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?
13 comments:
Passionate post, Sally. And ditto: big thanks to Ruby, Joseph, and Lenny for coming in and sharing their experiences and knowledge.
Starting with your “us versus them” dichotomy and your final questions: I think it is a great psychological defense. “Us versus them” has an interesting way of delineating a separation and, at the same time, dehumanizing and homogenizing “them.” It becomes easier to act a certain way when we think of people as fitting in certain boxes and not having unique, personal identities (think the training of a soldier, or more extreme, genocide). It can often become a way to dissociate and not align emotionally with the “other” group. In terms of social justice, I wonder how “change” can be enacted with an “us versus them” mentality. Not even taking into account the institutionalized environment for a moment, which may rely on such a construct to keep control, structure, and perceived safety, what about thinking of the “us versus them” in relation to “working within the system.” Should we mix in someway the competing goals of the capitalist and philanthropist? Should there ever exist a double-bottom line of social justice and profit?
Now, combining your first two questions: So yeah, about that “working within the very systems we seek to change”… It is certainly a difficult idea that I continue to debate within myself. It creates for me, as I’m sure it does for pretty much all of us here, this cognitive dissonance—when our inner thoughts and beliefs do not align with or reflect our external actions.
But then I think: To change/eliminate such deeply embedded structures within our society is to challenge decades and decades of tightly compacted thoughts, beliefs, and ways of doing things. It is a slow process to change those mindsets and the social structures that we operate under.
I think back to a historian’s work I read when I was studying the French Revolution (his name is John Hall Stewart). To achieve change, he says, three things must first happen—disestablishment of old institutions, compromise by adapting to necessities of the moment, and innovation through “badly needed new institutions.” His points here were in regards to the influx of enlightenment-style thinking in France, but I see a direct connection to our discussion: perhaps we do first need to compromise by adapting to the current situation (both in the physical and mental sense) and innovate (through research and newly constructed social policies), before we can totally disestablish what is here already. I am starting to think that working within the system is a necessary evil.
In other words, certain concessions may have to be made along the way to pursuing a main goal of complete 180-degree, structural change. That may mean taking “dirty money” or partnering with symbols of economic and social disparity to reduce economic and social disparities (i.e. social impact bonds). It is an uneasy alliance.
I guess what I am getting at, in the simplest terms, is that, despite where the money comes from, for example, the importance is whose hands it eventually ends up in and what those hands decide to do with it. To your question about taking apartheid-supported money in 1985, I’m not sure I could answer that unless I was in the situation. That is hugely conflicting, psychologically at least. But, if said money is going to house 50K people or help to greatly change policies, I would struggle to not accept it.
(continued)
Greed and unethical behavior of humans are unfortunately inevitable in society. By taking such money, though, I wonder if we are involved in some superhero-redistribution of wealth process… or maybe we are just reinforcing the behavior of the people we took the money from? I always feel like these blogs leave me with tons of self-reflective questions to analyze my thoughts, but not always absolute answers (but not surprising since these are complex issues).
…On that final note, Sally, I think a lot of my thoughts regarding your question—and the ambivalence that follows—hinges on a philosophical question: Does the end justify the means? Further, do the means inhibit in any way the current situation/problem/policy you are trying to change?
That’s pretty personal, subjective, and probably a case-by-case decision.
Thank you for this post. Also, a special thanks to Ruby, Lenny and Joseph for speaking with us about their experiences!
Lets personalize the story before answering your questions: I am currently writing this response on my Apple laptop while I sit in my warm bed. I have access to heat and water and I am secure, for the most part, in my apartment building from violence of others and the chilly whether conditions. I have just eaten some ramen noodles and I can comfortably say that I will have at least one meal a day that my family will share every day this week. I change my clothing everyday and I even organize them into two different categories: regular and professional. I take advantage of public parks and libraries when I want to partake in extra curricular activities. I forgot to mention that I myself am very cynical of the government. My community has been set against each other as we fight for resources. Money is tight and people out here seem to have a disadvantage in the system, which has led to crime and violence between us. I want a better future than this so I attend school in hopes at a more stable and secure future. I cannot afford college so I ask the government for funding for my education and I am HAPPY that they have agreed to assist me on my journey. I have the nerve to not be satisfied simply surviving.
I have come to the realization that we can theorize all we want about public/private issues but it takes real world action to change these things we feel compelled to critique. If we assume that my cynicism stems form the capitalist system the answer to your question is within my narrative. I have already bitten the nail and I hate to admit that fact that I will continue biting it until I am done with my degree. Even then I will most likely search for a job where I will make a salary monitored by the government and try to make a living for my family. With that being said, I would like to ask you a question. Am I the enemy in this situation because I defend the fact that I must work within the system to get what I need in life? This question is essential because social justice agencies do in fact ask for funding simply so that they can make a change in some way. In my opinion, they are not wrong for simply wanting to make a difference the only way they know how.
Ruby’s experiences at Job Path only supercharges my argument. She spoke with great passion when she mentioned that individuals with mental illnesses have in fact been displaced in the system much like ex-offenders do. She spoke how they were treated as if not human and they are looked down upon when they are simply looking for a job so that they may make a living. With that being said, Job Path relies on donations from private entities but also relies on funding when the donations are not enough. How can they remedy the holes in the system without directly putting their clients at risk of being displaced? The easy answer is you address the issue one person at a time but asking for funding and using the money wisely. In these kinds of scenarios the principals change from “do not become a sell out” to “lets make a difference.” The latter will always be the rationale choice when faced with social justice issues because changing lives means more than critiquing the system.
However, this acceptance that I speak of does not come without consequences and this can be seen with your analysis surrounding taxes. The vast majority of people in the US have in fact adopted one of two mentalities. Either they live for themselves and fight for their future regardless of the impacts it may have on others, or, they fight for others and devote their lives towards assisting people who have been displaced in the system and cannot adequately advocate for themselves. In both situations, we must use the system. Because we accept what the system gives us, they figure they are in control and can tax the country. Whether it is right or wrong for them to use our money as they want becomes irrelevant so long as people like me continue to move forward while relying on the same system that takes advantage of me. I am not saying this is right, I am simply saying that you are not necessarily a demon if you choose to try to make it within the corrupt system. If I can make a change I will make it.
Finally, I get to the “us vs. them” mentality that Joseph tackled really well. There are psychological strains on autonomy when we constantly feel separated form the system. We strive and thrive to be the best we can be but at every turn we are taken advantage of by the same country we, as consumers, contribute to. I am not one to place blame on the people but it is because of our lack of interest to fight the system that we are constantly taken advantage of within it. Unfortunately, this is the reality of the situation and for it to change it would either take an incentive to allow us to live more comfortably or complete unity in one cause that people of our country decides it will fight for. I myself hope for a better future but as a current student in a public institution in which the government is funding my education, I feel as if my freedom is not only restricted, but it also has been compromised by my decision to fight for a better future.
Great post Sally, I also want to thanks the alums who provided very insightful information .
1. I’m not sure what you meant by capitalism favoring certain groups however I do believe that capitalism favor individuals who have assimilated into the upper class. In terms of answering your questions I believe that there is a balance in the two, in order for an organization to achieve any of these goals, they would require funding. This would require a huge amount of funding to accomplish any of these feats. Lenny example of one of board members confirmed what I already thought to be true, in order for an organization or individual to be successful, they would need to strip their individuality to the point where they are similar. At least similar to the point in where the organization can receive funding. In terms on how does one reconcile with working within such system, I am not sure in how to answer that except that at least the non-profit is still there.
2. I do not believe it is wrong for an organization to accept dirty money. If an organization holds standards of what is deemed good money or dirty money; then in order for the organization to accept dirty that would mean that the non-profit in financial need and require funds no matter where it from. Morals are cast away when in such need, this unfortunately is true for a lot of institutions as Sally stated earlier organizations requires donations for stability. In class Sally mentioned that Goldman Sachs gave $10,000 to Safe Horizons. In an ideal world, there would be no question on my stance on accepting “dirty money” unfortunately we live in the real world where compromises are necessary for sustainability. Unfortunately nonprofits have to rely on revenue from the help of others. To answer your second question, here is an article that shows an example of a mayor who announced a partnership with Lockheed Martin, a weapons contractor on environment sustainability. Even though it’s a weapon contractor that profits off making weapons, the town would still benefit from the deal rather than not taking the deal and no effort is done for environment sustainability
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/12/us/12burlington.html?_r=0
It's interesting that we are having this conversation especially with whats going on in the Middle East the past couple of days. Today I was able to stop by time square, to see the protests and i was taken back by the animosity that both Israelis and Palestinians had toward each other. The same idea that Joe and Andre are talking about the "us verse them" made it so easy for both sides to not think outside of their biases. Not to say that I don't believe that Israel overreacted but it was not easy for both sides to have a conversation.
I'm going to have to disagree with David simply because I believe that if people are going to accept dirty money it makes us stay within an unjust society. Why is it that we seem to settle into this ongoing cycle of unjust rather thn being able to separate ourselves and boycott dirty money.
For example, Safe Horizon accepts money from Walmart and because they accept money from Walmart they are not allowed to speak out against them. Walmart has one of the worth ethics in workers rights but because we receive money we must be silent. In my opinion I think this attitude allows for us to emerge into greater injustice.
Interesting (and passionate!) post, Sally.
I would like to respond to your second question. One line that stuck out to me from our class last Thursday is something Professor Reitz quoted from President Travis: "I'm interested in problems I can solve..." From that small soundbite, it seemed like he was saying “Solving the problem comes first; moral trifles can come in later.” Though we may have personal qualms about the "culture" of a system we are trying to fix, we might find that we have to resign ourselves to accepting the “imperfections” in order to get things done. For example, think back to the charity article we read in class about upper class philanthropists (and how they almost never have contact with their lower class beneficiaries). The hierarchical culture of philanthropy is definitely problematic, but the organizations that receive money from such sources cannot say, “I refuse to accept this money due to an ethical issue.” They end up working through the faults of a system in order to benefit those who rely on them.
I hate the word “naïve,” or how people may say “that’s just how it is, deal with it,” because we shouldn’t just accept these issues sitting down. We should be advocating a culture change within the system. The ends don’t always justify the means. If you have to shake the devil’s hand, try persuading him to change as well (as futile as it may seem).
RE: Us v. Them Dichotomies: These dichotomies don’t only exist within jails, they also exist within some organizations and agencies. But moreover to the point, as Sally has broadened the conversation by bringing in the global picture. I have to turn to my parent’s homeland when I think of how pervasive this dichotomy is. In Nigeria, violence has broken out between the Muslim north and Christian south, both having very stringent views of the other. Is the heavy tension caused by “psychological adaptations”? I believe that is only one piece of the puzzle. Economic and social forces, which have historically favored Nigeria’s Southern population, have created an imbalance of privileged dominance and political corruption that has plagued the poorer North for decades. The North believes its behavior its violent behavior (in conjunction with Boko Haran, a terrorist organization) is justified due to the prevailing conditions. Failed institutions and already heated social tension play a large part in the way these dichotomies develop.
Interesting conversation and as Sally said, meaningful and painful in light of events in Gaza/Israel. I just want to underscore a connection lingering in the shadows of your various comments: the question of how we justify our actions. Whether it be working within a system we disagree with, taking money from benefactors we disagree with or using means to fight that are violent or destructive, we are all thinking about how we can justify what we do and who we are. These are EXCELLENT questions to keep in mind when reading the upcoming assignment on the "subjectivity of the analyst" about apartheid, activism, morality and how we justify our actions. It is a tough piece but I think it will take this conversation to another level.
As will Primo Levi's "The Gray Zone," which we read last year and I believe will try to again in the spring. It makes it very hard (if any of you have read this) to think about where to stand in the us v. them universe.
Thanks for the blog Sally, very important, powerful and emotional issues you brought up all at once. I also like to thanks Ruby, Lenny and Joseph for sharing their experiences with us, their insight was really helpful to me in many aspects.
In respect to your first question Sally I agree with Joseph that when responding to this question and when we look within ourselves to seek an answer as to how we can work with, against or within the system, it becomes very controversial for us, within ourselves, to find a good and logical answer. The reason is because unfortunately we need to work within the system in order to change a lot of what we do not agree with and also because of the obvious needs which lead to the acceptance of certain economic backing we otherwise would be against accepting. In reference to Andre’s point that we all have certain needs and situations that make us more than happy to accept backing from the system and the government, I agree with his view. We all benefit in certain forms from the system and many times we take advantage of all the benefits we can in order to achieve our goals. I have no problem with working within and with the system my problem is when we become too accepting of everything regardless of what or how it is done just because we also benefit from it.
I also want to disagree with David on the acceptance of “dirty money.” I do not agree that it is okay for organizations which work to correct social injustice to accept any type of “dirty money.” However when you have big and wealthy corporations that can afford to donate millions of dollars, which will in turn provide them with a substantial tax benefit, I do not think that is dirty money in the least. I think that those wealthy organizations should look first at the important and needy projects that can benefit from their donations and donate to those projects or organizations instead of putting millions of dollars into neighborhoods and projects that are already doing well, producing benefits and are self-sufficient.
I think that in helping to form change or in thinking of provoking change we must work within the system in order to get a better understanding of how and where it is best to change it. My particular problem with New York City and wealthy New Yorkers focusing of cleaning and maintaining Central Park is that the rest of the city is lost to everyone. My understanding when we have a wealthy billionaire such as John Paulson donating $100 million dollars to the Central Park Conservancy is the fact that only the rich looking and tourist attraction part of the city is important. The rest of New York where the real everyday New Yorkers live is not as important as the part that is seen by those who do not get to live here. When it comes to that type of disparity I cannot agree that it is okay. Yes if Mr. Paulson wanted to donate a large amount of money to Central Park he is within his right to donate to whatever organization or project he chooses. However I would like to think that when people are blessed with that amount of money, which can be donated at basically no financial loss or cost to him, they can find more socially important projects which can be better benefitted with half of that sum. I think this is more to the point made by Lenny, about the social impact bonds, I believe, that there are other projects which can work better and are probably more beneficial that could use that economic backing in a better way. Just the same I believe that half of the $100 million dollars donated by Mr. Paulson, if donated towards restoration of parks in poor neighborhoods, could have gone a long way towards improving many lives, maybe creating more jobs for working individuals and given a lot more children in our city better playgrounds to play in. I do not think that we should only focus on making things better for the less fortunate I think everyone has the right to be given the same type of consideration. However, I think the injustice happens, when we only focus on keeping the good looking, looking good and looking away when we see the ugly so as not to let it ruin our vision.
Hi Sally, thank you for sharing your thoughts.
During our last class, Prof. Reitz has brought up the issue regarding the disproportionate allocation of money in government sponsored programs and policies. As she pointed out towards the end of the class, when we complain about the lack of financial resources to support social injustice, people rarely boldly challenge the humongous amount of money spent on wars, national security, corporate bailouts, and so forth. If we connect pieces of the segments of government policies together and look at them from a broader perspective, it would not be difficult for us to realize that our government is operating on a capitalist business model. Like other profit-making businesses, our government is prompt to invest in areas that have the potential to guarantee significant and fast results. When comes to investing its financial resources in fields that are less popular and are unlikely to produce notable results in a short period of them, the “state businessmen”, politicians and law makers, become wary of such risky investments. The purpose of this comparison is to reflect on some of our discussion regarding the moral challenges behind the adoption of “social impact bonds.” Some, including myself, have argued that the use of “social impact bounds” would distort or even degrade the nature of social justice by turning it into a profit driven system. However, is it really safe to argue that the system has remained a “pure land” freed of the pollution of profit driven goals? My answer is, no, because our government is a mastermind in managing financial investment. When they occasionally bestow resources to the disadvantaged ones, who could barely generate any benefits for the government, they invest the least efforts into doing so.
If we were already dealing with government sponsored social programs, which are operated on the basis of capitalistic business model, what difference would the “social impact bonds” make? It would merely be, in my opinion, an insignificant addition to our current system.
Hello Sally,
Thank you for the post and definitely a big thanks to Ruby, Lenny and Joseph!
To answer your first and second question, In reference to Amara’s point, she mentioned the quote by President Travis. That really made me think and I too believe that he is talking about “solving the problem first, moral trifles later…” but where is the right in this? Amara also mentioned our discussion on poverty. The upper class is always trying to find solutions for problems to help the lower class, but they never actually make the effort to speak to the lower class and ask what they need specifically. They are just stuck in their glass buildings brainstorming, when it would be much more beneficial to go out, ask, and incorporate all parties. However, even though the upper class sometimes gives dirty money to different organizations, if the organizations really needed the money, they are not just going to refuse it if it will help their company benefit. Again, these are justification that the individuals make in their heads between ethical violations versus. Legitimate needs for money to help their organization grow. This issue is very controversial and can be argued both ways. I guess it really depends on the individual.
In regards to your last question, I believe that the “us versus them” argument is a way of othering in which people of power use to separate themselves from the uniform group. There becomes a wide gap and in between that gap exists the hierarchy of power. In reference to our discussion on the Panoptican and the idea of uniformity, I do believe that it is easier to alienate other groups who are “different” than us… The “us versus them” dichotomies creates justification for the authorities because they feel that they are essentially in more control and have the right to oppress the groups for being “different.” As Joseph mentioned, the guards at Rikers dehumanize the prisoners. During a Hurricane Sandy announcement, even Mayor Bloomberg dehumanized them in a subtle way when asked about what will happen to the prisoners during the storm. Because the “us”, whether consciously or subconsciously sees the other group as being different, we create justifications in our heads to treat them differently. Again, this goes back to the idea of hierarchy of power versus uniformity and isolation (because they are “different” than us.
From the sound of it, I missed an amazing class last Thursday. My loss. I missed you guys.
Sally-your blog post is extremely thought provoking. You have synthesized in a few questions some of the key issues we deal with when we arrive at a certain level of consciousness (awareness) of how the world works and the contradictions of trying to work “within” the system, and the limited options available to work “outside” it. Your questions bring me back to our very first reading for the semester, and our very first discussion about how to remain “apolitical” (if there is such a thing) as individuals and as participants in institutions or as members of society because all institutions and all societies ARE inherently political. To say that one is not political is either self-delusional or ignoring the fact that not taking a stand is itself taking a stand (Anyway, that's my perspective!)
As long as we are alive and as long as we are members of a society, we are operating inside it, no matter what we might claim or how hard we refuse to believe it. This does not mean that there can be no resistance against the social as it exists. It does not mean there can be no social change. We know there has been and can be change, even radical, revolutionary change. For me, the question is less about whether or not we work with or against the system as an either/or but more about how we proceed in keeping with certain explicitly stated principles. Those principles can serve as guideposts for helping decide what course of action to take in specific situations. For example (and excuse the reference to Partners In Health once again, but….), PIH has as its central principle "the preferential option for the poor.” Decisions and policies flow from that key value. It becomes less about whether or not to work with some imagined evil entity, and more about how to muster the necessary resources to make happen the preferential option for the poor, and to avoid the slippery slope of particular “deals” that are ultimately likely to violate that principle.
I'm suggesting that value principles need to be well-articulated. In thinking about your agencies, do you think their value principles are well-articulated, and if so, could you state them (succinctly in a phrase or a sentence)? I also wonder if any of their practices and policies violate their key value principle?
Post a Comment