Conflicting Principals = The Principle of the Matter
(Reflections from volunteering in El Alto, Bolivia)
Hypocrisy is a defining characteristic of he human species. No human yet has placed in harmony their words and actions without flaw. Although it is possible to reduce the incongruities between spoken word and actual action, it takes personal sacrifice and commitment. For a die hard idealist, no differential exists between the importance of carrying out their ideals in either the public and private spheres of their society. The commitment of an idealist to their staunch ideals transcends socially constructed boundaries of a ¨home¨ world and ¨work¨ world because idealists understand a societies limitations as an all-pervasive epidemic.
In my brief lifetime, I have seen that those with the integrity to consistently uphold ideals in all spaces and crowds, are the most harshly criticized by fellow citizens. Why? I believe the reason is because of their disregard for socially constructed boundaries and the corresponding threat posed to normative society and daily life. A challenge to normative lifestyles is often perceived as a very threat to the fabric holding together the established order of a given society. Such a challenge is often feared because people fear even the mere idea of anarchy, associating anarchy with chaos and violence that is capable of completely dismanteling their life. And in a world where the international market is dictated by competitive capitalism, so are the lives of individuals. Dictated by competitve capitalism people seek security for themselves first. After security in their own personal life is established, they then seek to secure their extant security which, on a macro-scale means fighting for change via alternative ideals is extraordinarily difficult. Change is almost impossible from without the system, but truly impossible from within until there is a massive shift in a societies philosophical current.
For some, ¨idealist¨ is an inherently pejorative term while, for others it is an inherently positive term. However, when individual interests and prejudices are stripped away, the basic essence of the word remains neutral. To be or label a person as an ¨idealist¨ is nothing more than to be or label that person as someone who has high ideals. I maintain the word has an evasive and inherently neutral definition precisely because the word ¨high¨ is itself vastly open for interpretation. To have ¨high¨ ideals could mean merely to have ideals one works hard to maintain, or it could be to have a specific set of ideals. For example, a particular ideal regarded as high by an Evangelical Christian of monogamy may be regarded as ¨high¨ and applied as a universal standard with which to categorize people as ¨evil¨ or ¨good¨. But beyond such a judgement remains the reality that for other people, such as the Morman religion, polygamy was traditionally highly held ideal (in the sense it was regarded as important to the Morman lifestyle and identity). The definition of the word therefore remains ambiguous which in turn enables the word´s use as either a complement for or a weapon against any human being one does not feel adequately meets their same ¨high ideals¨ or in other words, someone who doesn´t ¨meet their standards¨.
We have all experienced judgement and criticism in our lives. Anyone who has at least once gone against the grain by remaining firmly committed to an alternative opinion has experienced criticism. For ¨idealists¨ and/or ¨romantics¨, ¨alternative opinions¨ often manifest into ¨alternative visions¨ to which their whole life becomes dedicated. Persistent harsh and collective scrutiny from others often are the corresponding manifestation. The internationally recognized contemporary central iconic idealist of Latin America is Ernesto ¨Che¨ Guevara. But of course, myriad other´s exist. Other grandiose historical idealists range from George Washington to Emma Goldman, Mahatma Ghandi to Adolf Hitler.
A common critique of ¨idealists¨ is based on disbelief in any pragmatic possibilities growing out of an idealistic philosophy. This criticism/assumption develops a philosophical impasse between the perceived idealist and the criticizer. However, if we allow ourselves to take a step back we see the basic and essential foundation of said impasse. Stated baldly, the perceived irreconcilability of philosophical beliefs (idealism is pragmatic or not) arises because of a contingent belief one´s own theoretical practices are not only valid, but ¨correct¨ and universally ¨applicable¨. A belief one´s own ethics not only can be, but are, objectively correct and absolute, inherently render the differing ethics of another as false and obsolete. The important question stemming from this is, historically how successful have humans been when imposing moral principles to politics and other political systems? How many wars have been caused, how many embargoes have been raised because the moral principals a nation has applied to philisophically divergent political systems, are perceived to be in contradiction to the point a nation feels threatened by the mere philosophy of another? With norms and values embedded in any political or governmental system creates an ethics-bound citizen, a citizen obliged to follow certain morals. However, when ethics or morals are assumed to be universally valid and politically correct and then confront an alternative set of ethics or morals, wars can happen, oppression can happen, and many other disasters that are completely avoidable. I contend it is not the philosophy that is the core issue but rather people´s perception and presumption a basic ontological truth exists.
It is unclear how individuals are capable of completely developing a new political tradition when they themselves exist within the confines of that tradition. Such individuals are trying to criticize a system from which they themselves came from in the first place. It is almost impossible to envision a complete separation of a person from their society as possible. But what is crucial to keep in mind is that ethics are to be created rather than simply discovered. All ethics are human inventions, which mean they can in fact be destroyed and recreated. So, of course, can the international trend of universal application of one's own ideals and politics as the standard and norm.
Working in El Alto I have seen the direct and real effects being considered an ¨idealist¨ can have. Two years ago the project was spearheaded by former ¨street child¨ and now licenced anthropologist Don Angel. Originally granted a $25,000.00 stipend through the democratic initiatives program of USAID, Proyecto Por Un Mundo Mejor´s pockets are jingling with the minimal change left from that donation. USAID, one of the largest and oldest development assistant programs throughout the world and in Bolivia, soon after actually pulled out of Bolivia as a donor. Regardless, it is my belief donation´s are band-aids. It is also my belief that donation´s can often prove a sufficient economic buffer period during which an organization can secure permanent or more long-term funds. So despite two-years of existence (June 22 was the anniversary), a well-established recycling program (and one of the only in the region), a significant population in need of their services, opening of a bread store, commissioned artisan projects, and a program to create greeting cards, why can´t the volunteers of those at Proyecto Por Un Mundo Mejor provide the participants dinner, why do all volunteers remain completely unpaid? One of my principal suspicions is Don Angel´s adherence to his alternative and strong ideals.
Don Angel has written numerous letters to his government, solicited churches, knocked on doors of well-known donors or other NGO's, but has bee ignored or turned down time after time. Many challenges face Don Angel in this quest: the newness of the program, the existence of several similar but older projects, the fact all who work there are volunteers, and I believe, his ideals. Don Angel's dream and ultimate goal is to build a sustainable home that provides cabins for small groups of kids to live in with a single volunteer as a family. He wants livestock and a garden, education programs, access to medical services, sexual/reproductive health programs, resources for the kids to seek education and work, and an education program on how to be a responsible father. Not many would objectively disagree with those goals. All of those goals are oriented towards actively fighting for and raising the standards of human rights and dignity. So for me, it was at first befuddling that Don Angel could not secure more funds. I figured there was a missing piece of information I did not know about. I was curious and only became more curious with time as I witnessed the growth of the kids and the serious commitment of Don Angel and the other volunteers. After 5 months of working with this population and getting to know Don Angel on a personal level, as well as learn more about the political systems in Bolivia, I now believe one of the principal obstacles to Don Angel's securing funds are his ideals.
It is not Don Angels ideals per say that are the trouble, but rather the ideas he has on how to carry out his ideals. He has realized that many organizations do not want to offer assistance unless also given permission to impose their own belief of what is best for the kids (in other words, how the money should be used). Many doubt Don Angel's programs as the best way possible to help these abandoned children. Many suggestions are given such as abstinence education, teaching the kids the bible, or kicking kids out if they are ever caught using alcohol or drugs. But what most of these donors do not have that Don Angel does have is an entire childhood's experience as a street child in Bolivia. Now, as an adult who has a university degree in anthropology, Don Angel faces the same challenge of being disrespected, untrusted, and alone amongst his peers. Yet those who do work with Don Angel are there to stay. I personally became more involved than I had anticipated because I saw how much love and care Don Angel transmitted within his shelter, and wanted to be part of that creation. I also saw how willing the kids are to work to improve their situation, their lives, and the lives of others. Towards the end of the stay the kids and I completed a zine together about their experiences. At first I doubted if I could motivate the kids to partake in the project, let alone communicate to them why I thought is was important, but once they became involved, several personal uncensored stories were told. From personal accounts of huffing to personal accounts of prostitution, the kids wanted to honestly share their stories in the hopes that any potential reader might now not nly believe their story, but why they deserve assistance and why Don Angel deserves to be respected and believed as a leader. But in a society where it is normal that street kids get hit by a police man in passing, where the president defines the "landless" sectors of his society with a total exclusion of homeless kids, and a school system where kids cannot enter without a birth certificate their unknown parents may have, it is clear there is a social aversion to this population. It is no grand surprise that the most successful NGO's that deal with this population are NGO's whose core philosophy is based on "cleaning up", "providing morals for", "proselytizing", or "changing" the kids who walk through their dorrs. DOn Angel's philosophy is much simpler: provide love, affection, and a support system from which each individual can build themselves and grow. He's more like a parent than anything else which I think makes perfect sense when dealing with a population whose main challenge is exactly that, having no parent to guide them or love them. In my mind, a five year old will benefit much more from a loving touch than the Lord's prayer.
(Reflections from volunteering in El Alto, Bolivia)
Hypocrisy is a defining characteristic of he human species. No human yet has placed in harmony their words and actions without flaw. Although it is possible to reduce the incongruities between spoken word and actual action, it takes personal sacrifice and commitment. For a die hard idealist, no differential exists between the importance of carrying out their ideals in either the public and private spheres of their society. The commitment of an idealist to their staunch ideals transcends socially constructed boundaries of a ¨home¨ world and ¨work¨ world because idealists understand a societies limitations as an all-pervasive epidemic.
In my brief lifetime, I have seen that those with the integrity to consistently uphold ideals in all spaces and crowds, are the most harshly criticized by fellow citizens. Why? I believe the reason is because of their disregard for socially constructed boundaries and the corresponding threat posed to normative society and daily life. A challenge to normative lifestyles is often perceived as a very threat to the fabric holding together the established order of a given society. Such a challenge is often feared because people fear even the mere idea of anarchy, associating anarchy with chaos and violence that is capable of completely dismanteling their life. And in a world where the international market is dictated by competitive capitalism, so are the lives of individuals. Dictated by competitve capitalism people seek security for themselves first. After security in their own personal life is established, they then seek to secure their extant security which, on a macro-scale means fighting for change via alternative ideals is extraordinarily difficult. Change is almost impossible from without the system, but truly impossible from within until there is a massive shift in a societies philosophical current.
For some, ¨idealist¨ is an inherently pejorative term while, for others it is an inherently positive term. However, when individual interests and prejudices are stripped away, the basic essence of the word remains neutral. To be or label a person as an ¨idealist¨ is nothing more than to be or label that person as someone who has high ideals. I maintain the word has an evasive and inherently neutral definition precisely because the word ¨high¨ is itself vastly open for interpretation. To have ¨high¨ ideals could mean merely to have ideals one works hard to maintain, or it could be to have a specific set of ideals. For example, a particular ideal regarded as high by an Evangelical Christian of monogamy may be regarded as ¨high¨ and applied as a universal standard with which to categorize people as ¨evil¨ or ¨good¨. But beyond such a judgement remains the reality that for other people, such as the Morman religion, polygamy was traditionally highly held ideal (in the sense it was regarded as important to the Morman lifestyle and identity). The definition of the word therefore remains ambiguous which in turn enables the word´s use as either a complement for or a weapon against any human being one does not feel adequately meets their same ¨high ideals¨ or in other words, someone who doesn´t ¨meet their standards¨.
We have all experienced judgement and criticism in our lives. Anyone who has at least once gone against the grain by remaining firmly committed to an alternative opinion has experienced criticism. For ¨idealists¨ and/or ¨romantics¨, ¨alternative opinions¨ often manifest into ¨alternative visions¨ to which their whole life becomes dedicated. Persistent harsh and collective scrutiny from others often are the corresponding manifestation. The internationally recognized contemporary central iconic idealist of Latin America is Ernesto ¨Che¨ Guevara. But of course, myriad other´s exist. Other grandiose historical idealists range from George Washington to Emma Goldman, Mahatma Ghandi to Adolf Hitler.
A common critique of ¨idealists¨ is based on disbelief in any pragmatic possibilities growing out of an idealistic philosophy. This criticism/assumption develops a philosophical impasse between the perceived idealist and the criticizer. However, if we allow ourselves to take a step back we see the basic and essential foundation of said impasse. Stated baldly, the perceived irreconcilability of philosophical beliefs (idealism is pragmatic or not) arises because of a contingent belief one´s own theoretical practices are not only valid, but ¨correct¨ and universally ¨applicable¨. A belief one´s own ethics not only can be, but are, objectively correct and absolute, inherently render the differing ethics of another as false and obsolete. The important question stemming from this is, historically how successful have humans been when imposing moral principles to politics and other political systems? How many wars have been caused, how many embargoes have been raised because the moral principals a nation has applied to philisophically divergent political systems, are perceived to be in contradiction to the point a nation feels threatened by the mere philosophy of another? With norms and values embedded in any political or governmental system creates an ethics-bound citizen, a citizen obliged to follow certain morals. However, when ethics or morals are assumed to be universally valid and politically correct and then confront an alternative set of ethics or morals, wars can happen, oppression can happen, and many other disasters that are completely avoidable. I contend it is not the philosophy that is the core issue but rather people´s perception and presumption a basic ontological truth exists.
It is unclear how individuals are capable of completely developing a new political tradition when they themselves exist within the confines of that tradition. Such individuals are trying to criticize a system from which they themselves came from in the first place. It is almost impossible to envision a complete separation of a person from their society as possible. But what is crucial to keep in mind is that ethics are to be created rather than simply discovered. All ethics are human inventions, which mean they can in fact be destroyed and recreated. So, of course, can the international trend of universal application of one's own ideals and politics as the standard and norm.
Working in El Alto I have seen the direct and real effects being considered an ¨idealist¨ can have. Two years ago the project was spearheaded by former ¨street child¨ and now licenced anthropologist Don Angel. Originally granted a $25,000.00 stipend through the democratic initiatives program of USAID, Proyecto Por Un Mundo Mejor´s pockets are jingling with the minimal change left from that donation. USAID, one of the largest and oldest development assistant programs throughout the world and in Bolivia, soon after actually pulled out of Bolivia as a donor. Regardless, it is my belief donation´s are band-aids. It is also my belief that donation´s can often prove a sufficient economic buffer period during which an organization can secure permanent or more long-term funds. So despite two-years of existence (June 22 was the anniversary), a well-established recycling program (and one of the only in the region), a significant population in need of their services, opening of a bread store, commissioned artisan projects, and a program to create greeting cards, why can´t the volunteers of those at Proyecto Por Un Mundo Mejor provide the participants dinner, why do all volunteers remain completely unpaid? One of my principal suspicions is Don Angel´s adherence to his alternative and strong ideals.
Don Angel has written numerous letters to his government, solicited churches, knocked on doors of well-known donors or other NGO's, but has bee ignored or turned down time after time. Many challenges face Don Angel in this quest: the newness of the program, the existence of several similar but older projects, the fact all who work there are volunteers, and I believe, his ideals. Don Angel's dream and ultimate goal is to build a sustainable home that provides cabins for small groups of kids to live in with a single volunteer as a family. He wants livestock and a garden, education programs, access to medical services, sexual/reproductive health programs, resources for the kids to seek education and work, and an education program on how to be a responsible father. Not many would objectively disagree with those goals. All of those goals are oriented towards actively fighting for and raising the standards of human rights and dignity. So for me, it was at first befuddling that Don Angel could not secure more funds. I figured there was a missing piece of information I did not know about. I was curious and only became more curious with time as I witnessed the growth of the kids and the serious commitment of Don Angel and the other volunteers. After 5 months of working with this population and getting to know Don Angel on a personal level, as well as learn more about the political systems in Bolivia, I now believe one of the principal obstacles to Don Angel's securing funds are his ideals.
It is not Don Angels ideals per say that are the trouble, but rather the ideas he has on how to carry out his ideals. He has realized that many organizations do not want to offer assistance unless also given permission to impose their own belief of what is best for the kids (in other words, how the money should be used). Many doubt Don Angel's programs as the best way possible to help these abandoned children. Many suggestions are given such as abstinence education, teaching the kids the bible, or kicking kids out if they are ever caught using alcohol or drugs. But what most of these donors do not have that Don Angel does have is an entire childhood's experience as a street child in Bolivia. Now, as an adult who has a university degree in anthropology, Don Angel faces the same challenge of being disrespected, untrusted, and alone amongst his peers. Yet those who do work with Don Angel are there to stay. I personally became more involved than I had anticipated because I saw how much love and care Don Angel transmitted within his shelter, and wanted to be part of that creation. I also saw how willing the kids are to work to improve their situation, their lives, and the lives of others. Towards the end of the stay the kids and I completed a zine together about their experiences. At first I doubted if I could motivate the kids to partake in the project, let alone communicate to them why I thought is was important, but once they became involved, several personal uncensored stories were told. From personal accounts of huffing to personal accounts of prostitution, the kids wanted to honestly share their stories in the hopes that any potential reader might now not nly believe their story, but why they deserve assistance and why Don Angel deserves to be respected and believed as a leader. But in a society where it is normal that street kids get hit by a police man in passing, where the president defines the "landless" sectors of his society with a total exclusion of homeless kids, and a school system where kids cannot enter without a birth certificate their unknown parents may have, it is clear there is a social aversion to this population. It is no grand surprise that the most successful NGO's that deal with this population are NGO's whose core philosophy is based on "cleaning up", "providing morals for", "proselytizing", or "changing" the kids who walk through their dorrs. DOn Angel's philosophy is much simpler: provide love, affection, and a support system from which each individual can build themselves and grow. He's more like a parent than anything else which I think makes perfect sense when dealing with a population whose main challenge is exactly that, having no parent to guide them or love them. In my mind, a five year old will benefit much more from a loving touch than the Lord's prayer.
posted by Jojo at 3:12 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home