“Poverty: a lack of choice!” After having first written that on a poster 35 years ago – source unknown – it remains my best snappy definition for poverty (and part of this forum is about dialogue, so share any better snappy one that you may have discovered). For sure it seems aligned with the much deeper work of Nobel laureate Amartya Sen, which – kudos to the creators of this blog – has already been referenced.
But I find the phrase, while snappy, and please pardon my cloaked scatology, bass-ackwards. It frames the conversation in terms of what we don’t want. I want to examine more directly the overall goal. If openness is the foundational orientation to life, and dialogue is the crucial Means, then I suggest that the “well-being of all” is the most solid goal.
First it bridges the religious-secular world. ‘Shalom’, seen holistically, is the rich, equivalent religious word. Secondly I have found that its philosophical side holds in tension the complexity that is humanity with the clarity needed to gauge whether progress is being made.
Briefly, well-being consists of two levels of evaluation:
Inner gauges: It is what one senses deep-down to be valid and true and good. It would include such notions as a sense of dignity and self-respect. This gauge serves as a guard against paternalism – ultimately no one else can tell you whether you have a sense of well-being. The chief way to measure this component is by asking the person (interviews, questionnaires, etc).
Outer gauges: This aspect consists of outwardly measurable factors – basic ones like food, clothes, shelter, education, as well as less tangible ones like freedom to choose (which has inner aspects as well). The outer component is a necessary corrective to self-absorption, ignorance and delusion. For example, the “happy slave” owned by a benevolent slave-owner might truly believe “my life is full.”
Well-being is a very complex philosophical topic (for example see Oxford’s James Griffin: Well-Being: Its Meaning, Measurement and Moral Importance; this blog has very loose contact points with it). Nonetheless its basic components can serve as a useful instrument even while allowing us to uphold that life is more complex that any measurement we may want to use.
Why bother? Because the goal is important and we need the most effective resources and framing to help get there. For sure we need positive anecdotes to lighten the spirit, but we also need to know they are grounded in our soundest insight.
Here is my current list of the components of basic levels of well-being:
1. Physical – has water, food, shelter, free from physical abuse, etc.
2. Mental/Emotional – has a sense of dignity & self-worth; nurturing environment (loved, educational opportunities, distinctive gifts are uncovered & nurtured, etc); free from emotional abuse, etc.
3. Livelihood / Economic – has a dignified means of supporting oneself / one’s family now & into the future;
4. Relational – has a sense of home, of place, of community;
5. Structural – has structures (political, legal, economic, ownership dimensions) that support/ do not inhibit the above. Person has basic freedom to choose; has a voice in dynamics that affect oneself.
6. Environmental – immediate environment and broader ecosystem is in a sustainable flourishing state.
7. Spiritual – There are two dimensions. The first aspect is the broad sense of spiritual, where one speaks of the spirit of compassion, perseverance, generosity, etc. It is a dimension that feeds the passion for life. The second aspect is the explicitly religious, and really is a subcategory of component #5, under freedom – everyone will have a worldview, whether explicitly religious or not.
One project in Central America had developed many measures over time due to funding requirements. They could list the soybean output, orchards planted, amount of organic fertilizer used, conservation techniques, school supplies. Or they could tell you of the community meetings, the teachers trained, the courses on human rights, etc.
But it really came together when I heard of a government evaluator, who revisited the valley after several years. As he drove into the valley he casually remarked how much clearer the air was. Mingling among the people he commented on how much healthier and more robust they seemed now. And then he saw how the project had expanded ten-fold, impacting thousands of people. Slightly overstated an entire ecosystem had been transformed. And it was because the local people in dialogue with the best practices, had connected many of the dots of #1 through #7.
Finally, to quickly illustrate the tension of the two gauges, consider Darfur. Ideally one wants peace with justice. The ICC shortly will decide whether to charge Sudan’s President Bashir with crimes ranging from genocide to war crimes. He has hinted at various retaliatory possibilities – from kicking out the UN peacekeepers to simply finding that there might be public outrage and consequences. In other words the choice is more likely either: (a) justice now most likely at the expense of peace; or (b) peace now and maybe justice later. This is real – what is your choice?
There is no space to flesh this out, though Reply if you want and we can explore it. Experts and the international community are divided on this. My point is that if you ask the Darfuris who have been displaced (about half of Darfur) they are virtually unanimous – justice despite consequences. For many, having been gang raped and/or seen family shot, mutilated or burned before their eyes, and now kept in camps that have deteriorated, their future dwindling, justice is all they have left. Again it is far, far, far more complex, but hopefully it demonstrates the necessity of having inner gauges and the tension it presents. Ideally I would still want dialogue to ensure their decision is well-informed (for some it isn’t entirely) but life seldom gives you such luxuries.
To end, the above does not provide simple answers; in fact it presumes the messy, complex mix that life is. But is keeps the dialogue anchored.
A final note - well-being may be the most appropriate philosophical term with teeth, and is what I find most helpful in analytic mode, but it is also rather dry. Much more stirring is its poetic equivalent – the flourishing of life for all. Now that’s something to be grasped by!
Rod Downing
If you're in the corner and have no money to move out from that, you will have to receive the loans. Just because it would help you emphatically. I get college loan every year and feel myself fine because of that.
Posted by: GravesEBONY31 | December 19, 2010 at 09:32 AM