I've come to strongly dislike the word "development" - at this point it makes me cringe when I hear it. My friend Martine (who I respect greatly) and I argue a lot. This is a topic we can't agree on. Martine appreciates that development has become an industry of sorts. She feels that it's made the field more scientific, more measurable. While I appreciate the idea, I disagree with the notion that development becoming an industry is a good thing. One of the reasons is based on what I saw in Surabaya two weekends ago.
My Peace Corps managers called a meeting to discuss the Peace Corps Partnership Program (PCPP). PCPP is the medium PCV's are supposed to use when carrying out a project with their school/community. Many of you generously helped my school purchase computers through PCPP. It's a good aspect of Peace Corps.
Unfortunately, our recent meeting was not to encourage more projects (apparently many of my friends here are interested in a variety of endeavors); instead, it was to discourage more projects from taking place. At one point a PC Indonesia manager stated that secondary projects are great, but "they shouldn't require resources coming from abroad" such as "money, computers, and athletic equipment." I was amused at this phrasing, as it would be more correct to say "come back from abroad," considering that materials such as computers and athletic equipment are often produced in Indonesia and its neighboring countries. The problem is that the very people producing these products can't afford them because they receive oppressively low wages for their work.
My manager stated that another organization offered 30 million dollars to our PC post to help get us off the ground. Everyone around the table shared a laugh as she explained that PC doesn't believe in this sort of development. The Peace Corps model is based on capacity-building.
If Peace Corps wants to be a low-cost agency that deals mostly in skill-building that's fine, but it just seems to be an unnecessarily ineffective model. Is there any doubt that materials/resources make skill-building far easier and effective? If a program lacks finances then skill-building is certainly better than nothing, but chasing away funds for resources seems counter-productive. I was really bothered that we seemed to be encouraged not to solicit funds in an effort to help those without.
The scene really was disheartening: A group of Americans sitting around a big wooden table inside a high-tech, air conditioned facility, discussing whether or not we should allow our Indonesian students to have basic tools such as computers and athletic equipment. 30 million dollars literally laughed off, while 90% of my students are forced to work in fields and factories because they can't afford to continue on to college. Compared to America, college tuition in Indonesia is dirt cheap. The amount of college educations that could have been funded with 30 million dollars is astounding. Something felt very wrong about a group of Americans - who would never want to do without our cushy materials - determining that things such as computers aren't necessary resources.
But we still haven't gotten to what is - in my opinion - the driving force behind this misguided model of development. It's one thing for an organization devoid of funds to focus solely on skill-building, but why would an organization dedicated to growth turn away multi-million dollar grants and discourage small scale fundraising projects?
This answer may have been partially revealed during my manager's lecture, in which she said "we don't want them becoming dependent..."
The dependency myth strikes again.
I grew up in love with soccer. My parents provided me with countless soccer balls, cones, quality spikes, and personal trainers. Hell, my dad even built a kick-wall in the back of our home. My dad also provided some training guidance, but ultimately he knew very little about soccer. What he did best was he provided me with materials, and it enabled me to become a pretty strong player. I don't think for a second that anyone ever said to themselves, "Chris Taylor sure is making his son dependent with all these resources." They were great resources to have, and they enabled me to do a lot of training on my own. I experimented, created new drills, and ultimately had a lot of fun developing my skills. The kids I play with here don't have these materials at hand. Most play without shoes, and when our ball recently popped we played with the blatter for two weeks until enough money was found to purchase a new one. Can one really not see the benefit of resources?
The idea of dependency is an interesting one. We quickly accuse the poor of being dependent on our wealth, but this idea could easily be flipped. After all, aren't the wealthy dependent on poor countries to build our electronics and sew our athletic equipment on the cheap?
We are all dependent on one another, and there's nothing wrong with that. Pretending to be totally independent is ridiculous and arrogant. The problem is that economic inequality blinds us to this truth. Essentially, independence merely means that one has enough money to pay for someone else to help them, while the dependent requires a third party to pay for their help. But this economic disparity isn't due to a lack of industriousness by the poor, rather it's due to economic injustice.
Materials alone aren't enough to succeed, I readily admit that. As an up-and-coming player, my dad also stressed discipline. He helped instill a solid work ethic within me. But work ethic alone didn't make me a successful soccer player; rather, it was a marriage of resources, hard work, and interaction with coaches.
At the moment, Peace Corps does a nice job of capacity-building, but without resources it's far more difficult to achieve and grow. Attaining resources doesn't need to be Peace Corps' primary aim, and I have nothing against PCV's who don't partake in a fundraising project, but PC certainly shouldn't stand in the way of obtaining basic materials for those in need. The next time we think about denying someone the right to computers or athletic equipment we should consider how our lives have been positively benefited by these material goods. To spin an old adage, we won't know what life is like for the people here until we walk a mile (or more accurately, play a game of soccer) without shoes. But why even bother with that when we have the capability to provide everyone with the materials that make life so pleasant?
No comments:
Post a Comment