Seeing potential in the midst of severe material poverty is very challenging. Specifically, because poverty can be blinding not only for the individuals entangled in the web of its devastating lies, but also for those standing on the outside of material poverty looking in… attempting to help and alleviate it. With that said, I would like to take a moment to dig into a topic referenced in my previous blog on empowerment: a biblical perspective on resources. I will be splitting this blog into several different entries in order to shorten the length and enhance the content.
Before unpacking this concept it may be wise to discuss why I feel this topic is important. For many Americans, when thinking of resources our minds immediately jump to wealth generating resources such as natural resources (wood oil, gold, the sun), or economic resources (technology, know-how such as entrepreneurship, computer sciences, and elements of infrastructure). These are without a doubt strategic resources, and ones we must continue to develop and steward, but what else exists that is possibly overlooked or neglected? If we allow our minds to end with the physical/material (which is our tendency since we live in a culture that promotes a secular belief system) we miss out on the most powerful resource of all…. humans. Men and women created in God’s image. Without a biblical perspective on resources our poverty alleviation and development strategies will inevitably focus on the material, which I believe significantly impedes biblical empowerment as discussed in the previous blog. Thus, this is a critical discussion because it directly effects how we approach our work with the poor.
To begin I would like to introduce two key development concepts into this discussion. The first concept is limited good. Limited good suggests that wealth and resources are static. “Only so much to go around.”
The second concept is zero-sum. Zero-sum suggests that a person or groups gain is exactly balanced by the losses of another person or group. “In order for someone to win, someone else must lose.”
To quote INVESTOPEDIA, an online resource for investment definitions, strategies, and philosophies the definition of zero-sum is:
“A situation in which one participant's gains result only from another participant's equivalent losses. The net change in total wealth among participants is zero; the wealth is just shifted from one to another.”
Read more:
Both of these terms and concepts are crucial to the philosophy of poverty alleviation. From the perspective of those living in poverty, the belief that resources are static and that there is only so much to go around, breeds competition. It’s more or less a race to figuring out how one can obtain the precious resources that do exist. Further more, if you live with a zero-sum philosophy (one person’s gain, is balanced by another’s loss), and you don’t receive the perceived resources you are than assumed to be the loser. Put these 2 concepts together and you have a devastating effect. A spirit of envy and jealous is fueled and communities, families, and cultures are pitted against each other in the fight for limited resources. A variety of results could be expected. One result could be a battle to undermine your neighbor who has “stolen” the resources (competition); the other could be as described below:
“The Theory of Limited Good helps us understand the cultural, as well as economic, life of pre-industrial peoples of the world. If the supply of economic goods is limited, then the supply of pleasure, beauty, and happiness may also be limited. When one family has too much of those things, they must be taking them away from other people. Your home and possessions should not be too pleasant, nor your daughters too beautiful, nor should you be too happy.
Members of a community might want to avoid accumulation of wealth because the resulting impoverishment of other families places community solidarity at risk. The Potlatch ritual (present in several Andean countries), in which a family that has accumulated a conspicuous amount of wealth must divest itself of that wealth by lavish gift giving, was common among many Indian tribes in North America and elsewhere. In this case a family that had accumulated conspicuous wealth would feel obligated to throw a party for the village, providing chicha beer and rum, as well as food, to everyone in the village until the wealth was used up. Some of those parties would continue for two or three days, ending only when the drunken party thrower had spent all his money and all money he could borrow against future earnings.”
Lyn Williams, Professor Emeritus, Ohio University. Author of the blog: The Logical Middle: http://thelogicalmiddle.blogspot.com/2009/07/theory-of-limited-good.html
The unconscious goal for individuals living in cultures that promote this concept is perceived equality. If fairness in response to resources is not promoted, then something must be done. Either the person must be punished for stealing their unfair portion of the resources, or they must share, in order to make everyone happy and equal. (see the Occupy Wall Street movement for a current example) It’s a destructive theory, from the roots of secularism, that has profound impact on one’s ability to steward, save, and gather resources for development purposes. Living with such theories as limited good and zero-sum actually, in many ways, promote material poverty and undevelopment.
A secular worldview sees resources as being solely physical and material. At first glance one would not see this as being a harmful theory but with further study one realizes that the effects of this philosophy can have profound results. Not only does it create competition and jealousy between individuals or groups as they compete for the rights to resources but it can also have devastating impact on the sanctity of life. If humans are merely resource consumers, (mouths to feed) then what is the best way to preserve and safeguard the precious resources that are limited and static? Through the elimination or restriction of human development. Acts of genocide, euthanasia, and abortion can be justified through the framework of resource preservation. Why rescue a dying child or abandoned baby from the gutters? It’s nature’s way of eliminating the weak, and by doing so you are only impeding the natural selection process.
How we look at resources is vital to the poverty alleviation discussion. In the next entry we will examine 2 different development theories and seek to find answers to some of the secularistic principles present in today’s poverty alleviation efforts.
No comments:
Post a Comment