To Hell with Good Intentions

I would like to share an excerpt from a reading that has influenced me exceptionally during various volunteer experiences that I have had. I first read this article during training with an organization called AMIGOS, a youth empowerment organization that sends high school volunteers to Latin America for 6-8 weeks. This article always inspired a long discussion, where some people maintained that AMIGOS was different from the type of volunteering that this organization describes, while others like myself were far more critical. I think it is important to reread this any time I find myself engaging in volunteer work abroad, and in this case in the context of my practice experience in Chiapas Mexico this summer. Below is an excerpt from the end of the reading. You can also find the whole article here: http://www.swaraj.org/illich_hell.htm

“If you have any sense of responsibility at all, stay with your riots here at home. Work for the coming elections: You will know what you are doing, why you are doing it, and how to communicate with those to whom you speak. And you will know when you fail. If you insist on working with the poor, if this is your vocation, then at least work among the poor who can tell you to go to hell. It is incredibly unfair for you to impose yourselves on a village where you are so linguistically deaf and dumb that you don't even understand what you are doing, or what people think of you. And it is profoundly damaging to yourselves when you define something that you want to do as "good," a "sacrifice" and "help."

I am here to suggest that you voluntarily renounce exercising the power which being an American gives you. I am here to entreat you to freely, consciously and humbly give up the legal right you have to impose your benevolence on Mexico. I am here to challenge you to recognize your inability, your powerlessness and your incapacity to do the "good" which you intended to do.

I am here to entreat you to use your money, your status and your education to travel in Latin America. Come to look, come to climb our mountains, to enjoy our flowers. Come to study. But do not come to help.”

This powerful message brings up many significant points to consider when American volunteers,  many of whom know little about the context in which they work, go abroad with a mentality of superiority, or claim that they are “giving up” their summers to do something good.  In my case, I will be going to Mexico this summer to work with Fundacion Cantaro Azul, which works to provide access to water for communities around Chiapas. I think that it is very important for me to remember my impact and really consider my ability to “make a difference”, when I am not educated extensively on issues of water quality, and did not grow up in the communities that I seek to serve. I think this article ties greatly with Talwalker’s article, “What Kind of Global Citizen is the Student Volunteer”. Despite all of our efforts and intentions, we must realize that this is coming from a very privileged background, and that realistically our small stay will not have a profound impact on the larger issues at stake.

At the same time, with the passion that many of us have to changing the problems of inequality in the world today, I think that few would be comfortable being told to stay at home learning about poverty, but never actually going anywhere because we are only going to make it worse. And this is why I continue to volunteer abroad, despite being told and realizing through my own experiences that I am not making a dent on issues of global poverty and inequality. I think that rather than giving up all together, we can continue to learn—through classes at Berkeley and experiences abroad—what our impact really can be. While must be aware of the challenges, and be sure not to come in with a mentality of “helping others” or making people look just like us, I do believe that there is a space for the educated and humble American volunteer. This is not to say that any American has the right to show up in a rural community abroad to build a school or teach about the environment. However, if volunteers like myself go abroad with the mindset of learning and exchanging, and continue to discuss these ideas throughout my academic career, I only hope that at some point I can be more than a hopeless American do-gooder.

The Use of Art in Activism

http://gabrielmcortez.com/2014/02/08/13-short-film-perfect-soldiers/

I was sent this video by my roommate in a Facebook message urging me not to, ehrm, get too excited by the new piece done by one of my favorite Cal poets. The spoken word video by Gabriel Cortez allows for the use of art in the call to action. This could be thought of as an example of the community taking a step from within to inform of the problems affecting the poor. In this video the poet is able to take on the issue of food justice and contextualize it; providing the audience with a picture of how it is historically situated for the community it affects. Similar to the work we are doing now in GPP 105 to prepare us to go out into our practice as knowledgeable volunteers (yikes, not really sure how knowledgeable we can really be) Gabriel is not only making a statement about diabetes but is additionally making a statement about the communities it affects and the reason why those communities are affected. This art work is a reminder that things don't happen in a bubble and interconnections are key when looking at an issue when attempting to combat it.

Glowing

A few months ago I read an article about a music video that Tyler The Creator directed for an anonymous artist, the song and video are titled “Glowing." To me the video is beautiful but it has a very powerful indirect message. The video features a love story from childhood through old age. Although this is the focus of the video there is an old television set that appears in different scenes with videos as well as images of poverty and disaster in the mist of the love story that is occurring simultaneously. The video ultimately tries to present the neglect and ignorance towards poverty issues.  I returned to this video today because I sensed it has a lot of connection to the ideas in Talwalker and Katz’s essays. Talwalker focuses on the spark in college students from the Global North seeking to volunteer in places with poverty issues. Many of us see powerful images of poverty and are immediately gain a “philanthropic impulse” like she mentions. Personally, when I see poverty with my own eyes or even in images I have a “philanthropic impulse.” The music video also can be tied to the other end of the spectrum and to the idea that upper class individuals have a lesser sense of giving. The love story presents two individuals oblivious to the poverty and disaster going on around them. Since the essay mentions that the upper class take less part in prosocial behavior this can be represented in the video with the blind love of the individuals, not because of affluence but because of unawareness of feeling connected with others like lower classes do. Katz’s “What Kind of a Problem is Poverty” can also be connected the “Glowing” music video particularly to the cause of poverty that is places. Although this is not delving into the deeper-rooted problems of poverty, before being able to do that it is important that poverty is visible. The music video is a method to end the invisibly of “territories of poverty.” Willful ignorance as Katz describes is a reason as to why poverty remains invisible. Even though this video is exposing the problems of poverty it is linking it to the lack of its recognition. To me, this music video can spark a lot of thoughts relating to the approaches in which we discuss poverty. It can be either a tool of action or a representation of neglect.  

Raise the Village: how playing this social development game might be representative of "bad" poverty work

Have you ever wished that you could turn all those hours that you've spent playing life simulation games (i.e. Sims, Farmville, etc.) into something more productive, meaningful, purposeful? Well now you can... or can you?

Raise the Village is a game developed by a group called New Charity Era. In Raise the Village, the player can create a highly personalized virtual village while simultaneously transforming an actual village-- the village of Kapir Atiira in Uganda. In the process, the player is given the option to make meaningful decisions about the progression of his/her village, with the ultimate goal of making it "sustainable." For each item bought (i.e. a mosquito net, clothes, etc.), a portion of the money goes toward an actual item for the village, and once the items are purchased, he/she will be able to see pictures of the people benefiting from the game with the items. The game even includes a portal that players can enter to learn about the culture and lifestyle of locals there by reading blog posts, watching videos, and viewing pictures. Now, all this information I take from a post by New Charity Era, the organization behind the game, made up of a team of 6 guys, purportedly with a vision of changing the world, one village at a time.

Watch the trailer for the app here:

Now, I had a difficult time concluding my thoughts on this. Is the concept genius? Or is it just plain wrong? Trying to find more about the game, and about the organization behind it was difficult. The website (www.raisethevillage.com) is no longer functioning, so it was difficult to find recent updates about the game. It seems that the game is no longer available, although I am not sure why, as it used to be available on the app store for ipads, iphones, etc. with over 300,000 downloads. My guess is that the funding was no longer there, so the guys moved on. For now, I'll just present some thoughts about it, and let you guys share what you think.

(A brief note before I begin: It's possible I might be generalizing some of the game details here. I wanted to try and play it but I couldn't find it anywhere! So hopefully I am not misrepresenting the game too much.)

My main concern with the game and the concept behind it is that it runs the risk of over-trivializing actual decisions to be made regarding the community. The player is not exposed to the reality of the circumstances that the decision is placed in, nor the context. For example, if you are given the decision to buy mosquito nets for the community, do you know what the burden from malaria is to the community? What value might the nets be if there is no local knowledge about how malaria is transmitted and how it can be properly prevented? Are there any cultural concerns that might interfere with the use of the nets? These are all questions that are left unaddressed and overlooked in the process of the player "making his/her move." Next, the power of ownership: while the concept of the game might be able to generate resources that the community lacks (money, food, etc.), how can the locals of this village in Uganda take ownership of addressing these issues in their community? How are their thoughts and their input in assessing their own needs valued? These concerns bring me to the notion of the importance of participatory development, which we recently discussed in class. It seems that the power that the player has in such a game is so disproportionate, characterizing this kind of "charity" or poverty work as the "unequal and one-way transaction" that Professor Talwalker brings up in her essay. The player is somehow both the ruler/decision-maker and the benefactor. This, to me, is concerning.

Perhaps I am being over-critical. I mean, it is a virtual game developed with the main incentive of "doing good" for this village in Uganda. Perhaps it is even informative to some people who have a complete blind eye to the existence of poverty in the world. Besides, why would anybody want to play a game that is representative of the true circumstances and contexts of poverty? Maybe I am overanalyzing it, but it seems to me that the rules and concepts of the game represent a lot of what is wrong with development and poverty work, where the player of the game literally represents the well-intentioned but misinformed international development player. Isn't it condescending to the state of countries like Uganda that first world citizens are playing, for the sake of entertainment, a game in which we exercise power to make decisions about community development in a third world country, of which we know nothing of?

I'd be interesting in hearing what others might have to say. What do you guys think- would you play this game?

Reflection On My Favourite Pair Toms

    "One for one" is the motto used by the retail company Toms to promote its shoes. It is the idea that a pair of shoes will be given to an impoverished child with every purchase, and part of the profit made from eyewear purchases will also be used to save or restore the eyesight of people in developing countries. This is one type of an emerging business model that includes charity as a method for profit and marketing. I am sure most GPP students are familiar with this idea. Currently, Toms gives shoes to more than 60 countries. The location chosen is driven by the needs of its Giving Partners. Toms works closely with them to add new communities and countries where shoes will have the greatest impact. I am not particularly against this effort and model that Toms initiates; as a matter of fact, Toms’ shoes are my favourite kinds for daily wear. The shoes are simple, comfortable and stylish, and I have already bought two pairs for myself. According to Toms’ notion of “one for one”, this means that I have directly given two pairs of shoes to those in need in another part of the world. Am I, and should I be, proud of myself because I have given a pair of shoes to a child to protect his/her feet from cuts, infections and diseases? That child can also go to school since shoes are often required for school attendance in many countries. Still, honestly, I am not gratified of this purchase simply because it does not holistically capture the need of a sacrifice of the privileged to help people who are marginalized. Though it is impossible to quantify, one can argue that people are buying the shoes for themselves more than the purpose of buying it for others. It is just another form of individualism where there is always something in it for "me". The idea behind “one for one” is basically manifesting the concept of “exchange value” over “use value,” but in doing so, the idea of “exchange value” is blurred because the result seems to be a win-win situation, and the concept of “use value” is highlighted in terms of the impact it will bring with every purchase.  I am really ambivalent towards this model of the win-win situation. It seems empowering and hopeful since both group are winners (the consumers get their pairs of shoes and know that they did something good with their purchases) and the children who receive the shoes are also winners (though one can argue there are just compensated losers masked as winners). However, this new emerging do-good emerging market is simply not enough and harmful as critiques may argue. It is also interesting to know that “TOMS” is derived from “Shoes for TOMorrow” and its signature design comes from Argentine traditional Alpargata (Espadrilles), which can trace its origin as peasant footwear. I find this reflection critical and needs to be discussed or at least acknowledged.

Here is a video from Toms' "One Day Without Shoes" campaign as part of its one for one movement:

In relation to Duraipah et. al “Degrees of Participation”, where does this movement situates itself? Anyone of you who participated willing to share your reflection on this campaign?

The Samaritans

To watch the trailer for the show:

http://aidforaid.org/

I recently stumbled upon this hilarious satire about NGOs. The comedy follows an Non-Governmental Organization in Kenya, Africa.  I think the new show is clever and draws attention to the issues that we discuss in GPP 115 and 105.

While watching the trailer, phrases/words that stood out were:

"saving Africa"

"make a difference"

" degree in international development"

"build capacity" 

Although some of these phrases are problematic, it is commonly seen in the world of volunteerism and development. 

I think the creation of this show reveal the attitude that some people many have about NGO and their work.  There is a growing number of people who have become indifferent to the commercials that ask for money to save a hungry child or send a girl to school. Furthermore, poverty alleviation work has become notoriously  linked to NGO. The NGO has become a household concept.

This show, The Samaritan, criticizes the assumptions that NGOs are always effective organizations to address the problem of global poverty. Similar to William Fisher's article, this show ask viewers to question the work of NGOs and not assume that NGOs are all wonderful organizations that can replace government. 

The show has manage to point out the common problems and flaws with NGOs in a funny and entertaining way. First, the director of the NGO in the show is a white male from London. He has a master degree in international development and his experience includes past internships with the NGO. The show depicts him a an incompetent man who is out of touch with the mission of developmental work.  Interestingly, all the employees and staff were people of color, displaying the different power dynamics that occurs in an NGO. It also brings attention to concept of the global north coming into the global south with the assumption of knowing what is best. 

Overall, I think this is a clever show that is funny because it is something many people can relate to and also has some truth to it.

On the Subject of "Planning"

When Mr. George Scharffenberger came to class to speak, he discussed project planning. Planning became complex: the concept of time, projects versus programs and the role of stakeholders. The reading for that week was the "Guide for Designing Results-Oriented Projects and Writing Successful Proposals." A few key concepts in the guide included "collaboration," "work plan for project development," "concept paper" and "funders." My PE, in the Ushpa-Ushpa region of Bolivia, has begun a "Proyecto Horizonte 2017" campaign, which is a conceptual model for desired results by 2017. I'll tie in what we've learned in class to this real life example.

Conceptual Model:

     Goal: "To be a sustainable model which is recognized internationally for its high quality services aimed at eliminating poverty."

     Intermediate Results: 

1. Economic Stability 
2. Stewardship
3. Strengthening of HR 
4. Positioning
5. Growth and Impact 
6. Systemization 

     Interventions: 

1. Diversify sources of finances 
2. Increase involvement of beneficiaries in decision-making process 
3. Hire responsible staff 
4. Create a good outward image 
5. Increase beneficiaries 
6. Document day-to-day operations. 

(The intermediate results and the interventions correspond respectively by number)

Funders:
Proyecto Horizonte has grown significantly since its foundation in 2001, which was funded by a local charitable organization. An expansion of the school was constructed in 2007 with funding from a German-Austrian philanthropic organization. The goal by 2017 is to become financially stable and sustainable. 

My Critique:

It is obvious to anyone that the goal to eliminate poverty is noble and good. The goal is not the problem. The interventions, on the other hand, are incredibly vague. Perhaps for private reasons, ambiguity was necessary on their website. Nonetheless, economic stability is a very difficult and complex goal that requires more than the diversification of sources of finances. They need to address HOW they will improve efficiency and reduce costs.  Will they charge more for services or lay off employees, etc? Regarding "growth," they need to address what they mean to do with an increase in donations. Specifics, such as employee numbers, new construction projects, improved technology or textbook purchases, need to be clearly addressed. 

Link:

Proyecto Horizonte 2017 

Jack Johnson!:

Also, here's a song from Jack Johnson's new album From Here to Now to You. The song is called Ones and Zeros. We all have our interpretations, but in general, he touches on the subjects of environmental degradation, addiction to technology, little regard for the future among other things. Jack is the man.

Practice Experience and Participation

Recently, I began my first day at my practice experience with the Ethiopian Community and Cultural Center. I knew I would be meeting with the volunteer coordinator and expected a run down of what my responsibilities would be through the span of my work there. If the time came to share my own original ideas that the Ethiopian Community and Cultural Center (ECCC) should take on, I had already prepared a list of ideas I would like to see implemented. The list highlighted a number of action plans that would serve a sector of the population that tend to be overlooked as a result of their financial limitations.  Such programs that target the refugees, elderly, and youth segments could serve to fulfill their needs in terms of support.

The Ethiopian Community and Cultural Center (ECCC) in Oakland was founded with the purpose of assisting the growing population of Ethiopians resettling in the Bay area as refugees. The underlying basis for the output of services of the ECCC is clear in their mission statement to “coordinate educational and social services that empower and support Ethiopian immigrants and refugees to become self-sufficient.” Thus far the center is more known in the Ethiopian community for the Ethiopian New Year’s Celebration that they host, elder services, refugee case management, housing assistance services, and translation and interpretation services. The ECCC also hosts a number of outreach events that span from protest to toy drives. Located on Telegraph Avenue the apex of Ethiopian restaurants

Upon meeting with the volunteer director, conversation flowed many of my ideas were well received and our hopes for the organization were similar. The question of how to implement our goals for future success was the question of how to implement these goals into a formidable action place takes into consideration the issue of participation. “Have Participatory Approaches Increased Capabilities?” discussed the elements of the Capability Approach that has evolved the agents of development to include participation from people. Cernia defined participation as “ empowering people to mobilize their own capacities, be social actors, rather than passive subjects, manage the resources, make decisions and control the activities that affect their lives.” This growing transition to the bottom up approach would be more fruitful to the implementation of many programs now in place. One of the programs that the ECCC is further developing immigrant/refugee training that is limited to computer and language skills training at this point.

While learning English and computer skills training are going to serve measures in an acculturation process, there are many effective options that branch away from these two efforts. In the case of expanding immigrant/ refugee resources need to come from “effective involvement of people in their own development requires a clear understanding of the requirements for effective participation, and the limitations of this process.” (Duraiappah. 2) The ECCC could decide to launch programs related to employment training, but there needs to be an incorporation of both opinions and stated needs of the immigrant/ refugee community. By definition the bottom up approach uses the target community to formulate the most effective program plan in order to effectively create a participatory development process. This format of participation is important in this case since it allows the ECCC to become “good facilitators and catalysts of development that assist and stimulate community-based initiatives and realize their own ideals.” (Duraiappah. 26) With the utilization of techniques found in the participatory development process the ECCC is bound to implement more programs with the greater support and participation from the target immigrant/ refugee group.

                                       

Microfinance in the United States

            For my practice experience, I will be an intern at Kiva.org, the microfinance organization that allows anyone with a computer make small loans to poor entrepreneurs mostly in developing countries. The other day, as I was browsing borrower profiles, I came across one that surprised me. The profile featured a picture of a young man named Nicholas who wanted money for his apothecary shop, where he sells herbal tinctures. What caught my eye was that Nicholas is in Oakland, CA. Do people in the United States actually need the same services that Kiva provides in the developing world?

While microfinance in the United States isn’t new (one of the most famous organizations, Accion USA, was founded in the early 1990s), Kiva’s program seems to be a part of something more recent. Muhammad Yunus (who many call the pioneer of modern microfinance) founded a branch of the Grameen Bank, originally in Bangladesh, in Brooklyn in 2008. Kiva quickly followed suit, and launched its United States program in 2009. In one article, the author tries to explain the timing of the launch: “Kiva’s U.S. micro loans come at an interesting time, with the global economy shifting precariously and unpredictably, and government rescue plans aimed at huge banks and corporations. Through its person-to-person economic stimulus plan, Kiva is giving individuals a new way to decide where and how to put their money to work helping others” (Heim, Kristi. "Africans Loaning to Americans? Kiva Expands to US Borrowers." The Seattle Times 10 June 2009). What seems especially interesting is that Kiva’s United States program is understood in a specific economic context. Heim seems to think that the program will be successful because of the slow economic recovery after the recession in 2008.

The ideas behind using microfinance in the United States also seem reminiscent of current feelings about government actions. Heim’s idea of a “person-to-person economic stimulus plan” could pass as an Occupy Wall Street slogan, along with “we are the 99%.” Both suggest an understanding that the United States government is not providing enough of a safety net to protect its low and middle class citizens. In other words, Kiva’s program can be thought of as an alternative to poor government decisions.

But can we really compare the poverty in the United States to that in the developing countries Kiva was created to serve? Some say yes—even the “Obama administration is throwing its support behind micro-lending. Under the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009, $50 million was set aside for the Small Business Administration to lend to microenterprises” ("American Offshoots: Will Microfinance Ever Really Take Root in the U.S.?." Knowledge@Wharton. The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, [17 June, 2011]. Web.). But I wonder if Americans like the idea of microfinance in the United States not because it is really necessary but because they are frustrated that the government is not doing enough to prevent current inequality—the inequality that Robert Reich talks about in his new documentary Inequality for All. In other words, Kiva’s program seems to act as an alternative to a frustrating lack of policy in favor of poor Americans.

Safe Water

For those that are interested in water sanitation, public health, or the environment, I wanted to share this video to see what you all think about this invention by Michael Pritchard. It's pretty cool!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXepkIWPhFQ 

Pritchard made the LIFESAVER bottle a few years back. The water bottle allows those without clean water to have access to safe, clean water by filtering out the smallest viruses and bacteria in water. These bottles cost about $170 for a bottle that filters up to 4000L and about $250 for a bottle that filters up to 6000L. Pritchard's motive for these water bottles is to provide people with clean water when most needed but how would people in poverty afford technologies such as this water bottle? Perhaps funds donated by people in other parts of the world can help pay for bottles to go to developing countries without safe water. But is this a sustainable method of accessing clean water? After all, once the bottle reaches 4000L or 6000L or filtered water, the cartridge will have to be replaced.

In general, other technologies that are created with the intent of helping impoverished people can further complicate the situation. Can we innovate and develop technology that serves its purpose while still being accessible to every person of different social and economic statuses?