CHAPTERS 4 AND 5: NOT ALL POVERTY IS CREATED EQUAL and GIVE ME YOUR TIRED, YOUR POOR, AND THEIR
ASSETS
I’m tackling two chapters this week, in part, to catch up
from my one week hiatus for my yearly struggle with the Internal Revenue Code,
and, in part, because these two chapters share a common theme exposed in our group
discussion of Chapter 4.
Beginning in Chapter 4 and carried into Chapter 5, the
authors offer some practical advice for church ministries to the poor. They first provide some advice for
identifying or diagnosing the kinds of problem situations in which the poor
find themselves, and the types of responses appropriate to the problems –
relief, rehabilitation or development.
Expanding on these ideas in Chapter 5, they provide suggestions for
involving the poor in the formulation and execution of the solutions. One of my personal tests for the validity of
any social model is its adaptability to analogous situations. In my opinion, social engineering that fits
only one discrete situation is unlikely to be successful, even in that discrete
application – for example, when they depend on the support of a particular
individual or group for success. Many
social conditions that seem unique turn out to have precedents in other
cultures or systems that have worked out best practices organically. Here, the organic solution for alleviation of
poverty is paternalism.
Our authors tell us in Chapter 4 that “paternalism” is a
bad thing: “Avoid Paternalism. Do not do things for people that they can do
for themselves.” Doing things for
people they could do for themselves seems to be the authors’ definition of paternalism,
and they describe five types of paternalism to be avoided. But this is an unfortunately narrow definition.
The dictionary definition includes the following: “(Relationships) of a character similar to
that existing in the case of a father and his dependent children.” In my reading of these chapters, it struck me
that the measures and techniques supported by the authors are the same measures
and techniques any enlightened father would employ. The key words in that sentence are “enlightened
father.” Think about the qualities
exhibited by an “enlightened father” and the differences between a father who
is “enlightened” and a father who is “in the dark” when it comes to his kids,
and let’s see how the authors proceed.
Beginning on page 112 and carrying over, in their
discussion of “Managerial Paternalism” the authors write: “There are lots of reasons … people…in low-income communities might not
take charge, but here are several common ones…”
- They do not need to take charge because they know that we will take charge if they wait long enough. (Translation: Poor people are lazy.)
- They lack the confidence to take charge, particularly when the ‘superior,’ middle-to-upper-class North Americans are involved. (Translation: Poor people must be led and guided or they won’t move.)
- They, like we, have internalized the messages of centuries of colonialism, slavery and racism: Caucasians run things and everyone else follows. (Translation: Poor people expect poverty and failure.)
- They do not want the project to happen as much as we do. For example, they might know the project will accomplish little in their context but are afraid to tell us for fear of offending us. (Translation: Poor people don’t know what’s good for themselves.)
- They know that by letting us run the show it is more likely that we will bring in money and other material resources to give to them. (Translation: Poor people are deceitful and avaricious.)
Do those beliefs suggest these authors are
enlightened? It seems to me, they
demonstrate extraordinary stereotyping of the sort I would expect from someone “in
the dark.” No father I know who held
such negative opinions of his children could be considered in any way
enlightened. Certainly, the old
stereotype of the myopic and self-centered domineering father is still with us,
but postmodern fathers are showing much more enlightened approaches, at least “middle-to-upper-class North American” fathers. So, where is this enlightenment coming from? Let’s see what the authors think
By the time we arrive at Chapter 5 some glimmers of
enlightenment begin to appear. The
discussion from page 119 through page 122 offers a remarkable chance to compare
the authors’ enlightened approach to the poor with a father’s enlightened
approach to his kids. Try this. Re-read
these pages substituting the word “child” (or “children”, etc.) for words like “the
poor” (or “low-income people”, etc.), and “father” for words like “church” (or “ministry”,
etc.), and “childhood or adolescent problems” for “poverty.” Making these substitutions yields a coherent
summary of enlightened parenting techniques – paternalism in a positive
sense! Surely, God intends us to use
these methods when dealing with the poor whenever possible, just as he intends
us to show respect and love to our own children – even tough love when
required. The trick is to be judicious
and purposeful in the administration of your love – tough or otherwise.
The last few pages of Chapter 5 have useful suggestions
for practical ways to bring actions to these concepts – Asset Mapping,
Participatory Learning and Action, and Appreciative Inquiry. Again, re-read these sections thinking about
using these techniques with your kids.
In some cases, troubled kids will not be good candidates for these
approaches, and it’s our responsibility as parents to recognize when and how to
engage a particular child. Likewise, in
some cases, poor people will not be good candidates. In both situations, the response must be to
provide more preparatory challenges to eventually equip the child or the poor
to participate responsibly in their own lives.
Although I take issue with a good deal of the material in
this book, I agree with the authors that problems of the poor and problems with
young people can be alleviated by creating (In most cases.) or restoring (In a
minority of cases.) the four key relationships described in Chapter 2 – relationships
with God, others, self and environment.
The fact that this model is built on an enlightened approach that works
in a variety of social situations suggests to me that it is valid and can be
effective if properly administered.
I am choosing not to comment unnecessarily on the authors’
fundamentalist strain of theology because I hold a different view that I
believe to be more enlightened, but I also try to retain enough humility to
allow for error on my part. That said, I
will continue to point out inconsistencies and problems with their arguments,
like their misuse of the term “paternalism,” and the contradictory nature of
their insights, like their stereotyping of the poor.
Whether, or not, I elect to comment on every chapter will
depend on identifying elements that merit deeper analysis than the authors
offer. Anyone wanting to offer a post on
coming chapters is encouraged to do so. Just let me know, and I will be happy to help
you.
Peace
