? Are single acts of community service dwarfed by structural inequities of wealth, health, and national boundaries? And, now that I had gotten started, what was the point of help, really, when you were welcome to hand out toothbrushes to folks with pretty good teeth (beans and tortillas 3x a day were clearly better for the teeth than my childhood diet of cherry Icees and Pop Rocks) but were barred from even mentioning birth control to people whose living conditions were limited by the enormous families and near-continuous pregnancy of the women? I started to feel mentally incontinent, as well.

My last few weeks in the village were spent drinking Coke at la tienda (a big Donde No Hay no no) and watching “Dallas” on its sad little black and white tv, taking my host family out to dinner in a stupidly extravagant restaurant in town (what did it matter that they could have better used the money? I was a full time citizen of the grey area now, man!), and wryly observing just what aspects of American culture seemed to make it down here (“Dallas”) and what didn’t (bathrooms).

The last 22 years have been about both learning the deep implications of that lesson underneath the tree -- and unlearning them. One of the last pieces of mail I received in Mexico was my freshman year report card. Reading of my miserable grades in Russian and Economics and my A in classical literature, all while under that tree, seemed like an omen and put me on the fast track to English graduate school and away from diplomatic service. I didn’t leave the Ivory tower for 13 years, becoming an expert in turning B+ students into A- ones at colleges favored by the upper-middle classes. I have returned to Mexico only once since then – to Club Med in Cancun, the spring break trip I had never had as a do-gooder teen.

I am a teacher, not a Wall Street executive, so I must have retained some idealism. A few pieces of shell never did get shaken off. But I decidedly stepped off my childhood path of working concretely for social justice. In many ways, life conspired to conceal this as a choice. I stayed in school, got married, had kids, moved for my husband’s jobs and he for mine. The balancing act of teaching and family felt plenty like volunteer work and I didn’t think too hard about the road not taken (or the latrines not built). Until we moved for my husband’s job once again and I went from a cushy private school teaching the cream of the parochial school crop (still couldn’t talk about birth control there, either) to teaching at an urban public school, full of underserved, first-generation college students, many of whom speak English about as well as I spoke Spanish (not to mention Russian).

The first year was about as unsettling as those weeks beneath the tree. All my years of teaching had not remotely prepared me to teach these particular students. My courses in Victorian literature were probably about as useful as those half-built latrines. But over the past couple years, hunched over stacks of papers written in Spanglish or in meetings with students who were trying to imagine a life far from the villages of their parents, I have heard the familiar cracking sound. While it could have been my aging back or the sound of my sons breaking something in the next room, I think it was a shell. This shell, forged from years of arcane academic discourse, self-sufficient students, and exquisitely landscaped campuses, was, too, falling away. Emerging, sticky but newly oriented, is another adult self. This one bears somewhat of a resemblance (alas, not physically) to that idealistic teenager, who knows what she did not – that we live in a tangled world – but remembers what she did -- that we can make that world a better place one act at a time.


16 comments:

joseph said...

I was thinking after our conversation about the idea of helping people. I was thinking about what Chad had said, about the guys in the back of the classroom reading his newspaper and ignoring the lecture; Professor Waterston’s comment about the use of “us” and “them” when we describe helping people; the story about Professor Reitz in Mexico building latrines and supplying toothbrushes; Alex and Christina talking about the use of empathy in helping people, Jessica explaining how Saudi Arabia changed since the 1930s, and the game we played in the beginning of class.

My head was spinning, all those ideas consumed my thoughts as I attempt to write this comment. Then I thought of a way to express my idea about helping people.

Upstate I used to be a firefighter in the local fire department. I remember the excitement and the intensity I felt when a call came in for an emergency. Jumping into the truck and suiting up was my best adrenaline rush, the anticipation before arriving on scene cleared my head of any other thoughts. I remember that on every call we responded to, the individual didn’t have to ask us for help. The caller who called in the emergency didn’t have to ask the person in need if they wanted help, people just acted.

I know comparing a car accident, or a structure fire to a guy in the back of the classroom who is not paying attention, or a recently arrested person who has a prior history of substance abuse or a poor family on the border town of Mexico seems incomparable. If you take the underlying theme it becomes clearer, an emergency or need for help was evident, and without the person actually asking for help people around them acted.

I guess what I am trying to say is that I think we spend too much time wondering if a person needs help, if there are specific signs, if we are actually helping; and all the while we are missing the emergency, we are missing the calls for help, we are spending too much time on static noise. So I think next time anyone of us thinks someone needs help or that we ourselves need help, we should act and not question these ideas. There will be underlying fear of “us” and “them” because the person being helped is “them” and “us” and the person doing the helping is “us” and also “them.” We should hold on to the idea “that we can make (the) world a better place one act at a time.”(Professor Reitz, 2010).

Prof. Stein said...

I hate having a headache on Sunday morning.

But how can I not? The cognitive dissonance I am experiencing after reading Prof. Reitz’s compelling and complex struggle to define the ways in which she can be in the world as a force for good, and then Joseph’s straightforward call to respond to emergencies, to act with uncomplicated moral passion, to get the job done? My migraine grew as I read the Sunday New York Times.


In the magazine section was a story from someone who runs a domestic abuse shelter. The call comes, the woman on the other end has perhaps ten minutes to take advantage of being alone, without her brutal husband: just a few moments before her bravery collapses and she can escape. The shelter worker must rescue her NOW, without questions, plans, debates about the implications of that rescue. Like Joseph, she puts out the fire. I am cheering in my head for the simplicity of that action and rejoicing in its obvious success.


Then I read another article, based on Kwame Anthony Appiah’s new book, which examines various efforts to make change in the world. It reveals over and over again how putting out the fire often backfires. For example, outsiders’ attempts to eradicate female genital mutilation in Kenya backfired when they were perceived as imperial forces trying to impose their own agenda; nationalist groups opposing them ending up making female circumcision a matter of Kenyan pride. Appiah contrasts this with a successful campaign to end footbinding practices in China; this campaign unfolded over many years, incrementally changing public opinion without disrespecting Chinese traditions, enlisting the Chinese themselves in the effort, and creating new institutions that would support the idea of the unbound foot (For example, at one time women with unbound feet could not find marriage partners, so organizations worked on getting families not only to promise not to bind their daughters’ feet but to pledge that they would not allow their sons to marry woman with bound feet.) This strategy took 35 years to implement but it stuck; the thousand year old practice of footbinding in China is dead.


So, I guess there are different strategies for different situations. I have found myself yelling at bureaucrats who don’t recognize that if they don’t intervene in a situation TODAY, someone will be hungry or homeless, or without badly needed medication. I love these uncomplicated situations where I can draw a stark line and be undeniably on the right side of it. Yes, when there is a fire we have to put it out. But, to continue the metaphor, how do we know that we are not pouring gasoline on the fire? Many situations-most, probably-are layered and nuanced and do have monumental implications. Every action has its consequences, many of them unintended. Who knew when you built schools for girls in Afganistan that you’d increase the number of girls having acid thrown in their faces? These are obviously not matters to be taken lightly.

Professor Reitz said...

Hey, I woke up with a headache this morning, too, though in my case it has a more profane origin: too much red wine.

I love the comments so far -- Joseph, I think you've given us a metaphor for one kind of help (putting out a fire) that will become a touchpoint for us all year. Professor Stein's comments parallel something I was thinking about in one of my other classes. We read from Nancy Scheper-Hughes's work on infant death in Brazil. To greatly oversimplify an enormously complicated situation, S-H noticed that the mothers in northeast Brazil let some of their children die as regular practice. They are born sickly and are then seen already as "angels" with a will to death (they die from starvation/malnutrition). S-H noticed one such baby and took it to a health clinic. Once properly fed and rehydrated, it started to thrive. It was returned to its mother and lived to adulthood. As a reader and a human being, you have to applaud S-H's actions: she put out a fire. On the other hand, one realizes (as S-H does also) the complexities of her action: her "imperialist" intervention in the culture she was supposedly observing, the fact that she has returned another mouth to feed to a household already in the grips of devastating poverty. (I'm sure Professor Waterston has important ideas on this gray area for anthropologists!) So I guess I'm just weaving together Joseph's and Prof. Stein's questions: Can saving a life ever be bad? Can the immediate claim that another human life has on you ever have such "unintended consequences" that you shouldn't act?

Katie Spoerer said...

I didn’t have a headache and then I read everyone’s comments this morning, and so my headache begins!

There is so much to be said;

Professor Reitz wrote, “Are single acts of community service dwarfed by structural inequities of wealth, health, and national boundaries?” This brings into question community service that is done all over the world. Many times people choose to help through an act of impulse, passion, rage, etc. to try and “help” where they believe help is needed. But do our emotions cause us to think clearly, and thoroughly? Do we not really see where the help is necessary because we are to overcome by our emotions?

Joseph, I love your comparison between the fire and when help is necessary. However, while I was reading your comparison I was thinking about the gasoline Professor Stein speaks of in her post. I think that when people intend to help, they act with good intention, but their good intention may win the battle and lose the war. I am going to stand by my thought that help is like love and it should not be tossed around. In past classes we talked about how people tend to treat the symptoms, rather than tackle the real problem. This seems to be an underlying theme throughout much of our discussions and readings. The quote from above is a fantastic question as to whether helping, really helps, or if it is not sufficient.

I also wanted to touch upon this quote, again in Professor Reitz’s work, “Until we moved for my husband’s job once again and I went from a cushy private school teaching the cream of the parochial school crop (still couldn’t talk about birth control there, either) to teaching at an urban public school, full of underserved, first-generation college students, many of whom speak English about as well as I spoke Spanish (not to mention Russian).” I am working with Tracy (my mentor) in Esperanza’s educational sector. I have learned a wealth of information and I have come to find out that the issues with education are extreme. This comparison of private schools to urban public schools really hits home with me. I have never felt so strongly about education being a right than I do now. To work with the teens that I had the privilege of working with over the summer, and to see how the education system has failed them, hurts me. To work with Esperanza and see how difficult it is to maneuver the education system, even with Esperanza’s assistance, is sickening. To know that a select few children are given better education than others, breaks my heart.

Nadiya said...

I think I have to start with my headache (to support the group)… I had one this morning because of studying too much for my midterms and the lack of sleep. I also had one on Friday morning as I met my mentor and was trying to get answers to the questions we discussed on Thursday. I was pretty down after the class and thought that I was not suitable for the job path I was thinking about. Thomas (my mentor), however, defended my point of view and said that after the years of work, a person can become morally exhausted. He added that it does not necessarily happen to everyone but in the majority of the cases, this is what it is. I would like to continue our discussion that we did not finish in the class. I would like to hear everybody’s (who is interested in) perspective on the issue whether a person can treat every single case with the same care and enthusiasm and not to become exhausted after numerous years of work.

Then, I want to talk about help in a global perspective. I am writing my mini-thesis about methods and reasons for intervention and non-intervention in the cases of genocide. Specifically, I am looking at Rwanda (where the intervention did not occur; as a result, 800, 000 people died within a hundred-day period), and Kosovo (where the intervention occurred). I am looking at this issue from many different angles. My main question, however, is why the Security Council (SC) did not send troops, even though they had information about mass atrocities that were happening in Rwanda in 1994.
In his book “Genocide: Cases, Comparisons and Contemporary Debates” (2003), Jensen clearly states that “official denial of the Rwanda genocide by the State Department as late as July 1994, while the killings were still going on, was clearly intended to exonerate the US from its obligation to intervene under the terms of the UN Convention on Genocide” (145). Even though in 1994 the SC decided to provide Rwanda with 5,500 peacekeepers, it took six months for the troops to get there. Why do you think it happen? Why did we want to help Kosovo but not Rwanda? Do you think that the powerful countries intervene in cases that are beneficial to them? If it is so, in what way?
An example below explains how the SC makes the decision to intervene, how the permanent members use bargain if they want to get something from the deal. “In November 1990 – one day after China abstained on Resolution 678, which authorized the use of force against Iraq – the Bush administration invited the Chinese foreign minister to Washington… Four days later, Washington helpfully abstained on a World Bank vote allocating, for the first time since Tiananmen, an international development loan to China for the purposes other than “basic human needs” (Totten, 2009, 364).
As Joseph said: “we are missing the calls for help, we are spending too much time on static noise,” are we? Or we just close our eyes and ears and pretend that we did not see and hear anything…My friend told me that I always have to use logics in my actions. I agree. But, if you have a choice to save two strangers or your relative, what would you prefer? Would you use logics or emotions?

joseph said...

We had so many issues from class to discuss, but now everyone has added so many more to the discussion!

I want to respond to the issues that have been brought up through the comments.

Professor Stein asked a good question. The professor asked, “How do we know that we are not pouring gasoline on the fire?
The answer in my opinion is sometimes you do not know whether you are going to help the situation, make the situation worse (pour gas on the fire), or not affect the situation. We as people cannot control or see every possible outcome of every situation. I believe we can clean up every mess we make and try to learn from the mistakes.

Professor Reitz asked, “Can saving a life ever be bad? Can the immediate claim that another human life has on you ever have such ‘unintended consequences’ that you shouldn’t act?
These are tough questions. I think saving a life can never be a bad thing. I think I have to borrow some terms from my law classes to better explain my opinions. Each situation is in its own way unique, generalizations cannot be used to express responses to every situation or even any certain type of situation. In law they examine each constitutional case by the “totality of circumstances” presented. I agree with that method when answering these questions that when you help someone or are being helped, you must look at all the facts, opinions, and ideas that are presented. Only then can you determine if a life being saved is ever bad or good. In this case I wonder if Mrs. Scheper-Hughes could have sent the child for adoption, it seems by the facts presented that the family would not have contended with this option, a life would have been saved, and a family did not have to feed another mouth while struggling with poverty. This of course is only my opinion and one of a million types of solutions or options to the problem presented.

Katie you are right about “good intentions sometimes win the battle and lose the war.” I think in certain situations our emotions cause us to not think clearly and thoroughly; just think how many times you acted out of pure emotions then regretted your actions after. I would also have to say that our emotions do blind us sometimes from seeing clearly, and this may hinder the intentions of helping someone or knowing how to help.

Nadiya, I think in class you spoke about being a defense attorney or public defender, and I think Katie also said she wanted to pursue that as a career. If I’m right I also remember you saying you felt being emotionally attached made you think you shouldn’t pursue that career. I wanted to tell you during class that in the constitution it states that a defense attorney MUST zealously defend his/ her client. Basically the laws of the land are telling the defense attorney to be emotionally attached to their client’s case. The question presented is “whether a person can treat every single case with the same care and enthusiasm and not to become exhausted after numerous years of work?” I hope I am right when I answer this, but I do not have the experience to answer the question fully. In my opinion, when you are do something you love or have a passion for you can’t help but put your emotions into it. Sometimes exhaustion will be present, but even more present will be the feeling of satisfaction of working on something that you feel passionate about.
You also asked some questions about intervention and non-intervention in cases of genocide. Why sometimes countries act or don’t act? I have heard many people’s opinions about why we acted in Kosovo but not in Rwanda. People said it was a race issue, a resource issue (coal in Kosovo), possible benefits of conflict minerals (cheaper prices for gold in Rwanda), and other theories. I personally do not know why we acted in Kosovo but not in Rwanda, I do know we acted in Somalia, and Kuwait (oil reserves in Kuwait). Possibly countries do intervene when they see a benefit for them, possibly for natural resources or maybe to create a new government which favors their terms and conditions.

Anonymous said...

I think that I have more questions than thoughts this time around: do we wait until someone asks for our help or do we assume that we know what is best and, therefore, take charge and help them? When people seem to be oblivious to the fact that they may need help, in our eyes, is it that we are trying to impose our worldview on their lives or are we looking at their lives objectively? Is it possible for the "helper" to be abused?

Sometimes I think that the "helper" may end up doing more than is necessary for other people, and sometimes I think the people receiving help may not get what they really need.

Alisse Waterston said...

I think I’ve mentioned this in a previous post, but I really do believe we need to separate out what we are talking about when we talk about “helping.” Are we talking about institutionalized systems that “help” or are we talking about individual agency?

I think in her post, Professor Reitz is talking about “help” as individual agency, and she depicts it so well with her wonderful sense of humor and irony. Professor Reitz describes her do-gooder desire “to help” and yet how disconnected she was from understanding "structural power" and its effects on the poor community in which she was working. Most likely, the people with whom she worked could have explained it to her.

Professor Reitz reveals what Farmer tries to make clear in his Introduction to “Pathologies of Power.” In the face of historically constituted structural forces, what is to be done? For folks involved in Partners In Health [PIH] (NOTE: the “partners” are folks at ALL levels—from the most local—community health workers—to the most international—World Health Organization) it’s not about “folks who know better what other people need” imposing something, but about working collectively to “redistribute justice” (redistribute in the literal sense—redistribute resources from where there’s a lot—where there’s too much—to where there’s too little). This is why Partners In Health is a collective of 11,000 people working in 11 countries (and growing) that is informed by an understanding that structural power is the main obstacle to the delivery of all of our birthrights: the right to clean water, health care, food, education and shelter.

PIH believes there ARE “Areas of Moral Clarity” (AMCs)—and we don’t need to get sidetracked by mixing these AMCs with those morally complicated situations as if they are the same order of things. Why? It’s because in the meantime (while all the grey areas get debated), the poorest will continue to die like flies. One AMC is this: the fact that 225 individuals own nearly 50% of the world’s wealth is immoral—and is a reflection of unjust social, political and economic systems. Inequality is structural. Poverty is systemic. Farmer refers to such forms of inequality as “structural violence” and the results for human lives as “social suffering.”

We might work (as individuals) to “help” other individuals deal with the consequences of these structural and systemic processes, but we must not expect that these efforts will effect structural change even if they alleviate some of the pain and suffering that are caused by such forces. In some cases, our “help” may just contribute to reproducing the inequalities that exist (we’re still working within a larger system of structured inequality), ameliorating crises but not addressing the social conditions that give rise to those crises. This is what Hilfiker meant in the short piece we read at the start of the semester.

This does not mean we don’t forge ahead with these efforts. I think they are important. We just need to be aware of their limitations—our limitations. And to me it’s much better to devote our energies to this kind of work rather than participate, for example, in sectors that create more poverty, destruction and violence (e.g., the military).

to be continued.....

Alisse Waterston said...

continued from previous entry:

The framework of “structural violence” helps us understand that suffering is produced as much by “the social” as by individual psychology, dysfunctional family dynamics, or dehumanizing rituals of “culture.” Professor Reitz mentions Nancy Scheper-Hughes and her book, “Death without Weeping.” Scheper-Hughes writes about DESPERATELY POOR women who CAN’T invest (emotionally or in any other way) in their children because such a large proportion of their children DIE. Farmer would ask: WHY are they dying? What are the forces that create the social conditions in which these children die? And the result—the mother’s may SEEM cold-hearted is great fodder for propaganda and ideology that “blames the victim” or the “culture of poverty” or her “culture.” And then the solutions are: fix HER, not her POVERTY. This is the point Scheper-Hughes wants to make in this work. It’s easy for us to “judge” those Brazilian mothers living in abject poverty as uncaring or maybe as operating under a different “model of motherhood” than WE in the West. Scheper-Hughes ultimately wants us to ask: how does structural violence distort human relationships?

Joseph on the firefighters and “helping”: Here’s a great example where basic needs ARE being addressed (as they should) by the public sector, and institutionalized as part of the common good of society. Firefighting is built into the system to serve people’s needs. That is a positive structural arrangement! It’s part of what we’ve come to see—rightfully—as how a functional community works. Even if in Joseph’s upstate community the fire department relied on volunteers, the basic firefighting institution (with paid firefighters, trucks, a building, etc.) is in the public sector (pay taxes for a community service; services are provided). And these institutions (fire fighting) are systematized, regulated, provide a decent living and benefits for those who are paid to work in those sectors (which are also unionized—representing interests of workers;) and the firefighting institution is held accountable to perform its mission. People don’t have to pay fees before a firefighter comes to douse a fire in their home: poor or rich, the firefighters come. But for other things (and to know what those other things are, we need to look at the specific place), people have to pay fees to get the things they need to live (sometimes its food, sometimes its water, sometimes its health care), and if they can’t pay the fees, well, they starve, or get cholera, or die from treatable—and oftentimes preventable diseases. That’s structural violence.

Nadiya on genocide. I find it very difficult to respond thoughtfully and deeply to your question. To understand and explain such a complex, horrific phenomenon as genocide requires much more than we can address in this blog. I will only say this: genocide always occurs in relation to war. And war is today ubiquitous.

Sorry if I made the headaches worse.

Professor Reitz said...

THIS IS FROM ALEXANDER "I CAN'T GET ON THE BLOG" NECHAYEV:

Thank you Joseph! I personally love analogies for their abstract, semi-philosophical explanation of a situation and your experience could not be more perfect for sorting through my thoughts. The analogy I did not come up with this Thursday to explain why I believe sometimes the most effective help that can be given is not driven by empathy or sympathy but by a duty, a paycheck, or some other benefit to the one helping has been provided in spades. Your fire fighting experience was right on the money for me.

It illustrated all the things I believe are right with a no empathy needed approach. In situations In which help is needed, such as in a fire emergency, empathy is not on the requirement list. The actual help is. A solution is what is needed. Personally I believe that empathy is the icing on the cake, however it is useless with the cake itself which is the solution to the problem. Doctors solve problems, firefighters solve problems, even lawyers and plumbers and mechanics, however in these professions a lack of empthy is sometimes irrelevant. Granted as a doctor it is more important than for a mechanic, but what is needed much more is the solution. No one will care if their emotions are cared about if their car is still broken, house is on fire, malpractice suit failed, or kidney condition still not resolved.

This brings me to Professor Rietz's example. Her realization and self-awareness, hatching if you will, came when she took her vision back from the immediate details and saw the bigger picture. She realized that the latrines and anything else they could do were a figment of a broader issue, one that the granted convenience and emotional satisfaction of "other people care" will not truly change anything; they will be minor plusses that in no way change the very large cons.

Emotional comfort in my opinion, in more situations than not, are detail work. They are nice when you look very close but if the larger issues are not solved they become nice doodles on a tattered canvas. In more solutions I believe it is critical to get people who will solve the issues, once this is accomplished those aide will be able to detail their canvas any way they so choose. Be it for a paycheck or an adrenaline rush.

Jessica Rivera said...

Thank you Prof. Reitz for your post.

Reading your post still brings me back to the class discussion about individuals needing help and how various tones help the individual know who is in need of help. The game we played not only demonstrated to everyone that we all need to understand help in a physical (body language), vocal (tone), and or very observant way; but we need to be careful that we understand how we can help the individual, without making them think we are giving them pity.

A call for help is usually what I hear and or observe in students when they come in the advisement office. When they are in need of help, I am quick in attending to them because I see the same cry for help I experienced when I entered the college. Many of them needed help in figuring out what they wanted to major in, while some suffered being forced by their families to major in a subject they have no interest in. When situations like this arise (students being forced to major in an area they are interested in) I feel the need to let students understand that college is a long path in which your major has to be something you want to learn . If you waste 4 or how ever many years in the college pursuing a major that your parents desire you to major in, then you are only living your life for your parents but NOT for yourself. I try to advise them as best as I can in that they think about what I say.

On a positive note, I've had many students talk to their parents and now are in the majors they always wanted to be. A great example being, one of my students was an Economics major and he desired to be a Forensic Psychology major, after speaking to him about his situation and giving him the advise needed, he came back to me 3 weeks later telling me "I changed my major, thank you so much for your advise, I really needed that push to freely study my passion". To be honest, hearing those words made me feel like I've made a great change, it may not be the superman saving the universe from the bad guys sort of way, but I helped someone change their life path to one they always wanted to be in. As the saying goes, it doesn't get any better than that.

Nadiya said...

Thank you Joseph! I totally agree that you have to love your job and be passionate about what you are doing. This is why I enjoy my tutoring.
Thank you Prof. Waterston, for your comment on genocide. I will try to explore more on that in my research and hopefully, at the end of the semester I will share my findings with the rest.

Christina G. said...

I am unsure how to begin because there is just so much to say, so I will keep it short and sweet (if thats possible).

I can say from experience that when asking for help, it is important that the person understands your perspective and is sincere about assisting you with your needs. I am sure that we have all had help from someone and sensed their ulterior motives or lack of enthusiasm and decided to never ask for their help again. Maybe you end up with more problems later because their help was only a temporary solution. Or possibly you lose your motivation to help the next person because you figure no one cares anyway.

I always assumed that fire fighters were in the profession because they wanted to save lives. Choosing to run into a burning building merely for the money seems nonsensical because the paycheck is nowhere near equivalent to the risks involved.

If firefighters worked like some of the agencies that CLAIM to be about social change, they would show up after the fire has consumed the entire structure, run around like they don't know what to do, spray a little water at the fire and then say that there is no more water left, that the ladder is broken, while never making any attempt to enter the building and rescue the victims.

Maybe that is getting off the topic of empathy a bit, but I know that in order to want to help somebody your heart has to be in it, otherwise you might be better off in another field of work. At the end of the day insincerity is detectable, even by a child. Real change comes from understanding, compassion, empathy, ethics.

I help someone because I know that by helping them, they can help me, they may help someone else, while continuing to help themselves, and perhaps this might bring about the social change that I desire. So in reality my actions are not completely altruistic because if my goals are reached I will have rewarded myself!

I guess it's not short or sweet! Oops.

Alisse Waterston said...

Nadiya: I've done a bit of research/study on genocide and taught aspects of it in some of my classes. I'm happy to talk with you about it sometime. We could set up a meeting. Once I know more about what aspects you're most interested in, I could perhaps suggest some readings..... Just let me know if you'd like to meet.

Alisse Waterston said...

Hmmmmm. Aren't there some voices absent from this week's blog???

Chad Infante said...

Professor Reitz’s essay is not only entertaining but also informative about how it is that our interaction with people can sometimes change our world view. While assuming someone needs help might be bad because we then administer help that is not suited to solve the particular problem, it also provides individuals who are truly invested in the well being of another with an uneasy sense of uncertainty and inadequacy. This might lead the individual to try and understand why their efforts are not necessarily as successful as one might have hoped. This provides them with a broader understanding of the underline reasons for the problem but also gives them access to learn about the history and culture of different peoples who they try to assists. A comprehensive understanding of different cultures is one of the most useful tools for any humanitarian or any person who just enjoys helping others.

Chad Out!