The Hero "Mentorship" at odds with Titan "Individualism"

Hello everyone,

The mentors coffee this past thursday was amazing; it was great to hear what everyone is and plans on doing at their internships. I see that everyone is hard at work and that we are each starting to find our bearings at our respective agencies.

While traditionally the blog is dedicated to whatever topic it is we spoke about in seminar, this week was not a normal seminar. So, what should we speak about? Something that I have always had difficulty with, especially being an American and living in this country, is the role individualism plays when we are in positions where we are being mentored. Mentorship is not a new phenomenon, however, how do we reconcile how important mentorship is when we live in a society that highlights and often times prefers that we speak about individual work and sacrifice?

In my personal experience, I know that if it weren't for my parents, many of my friends, peers, teachers, bosses, professors, and informal and formal mentors, such as Trish Farley at Common Justice, I would not have been able to accomplish the things I have thus far. I constantly acknowledge the efforts of these individuals, and make sure that credit is given where credit is due. For me, it is clear that our successful journeys were not journeys that were traveled in solitude- we had guidance, we had support, we had people rooting for us and that believed in us. This was not a one man/woman struggle.

Than why is it when we refer to people who are in need of serious help, like many of the individuals we work with at our Vera agencies, we (as in the general system and society, not we the Vera Fellowship), expect them to get out of the "hole" they are in by themselves. We blame poor people for being poor, we blame victims of violence for being victims (or try to make them look like offenders), we blame people who are molested for being molested. The discourse, especially in more recent debates and news articles given the elections, we hear the word entitlements, handouts, fee stuff, free ride, playing victim, and so on. There is a sense that people who are in need are there because of there own doing, but that even when they want to get out, we shouldn't help them because they should do it by themselves. The "American Dream" story of hard work and success isn't one of collective effort, it is one of individualism and personal sacrifice.

Thus, there seems to be this huge contradiction when it comes to how we become successful.  On one hand, we tend to accept and acknowledge that without the help of certain individuals we would not have made it "this far". On the other, giving help to those who need it the most will not get them out of the dark place they're in and so they shouldn't get it. It's their own individual hard work that will, just as the hard work of the successful was what made them successful.

We all know, especially being Vera Fellows, the value of mentorship and the extra help we get - through our stipend, the seminar, being part of ISP, our three professors, and so on. Yet, our work, which revolves helping those who need it most, and sometimes involves mentorship, is rejected by particular systems and political parties, because if someone wants to get out of poverty, they can do it on their own. So, I pose these questions:

1) How does the emphasis on American individualism overshadow the role mentors play in a persons narrative of success?

2) Is it possible to reconcile these two worlds, of mentorship/guidance/collective effort and individual work and sacrifice, and if so, how?

3) How can we demonstrate and change the discourse on how valuable mentorship and collective efforts are when it comes to working with populations such as the impoverished, and highlight that programs that give them aid is not giving them a "free ride" or taking away from personal responsibility?

Thanks everyone, and I know opinions on this may differ, but I believe this is a conversation is a good one to have, and a necessary one, because I am always at odds with American individualism and my own recognition of the role of mentorship and acknowledging that without all the help I've received, I would not be sitting with you all at our thursday seminars.

I end on this note, and hope that you reflect on the words of Elizabeth Warren when thinking about the questions -

“There is nobody in this country who got rich on their own. Nobody. You built a factory out there - good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory... Now look. You built a factory and it turned into something terrific or a great idea - God bless! Keep a hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.” - Elizabeth Warren 

Hello, who is speaking? Myself or the other me?

What an amazing class we had yesterday! We not only discussed extensively on psychoanalysis, moral dilemma, and dissociation, which appear to be the central themes of this article, we also incorporated the issue of moral ambiguity, racial and class distinctions, as well as other sociopolitical perspectives into our classroom discourse.

I will start my post by highlighting some interesting viewpoints presented in class. As a psychotherapist, Straker was forced to confront the moral split within herself when she learned about the horrifying lynching perpetrated by a client she had been working closely with, Stanley. Professor Stein pointed out that when dealing with issues that are not simply black and white, people tend to experience difficulties in accepting their blurring moral standards and often desperately wanting to find moral clarity. In Straker’s case, she was torn between two contrary yet complex feelings about Stanley’s story. No matter what and how she chooses, she was confronted by moral dilemma. On the one hand, she was aware of her mentality as a caring psychotherapist who did not want to be judgmental towards her patient, and she clearly understood that she was in no position to denounce Stanley’s action because, unlike Stanley, white privileges have protected her from being harmed by violent political struggles. On the other hand, Straker was also alerted by the fact that her moral instinct was barring her from relieving herself from the traumatic impacts of Stanley’s crime. I want to pause at here for a brief moment, and insert my first question.  Professor Waterston stated that she was not convince that Straker was being as self reflected as she intended to be; in other words, she devoted too much attention to speak about her instinct reaction to Stanley’s behavior rather than closely examine the source of her moral ambiguity.  (Please correct me if I have misinterpreted your argument, Prof. Waterston.)  So my first question is what is your opinion on Professor Waterston’s interpretation regarding Straker’s attempt to examine her inner self. 

Stanley was a leader in the anti-apartheid movement. As an individual who played a significant role in this collective struggle against state injustice, Stanley was entrusted with the responsibility of fighting for the sake of his people. When Maki Skosana allegedly provided intelligence to the enemy and caused the death of Stanley’s fellow comrades, Stanley’s social self took over the control of his mind and body and compelled him to fulfill his political obligations and suppress his inner self. In the process of the lynching ofMaki Skosana, Stanley experienced a petite moral dilemma. However, as Andre puts it, this brief experience was like a bump on the road, which had almost no impact on Stanley’s determination to carry out the execution. On the surface, it appears that Stanley has showed little concern for his momentary moral ambiguity; still, it is essential to take the context of Stanley and Straker’s communication into consideration before making the final judgment. For instance, Stanley chose to speak about this traumatic episode in his life during a therapy session, which suggests that it was an issue that he saw as appropriate to be discussed for therapeutic purpose. Professor Stein, Professor Reitz, as well as few other students have commented on this issue during the class, and I would like to give us another opportunity to further explore this question. Here comes my second question.  Was Straker the only person experiencing moral dilemma during that particular therapy session? If not, is it safe to assume that Stanley’s combative social identity has expired after the collapse of apartheid, and he is now compelled to search for the private self that he has lost during the period of political struggles, namely the innocent Stanley who loves his family and had never kill anyone before the death of Maki Skosana? When Straker no longer has an evil system, the apartheid, to justify his murderous behavior as a necessary evil, is he having difficulties with accepting his past or he is still confident in his choice of action?

Due to various limitations, I am unable to discuss every single extraordinary comment made during the last class. But please feel free to talk about any interested topic that I might have omitted by chance, and I am looking forward to see the continuation of our class discussion on the blog. 

Our Freedom is On the Backs of Others.

BY SALLY ABDELGHAFAR

First and foremost, thank you to Ruby, Lenny, and Joseph for taking time to come back and share some of your experiences during your internships and some of your ideas dealing with social justice. As always, the discussion was very stimulating and it generated a number of questions to continue exploring.

Lenny’s discussion dealing with the capitalist idea of social entrepreneurship forced me to confront an approach that I am generally hesitant to promote. Without a doubt, there are some benefits to social entrepreneurship. As Lenny outlined, business principles are applied to an organizations or institutions that are pursuing social change. Adopting these principles tends to increase an organization’s chances of remaining stable and self-sustaining. Moreover, the economic discipline associated with business principles forces organizations to use money towards programs that have the greatest chance of succeeding or fostering changes based on certain criteria. In addition, there are successful examples where social entrepreneurship have successful replicated certain approaches. For instance, as Nicholas Kristoff highlights, small loans, which are to be used to make products for sale, are given to groups of women in different Arab countries. These women are able to create unique items that enable them to make small profits, in turn creating economic independence from societies that are heavily patriarchal. Still, despite the implementation of business principles and success stories, there seems to be a number long-term draw backs associated with embracing a form of capitalism that outweigh—if you will—any short-term successes. With this in mind, I am wondering what everyone’s thoughts are on prioritizing end goals. For those of you who share the view that capitalism favors certain groups and leads to high economic disparities, should we focus on our attention on transforming a system that we think is contributing to many of the social justice issues—poverty, inadequate housing, limited access to healthcare, to name a few—or should we “bite the nail” and play within the system acquire as much funding as we can? If you think there is a balance between the two, how do you reconcile working within a system that you disagree with without getting too reactionary or violating your own principles?

Minerva brought up a very interesting point dealing with taxes and government priority. She posed the question as to why New York City focuses on cleaning up Central park rather relocating those funds to healthcare, education, and unemployment. Reflection on this question prompted me to ask myself a few more questions. Should people pick and choose how their money is spent and where it goes? Should people compromise and relinquish some control over how their tax dollars are spent in hopes on contributing to the greater goal through the public sphere? Although these questions would lead to a fruitful discussion, another question stuck out to me dealing with global social justice and funding. Professor Reitz has mentioned on numerous occasions that waiting for clean is when you fail. Staff from Safe Horizon’s Anti-Trafficking Program refuse to book hotels that provide pornography because they believe the pornography industry, along with other factors, increases the demand and likelihood for human trafficking. Similarly, many organizations will boycott clothes or donations from a company or country that uses child labor. However, certain organizations and countries do not have the luxury to be in a position to both boycott certain industry while remaining self-sufficient. Moreover, certain countries do not have the ability to pick and choose which government will provide them with monetary funding. In this line of belief, is it wrong for an organization working towards social justice or a country to comprise certain principles and accept potential dirty money? In 1985, if you were running an organization that had in place a plan that would guarantee achieving a goal, such as raising the age of criminal responsibility or increasing adequate housing for 50,000 individuals, would you have accepted money from the Apartheid regime in South Africa if there was no other available options? Obviously this example illustrates one extreme potential situation; however, many developing countries that have faced colonization, racial subjugation and exploitation find themselves in situation in which they are seeking assistance from the same countries that had colonized them. Moreover, is it wrong to seek money from a fund or country that you know has gained its wealth at the end of ripping off other people if fund will be redirected for good?       

Joseph’s stories dealing with the relationship between inmates and guards at Riker’s Island stood out to me as well. He suggested that the biggest problem within the jail was the enemy dichotomy of them versus us. Inmates adapt to the environment of jail, which in turn leads to a survival of the fittest environment. Most of the population justifies the stigmatization and treatment of inmates as a product of one’s actions. Others wash their hands and refuse to acknowledge violations against prisoners because the taxes that support some of the jails are sufficient enough to show that they care. Unfortunately, this situation mirrors the global situation in many global situations. People around the world have created us versus them dictions on pretty much any topic, ranging from ethnicity to religion to even favorite sports team. These dichotomies have and will continue to lead to tension and conflict. However, many countries refuse to acknowledge any historical wrongdoings. For example, the United States will not own up to the overthrow of many elected leaders in Latin America and Middle Eastern countries that produced unstable environments. So, are the “us versus them” dichotomies psychological adaptions that we create to justify certain actions? Or to put differently, to people wipe their hands clean from certain actions because a hierarchy division enables them to justify the action as necessary?   

In closing, I want to leave you with two questions for food for thought. The major theme throughout this post was continuing to explore social justice from a global perspective. With this in mind, I am curious whether or not you are more inclined to playing within the current international systems to achieve social justice or working outside the system and why? Second, referring back to Minerva’s question, part of the problem dealing with why money is spent to keep the City attractive deals with people’s lure to being the best. Creating the illusion that New York City is the greatest city in the world requires maintaining the main attractions to produce more investment and neglecting the quality-of-life in certain parts. So, with this in mind, would a way to contribute to social justice be abstaining from referring to New York City or the United States being the best, realizing that such statements contribute to the justification to view Time Square as a sole indicator of the City’s greatness or the United States’ GDP? 

Power, Control and the Unknown - A Further Exploration of the Panopticon

Hello Everyone,

I wanted to start off by saying thank you for an amazing class. The discussions were great and class even ended with a crucial discussion point brought up by Professor Stein.

Lets get started…

Our seminar began with discussion on Foucault’s piece about the Panopticon and determining the purpose of such architectural design within an institution (primarily prisons), as well as assessing the effectiveness. Moving away from visible forms of torture imposed upon during the medieval ages, to more isolated forms of torture behind society’s eyes (inside a prison), this makes me wonder what the thought process of the government was when they created penitentiaries. David stated that it was a more humanitarian form of punishment. Niko and Aaron stated that it was a matter of control and taking them out of society, so they do not reoffend. However, Joe explained his idea that it was a form of rehabilitation and reform. In relation to Joe’s argument about reform, Professor Stein introduced the idea of religion and how reformists who built the penitentiary observed that solitary confinement actually gave prisoners an opportunity to reflect on their actions to their God and how better to serve him. I agree with the reformists in that religion plays a role in the individual’s actions and behaviors while incarcerated. In prison, he/she is given a copy of the Bible, on top of ample time to ponder and reflect on the offense committed, as well as all their mistakes in life. As a result, many find God in prisons and turn to him for forgiveness and an opportunity to start over. First there may come feelings of regret, anger with self, and etc. What is he/she to do when so much remorse builds up? One can turn that into more negativity, build up further rage and lash out. However, others may see this as an opportunity to start over, find God, and reform oneself working on becoming a better person. With that said, the first question I pose is: 1) To what extent do you believe that religion is a driving force and plays a role in prisons? How is religion used, if used at all?

Regarding the effectiveness of the panopticon, we were able to collectively agree that visibility and control within the panopticon is a form of power, in that it has a way of controlling the individual’s actions, implementing mind games and constant psychological and mental abuse that every move he/she makes is being monitored. In the discussion about institutions similar to the panopticon, Niko referred to public schools and the instant fear that is created for a student when that voice comes over the loud speaker and calls the student down to the principal’s office. This is also in correlation to the hierarchy of power. Though the authority figure is invisible (and behind that mic), from common practice and the traditions of school procedure, one knows that whoever is on the other side of the loud speaker is a person of authority and power. It is easy to assume that because of the fear of always being watched, the guards are the ones in control and the ones that hold the primary source of power. However, in the excerpt provided by Professor Stein towards the end of the seminar, Foucault states a different type of power dynamic. He states that “the major effect of the Panopticon: to induce in the inmate a state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power… that the inmates should be caught up in a power situation of which they are themselves the bearers.” I believe that in a way, this does make sense. When the prisoner controls his/her actions, this plays a role in effecting the behavior of the guard and how often he/she may be monitored. This can be supported with the example of the prisoner picking his skin and trying to separate it from the bone. Not only is he attempting to validate his existence, he may be trying to get the attention of the guards. Once he had the guards’ attention, for future instances, the guards may monitor him more to make sure he is not doing anything else bad. In other cases, someone may be so fearful of the guards watching and being punished, that he/she will behave extra good. When the guards see the good behavior, the focus and supervision from that individual may be shifted (though chances may be slim). In both instances, the individual may be in control of how much supervision is placed upon him/her based on their actions. However, essentially I believe that the government has the ultimate control and power. Though the prisoner may have control of his/her behavior, there are always guards that are more lenient or strict than others. With that said, the guards are also being watched, so his/her behavior and amount of supervision imposed may be shifted when his/her authority figure creates further rules and regulations demanding more supervision. With Foucault’s statement, I pose two additional questions: 2) What do you believe Foucault means when he states that the inmates are the holder of power?... Is the purpose of the panopticon really to give the individual power? If so, why is there so much psychological and mental abuse that the individual feels being created? 3) Who do you believe is really in control of the power and why?

A large portion of the seminar was also dedicated to discussing the purpose of uniformity and control within the system. Andre mentioned that it is ultimately about control. If everyone was the same, there is less room for objectivity. There is a loss of opinion, individuality and identity. Sally extended that statement and referred to her experience of having to wear uniforms in her private school. It is a mental thing and the system is collectively telling you, “These are the rules, they cannot be changed. No, you have no say and you cannot change this.” In response to these two points, David mentioned that everyone involved is ultimately oppressed. The oppressors (guards) are also oppressed because they too are being watched. Everyone is always being watched up until the highest legislator. There is always that hierarchy of power that plays a role and everyone is always being controlled. We also touched upon the idea that uniformity is ultimately a form of categorizing and “othering” the individual. Why is it easier to abuse the individuals who are in uniform and branded? When the system has categorize the individual, that allows more room for control and power. My next question to you is, in relation to David’s point: 4) What do you believe is the purpose of uniformity if all the individuals involved themselves know that they are being watched also? Is this really about the power and control anymore?

In conclusion, as Foucault showed, capitalism controls everything. All institutions and all individuals involved in institutions are always being controlled. There is much discrepancy about the purpose of the panopticon. This design of punishment was no longer used in the mid 19^th century. My last question to you is: 5) Why do you think that the panopticon form of punishment is no longer used and why is there a shift in the kinds of incarceration practices for an individual?

An Eye-Opening Experience- A Tour of The Manhattan Criminal Court House

Hi everyone, first of all I would like to thank Mr. Thomas Giovanni for his time and the very insightful information he so generously provided, but most of all for the passion and dedication he demonstrated throughout the tour and in his speeches. The tour for me was an eye opener and I was and am, extremely impressed.

To begin I would like to first comment on the information section we had in front of the courthouse and the significance of the makeup,(composition), of the people waiting on line across the street. As Mr. Giovanni explained, this particular line was made up of people who most probably will be chosen to form the next Grand Jury. The group of ordinary citizens, who will be in-charged of deciding if a crime has been committed and if a particular individual, police officer, witness or even defendant, is telling the truth. This was an interesting piece of information (or evidence) depending on how one looks at it. The significance of the very low number of black and Hispanic males represented on that line brings into question the quote, “Equal and exact justice for all men of whatever state or persuasion,” which is so firmly and largely presented on the front of the courthouse. We promise an “equal and exact justice” but we do not afford an “equal and exact,” number of men, from “whatever state of persuasion,” to have an equal say on that “equal justice.”  How can we say that every person that passes through our criminal justice system will be treated the same, with the same amount of respect and afforded the same amount of dignity, if we cannot afford every person an equal number of representation under our system?

As we walked through the courthouse what stood out for me most, was the sign outside the police office door, which states, “Police Personnel Only.” Most of us ordinary citizens, walking through a courthouse  find ourselves already very much overwhelmed just at the fact that we are walking through a criminal courthouse. We would never think to question the veracity of any information or sign posted within the courthouse. Having been informed by Mr. Giovanni that a  police office, located within the courthouse, is a resource that should be and is supposed to be, available for family members searching for pertinent information regarding a criminal case, me question just how much more information are we, as normal everyday citizens, being deprived of? How much more information, are family members of criminal defendants, not provided with, when they come to an office, or an officer who represents our justice system and us for that matter, looking for help and/or information.

My question is, if our criminal justice system is supposed to make our life better, as Mr. Giovanni stated why is information so hard to come by within our justice system? If our justice system treats people, not only the ones arrest for a crime, as being less than human, how is it that we expect people to act any different? If we are to make society better and afford everyone equal protection and representation, how can that equality really come to play, when only a certain and specific number of people, who pass through our criminal justice system, are treated as human beings? How can we or anyone who wants to make a difference in society make a change? How can the system be made to work for everyone in the same manner as it is stated in our constitution and as it is screamed throughout our criminal justice system?

Well I said my question is, but as you noticed I had more than just one.

The Exonerated: When the System Fails—A Public Discourse

First, thanks to the professors for organizing the night (and David for the dinner). The performance was powerful—both acting and content-wise. There was so much to reflect on afterwards. 

So, let me start there.

On my way home, I just started jotting down ideas that stood out during the night—aspects that lead to these wrongful convictions and the subsequent human repercussions…false, internalized, and coerced confessions; the innate human mentality to profess our innocence, combined with the questionable interrogation practices, acting under the belief of presumptive guilt and coercion (see “Reid technique” and the nine steps, for example); prosecutorial misconduct and poor public defense lawyers; false identifications and eyewitness testimony; lack of scientific advancement; the psychological adjustment while incarcerated and then the readjustment during reentry into society; the “other” impact of incarceration—on families, friends, significant others; the questioning of faith; protrusive ignorance and racism; biased jurors and jury selections; the death penalty; the unending stigma; the human resilience…and the frightening thought of how many innocent individuals are probably still incarcerated.

There are countless topics to discuss when it comes to this, but I felt particularly moved (and disturbed) by the final message at the end, regarding exonerees reentering society. Not counting independent legal appeals, compensation after exoneration varies widely by state, and 24 states offer no compensation at all. For those without family and/or friend support systems in place, reentry and reintegration can be overwhelming. Not only the psychological readjustment, but also the practical readjustments of finding employment, housing, education, etc. become imminent. Particularly for the exonerated, how does it feel to be wronged by your state once and then left to fend for yourself when you’re set free? We as a society should do whatever it takes to right these wrongs (to the extent that we can) for these individuals.  

Refer to a CNN article and table on the topic here: 

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/25/justice/wrongful-conviction-payments/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2012/03/us/table.wrongful.convictions/

Wrapping all of this together, there remains a need for public discourse about these issues. Albeit the play had a tone of stereotypical, southern-twang racism, and, understandably so, a charged perspective from the people caught up in these injustices, the humanized message is still there: There is an urgency to recognize that our criminal justice system is imperfect... all throughout the country. This is not to say that perfection is attainable for our CJ system (because it's not), but these stories and the relevant research behind it need to be divulged. There is a need for this awareness to be made on a larger scale, and a concurrent need for passionate individuals to continue the cause in order to foster social justice in our legal system

At John Jay, we have researchers who are leaders in these fields of study—Saul Kassin (false confessions), Margaret Bull-Kovera (lineup and eyewitnesses), Steve Penrod (juries and eyewitnesses), etc. In NYC, we have the home base of an organization called “The Innocence Project,” which is dedicated to exonerating falsely convicted men and women (they achieved their 300^th exoneration two weeks ago). Plus, we all are involved in a social justice-based internship experience.

We are surrounded by opportunities to alleviate injustices in our society and to pursue social change. And after continuously and frustratingly hearing goose bump inducing accounts like these, it’s difficult for me not to feel pumped up and impassioned about it. Constant reminders like this put it all in perspective and solidify the motivation.  

-----

How did you feel about the performance? What stood out to you the most? 

Perspectives, perspectives, perspectives

Dream exercise: I think we all have great aspirations for our work at the spinoffs (and Vera itself for Joe). During the short exercise in this week’s seminar, and ever since, I started thinking more in-depth about what impact or contribution I can have at Center for Employment Opportunities. I realize this was kind of pre-mentor coffee but I just wanted to thank the professors for getting the wheels turning and giving us some quick feedback.

We also talked a lot about perspectives, credibility, evidence, and objectivity. At least for me, this workshop helped reinforce the premise that these are factors that should be taken into account with every reading. In the past I have often been ignorant of these personal influences unless they were blatantly obvious. Fundamental questions such as; “Is the author objective,” “What is the authors perspective,” and “Are they credible” really help to decipher how reliable or trustworthy a source is. I’d also like to note that Amara and Sally both said they knew they would probably agree with the Krugman article because they read previous works and knew his background. The rest of us, who did not have previous knowledge of the author, had to find credibility within the piece itself. Some of us focused on his knowledge of economics, the sources he quotes, and who he identified himself with.

As we saw with the letters to the editor we prepared and read in class the number of different perspectives can at times be overwhelming. In the case of Krugman’s article some of the possible other perspectives we discussed were; the rich who agree with him, the rich who disagree with him, the people in poverty (not middle class) who agree, and the politician who disagrees. As the professors said, the more perspectives on a situation you can get the more one can get a full understanding of the complete picture. Professor Stein wrote the word intersubjectivity on the board and defined it as, “consideration to how there is always subjectivity but more perspectives leads to closer and better understanding.”

                                             

My question to the class is: How did you find the peer review at the end of class. After reading the comments were they useful? Do you agree? What was the most helpful comment you received?

Language, Institutions, and the Poor

In my opinion, Oscar Lewis’ article was very schizophrenic; it had split meanings and often contradicted itself. First, “The Culture of Poverty” generated diverging interpretations in the U.S. and abroad. As Bourgois notes, “while Lewis’ books are read by a U.S. public as an interpretation that…blames victims, in France his work is interpreted as a critique of society’s failures to remedy…class based inequality.” Essentially, these split interpretations come from the inconsistent, self-contradicting arguments Lewis made in his article. While, on the one hand, he argues that those afflicted by this “culture” needed some kind of rehabilitation, on the other hand, he faults “free-enterprise, pre-welfare-state stage capitalism” for the creation of it. So what is the main cause of poverty? Is it this "culture" he speaks of? Is it our broken institutions? Is it both? Neither? Which is it, Mr. Lewis? Thus, my first question relates back to Orwell’s essay on politics and language. Battistoni points out the confusion and furor created by Lewis’ thesis, while Bourgois points out that Lewis himself was confused by his own topic. He left so much open to interpretation, and at times it feels like his writing comes from split personalities. Does this relate to a language problem? Did Lewis’ inability to express his main idea clearly cause this confusion? Did you have any problem with the language he used?

Another thing that struck me about the Lewis article was this line, one that Andre alluded to in class: “The disengagement, the nonintegration, of the poor with respect to the major institutions of society is a crucial element in the culture of poverty.” This statement hands responsibility to the poor for failing to engage in politics, and faults them for their mistrust larger institutions. But isn't it the other way around? Haven't these institutions failed to reach out to the poor? They have “disengaged” from their responsibility to serve the lower classes, turned their backs to them to serve more 'amenable' individuals, and perhaps they too are stymied in a “blame the victim” culture—a view that Battistoni holds. How can institutional [political, economic, healthcare, etc.] change be fostered, and how do you think our agencies play a role in this?

Lastly, I want to connect the Bourgois article to the “town hall meeting” we had in class. At the end of his article, he states: “The culture of poverty furore reminds us that academics fight so hard over so little...concerned academics continue to fiddle in their ivory towers, arguing over how to correctly talk about the structural violence of poverty.” At that meeting, where we discussed whether to terminate the Robert F. Wagner housing projects, we all played a certain “role.” I ended up being a fiscally conservative Councilwoman, representing the neighborhood.  My part of the conversation and others, such as Lewis (Aaron) and Moynihan (Nico) revealed that we were very disconnected from the poor.

Now that I look back, our ‘characters’ didn't directly think about their needs—to counter violence, drug abuse, prostitution, etc. We were too busy in our ivory towers, hooking our ideologies into the situation at hand. This is too reminiscent to reality, as our politicians use the “culture of poverty” argument to further reduce government’s responsibility to the poor. But this is just my opinion. How did the rest of the class feel about this discussion?

The Mother Ship

We have jokingly called Vera the "mother ship" because it is, on some level, the origin of your journeys as John Jay - Vera Fellows.  For those of you NOT interning at Vera, you have really interesting perspectives since your greater familiarity is with the work and space of the spin-off (the child and not the parent, to keep the metaphor going). So what did you learn today as you returned to the mother ship?  What immediately struck you in what you saw or heard?

If you need more of a prompt than that (and I'm thinking most of you don't!), here are a few specific topics that occurred to me:

Did last week's conversation give you a greater attention to language and, if so, what were your thoughts?  For example, I jotted down phrases such as "school-disconnected youth," "post-conflict," "resistant," "strengths-based" and "population."  We routinely use the word "population" in our seminar to discuss the folks served by your agencies and yet Dr. Elkin was eager to clarify his use of that word by saying that the youths are not just a population but "are people we care about."  What work is each of these phrases attempting to do?  What implications are they hoping to avoid?

Not all non-profits look like Vera.  From the bejewelled Woolworth Building to the polished, rather swank conference room (admit it, you wanted to take a mug, too), the aesthetic style of a place communicates a message just as much as our language choices.  What does the style say to you?  How does this contrast with the aesthetic of your agency?  What message is communicated by your agency's aesthetics?  (And since I'm an English professor, I'd love to open this space to vivid, detailed descriptions of the places you work.  Remember, we haven't visited all of them -- make us see what you see!)

All of our speakers admitted to altering or abandoning various career choices on their pathway to Vera.  For some, it was realizing grad school was the wrong fit, or that the direction of the field had changed (I love the phrase Dr. Elkin used: "professional dissonance"!), or that grad school wasn't even necessary to pursuing one's vision.  Hester Lyons shared my favorite revelation of the day that it wasn't until decades later that she realized how one choice led to another.  I think it is tempting to think, when you are young, talented, ambitious and anxious, that those of us doing what you want to do had some great plan all along.  We don't (I'm using the royal "we" here -- I'm not accusing any of you of wanting to be English professors!).  We make choices, we quit jobs, we eat ramen, we avoid military coups, and we work hard to make those questionable decisions the "right" decision.  What did you hear in this conversation that helped or confused you?

The Social Interest of Social Impact Bonds

“We like our victims a certain way”

            This was the comment that Professor Stein left us with after our engaging discussion surrounding the potential benefits and drawbacks of social impact bonds. We ended the discussion on the note exploring if the potential benefits outweigh the potential risk, as people in the status quo need help now. However, big businesses “like their victims” to be complacent, meaning they want to be able to provide them with relief while simultaneously avoiding the stigma of their motives. We broadened this analysis but we also began exploring the significance of advocacy and methods of creating solidarity with the poor. Our analysis was great but I would like to first backtrack a little in order to bring more breath to some of the earlier arguments in the discussion as well as arguments that really framed our inquiry and my overall thoughts.

            Let us first discuss the root cause argument that we could have analyzed further throughout the discussion. In a broad sense, isolating root causes are beneficial because they allow us to explore potential reasons why negative events occur, find solutions for the base problem and prevent the future occurrence of this negative impact indefinitely. To be more specific, if people are consistently dyeing from the flu, we must isolate what the primary cause of the flu is in order to prevent future deaths indefinitely. However, the idea of social interest bonds seems to be prolonging the sickness by simply, as Joseph put it, “clearing the symptoms of the disease.” It amazes me how profit and short-term stability have become our end goal for societies toughest problems in contemporary America. If two people are cold and homeless, we see it fit to find them a shelter to stay in overnight and many feel the problem is solved. If someone has not eaten for days and we feed that person a great thanksgiving meal, we feel that this is enough to help alleviate their struggles. Hilfiker made this point clear that charity and non-profit work does not and can not substitute justice but does it not bridge the gap between the two? Does it not make justice that much closer and achievable for the vast majority when we build our assemblages and fight for what’s right? Even if people are self-interested in participating in these community-mobilized events, the lack of profit motive and fundamental desire to give outweighs the selfish act. These “bandages” are great in the short term but the overarching problem still exist or how to find a long-term solution to these issues. These charity organizations may not alleviate peoples suffering over long periods of time but at least a charity organization has not been co-opted by this profit incentive.

            Charity therefore differs from social impact bonds greatly. Social impact bonds are the epitome of this co-option in my opinion.  Its just another way for business to make profit off of displaced and underprivileged people who have most likely already encountered hardship within our system. Lets take a second to imagine a world where you have to pay in order to eat and survive, medication and healthcare is not universal and the betterment of communities relies on the government decisions and financial interest. Sound familiar? Sally made the great point that health care and the progression of medicine has already become economically optimized. She claims “if they [doctors] found a solution for cancer tomorrow, pharmaceuticals would go out of business” as they would not be able to profit off of people spending money to survive with cancer day to day. This is a product of our greed but lets get back to the issue at hand because social impact bonds supercharge this greed initiative. Put the idea of capital gain in context of prison re-entry. The government and their partners will fund programs for convicted criminals so long as recidivism rates drop next year. Lets assume that recidivism rates stands still or even go up… what now? Do we stop funding the programs and leave former prisoners vulnerable to re-entry? The answer in the context of these bonds is yes.

            Now, lets tackle the opposing argument, as it deserves to have some light shed on its credibility. David firmly believed that this short-term interest heavily outweighs potential long-term drawbacks. He claimed that we can isolate many reasons why the program is potentially hazardous, but at least something will get done. In retrospect it is hard to disagree with this statement but I still have to question the motive behind these bonds. If recidivism mattered to Goldman Sachs why do they have to pursue solvency through the lens of capital gain? What is the difference between distributing ten million dollars to a multiplicity of not for profit organizations aiming to lower recidivism rates and find a solution to the problem? Or why, as Niko pointed out, can’t the money simply be donated? The answer is in the question: NOT FOR PROFIT. If we continue to allow money motives to govern our decision-making, the notion of community turns on its head and money continues to rule us until the gap between the rich and the poor is absolute. Do not misunderstand my skeptiscm for inaction because I too believe that something needs to be done. But when thinking of these bonds in great detail we must wonder, and many of us have started to do so already, if people would actually be worse off in the long term even though they are obtaining short-term relief.

            Now that I have summarized most of our class discussion I would like to discuss my preferred solution. Sylvie’s articulation about Framer’s idea of “preferential treatment for the poor” is the best model for this type of conflict. Framer initially wants to explores methods of creating practical ideas in solidarity with poorer people so that they do not get misplaced in the decision making process, which is something that happens too often. Framer’s ideals have been practiced on a minute scale without our even notice. This solidarity has actually entrenched itself in the mission statements of most not for profit organizations. Ironically enough this includes the organizations we currently intern with and have researched. For example, CASES aims to create solidarity between the workers and the youth offenders in order to prevent their deeper entrenchment into the justice system; Esperanza aims to utilize research and illuminate trends in drop out rates in order to create solidarity between struggling adolescents and the staff who want to help them; HSI attempts to create solidarity between recently homeless individuals and case workers in order to prevent them from reverting back to homelessness and getting lost in the system. The list goes on and remains true through each organization. These organizations are at the forefront of solidarity and yet these social impact bonds stand to eliminate their cause because government would be able to allocate their funds into businesses rather than administering grants to community based institutions. Under the ideology of social impact bonds, the value of poor people, troubled youth and even formerly incarcerated individuals in society starts and stops at their economic stability.

I would like to now open this for discussion.

1         1)   If you believe that the long-term benefits and stability of the disadvantaged matters, than what can we do to assist that group. As future leaders, how do we make a systemic impact in a world where non-profits begin disappearing or where community activism is co-opted by business and government? Where do we find our voice?

2        2)   If you believe that the short-term goals outweigh the long-term interest as a few of us have articulated, than how do you remedy the potential dangers that our colleagues and myself have mentioned? What does the world look like post-social impact bond in your opinion? Why exactly does the “now” outweigh the “then” and do you believe that our voices do in fact become misplaced? Where is the human element in this solution?

3       3)   For all, what is the best approach to societies toughest problems? Is it the integrated model that Niko and Joseph defended or do we need more advocacy and hardcore solutions as Sally and I briefly mentioned?

Ultimately, the final question is this: How do we successfully transfer the power of decision-making and political know-how into the hands of the underprivileged?