More photos
6.09.2005
6.03.2005
A few days ago, a reporter in the New York Times who's been covering the crisis in Darfur received a letter from a man in Oregon. In the letter, he asked why America should care about Darfur, particularly when there are so many things going on in the U.S. that are not getting enough attention.
The reporter responded by personalizing the issue, creating a story about one woman in the crisis and then saying that she's only one of many.
I expect that this is not enough to sway the man in Oregon.
I had a very complex reaction to the letter. I agree that there are many issues in the U.S. which need attention. Desperate attention. Both mental and monetary attention. I also feel strongly that we should care about what's happening in the rest of the world, and that there is something to be said for using our internationally strong position (both politically and monetarily--but not militarily so much) to help in times of crisis... But I don't think this would be enough for the Oregonian either.
So... The best way to respond is perhaps from a position of American self-interest, since that seems to be the driving force behind so many actions these days. Or, actually, I'd like to re-introduce the idea of reciprocity into this debate. As explained by philosopher Michael Taylor, "Each individual act in a system of reciprocity is usually characterized by a combination of what one might call short-term altruism and long-term self-interest: I help you out in the (possibly vague, uncertain, and uncalculating) expectation that you will help me out in the future. Reciprocity is made up of a series of acts each of which is short-run altruistic (benefiting others at a cost to the altruist), but which together typically make each participant better off."
It seems that at one point much of American society operated largely on a system of reciprocity. Tocqueville noted it as a cornerstone of American democracy. A cornerstone I believe we have removed and dropped into some piece of landfill somewhere.
So why should we help out on anything happening in Africa? If we took our role as global stewards seriously (not a God-given role, just a practical end-result of having more of lots of things than just about anyone), then I think we should turn our attention to eliminating disparities around the world. All types of disparities: economic, health and political. Were we to approach the world from this standpoint, then resentments of our "freedoms" and our economic position would necessarily be chipped away. These resentments are the foundation of so much anti-American feeling globally that I think it's ridiculous to ignore them. I was always taught that to deal with the symptom and not the disease was short-sighted.
I would tell the man in Oregon that taking care of Africa helps to reduce the global burden of poverty, and that that is good for everyone in the world. Africa -- a continent currently struggling under the weight of painfully high rates of HIV, TB and malaria, a continent daily under the siege of civil wars and genocide -- Africa is still a continent which provides the rest of the world with many natural resources, with diamonds, with oil, with awe-inspiring athletes, with brilliant politicians and musicians... If we help Africa elevate itself, then down the line the continent could become a source of so much more. It was once the "cradle of civilization." Why should we think it can not rise up again?
If we truly took reciprocity to heart, this behavior would not just extend internationally, but would also be turned domestically. Were we to universally elevate the education and health levels throughout the country, then I am confident that less money would be spent on jails and emergency rooms. That's taxpayer money that could be redistributed for the good of society as a whole.
So I guess that really my answer to the man in Oregon is not that we should care about Africa, but that we should not be drawing lines. Today's society is not insular, it's global. And a global society built on reciprocity is one in which I would like to live.
The reporter responded by personalizing the issue, creating a story about one woman in the crisis and then saying that she's only one of many.
I expect that this is not enough to sway the man in Oregon.
I had a very complex reaction to the letter. I agree that there are many issues in the U.S. which need attention. Desperate attention. Both mental and monetary attention. I also feel strongly that we should care about what's happening in the rest of the world, and that there is something to be said for using our internationally strong position (both politically and monetarily--but not militarily so much) to help in times of crisis... But I don't think this would be enough for the Oregonian either.
So... The best way to respond is perhaps from a position of American self-interest, since that seems to be the driving force behind so many actions these days. Or, actually, I'd like to re-introduce the idea of reciprocity into this debate. As explained by philosopher Michael Taylor, "Each individual act in a system of reciprocity is usually characterized by a combination of what one might call short-term altruism and long-term self-interest: I help you out in the (possibly vague, uncertain, and uncalculating) expectation that you will help me out in the future. Reciprocity is made up of a series of acts each of which is short-run altruistic (benefiting others at a cost to the altruist), but which together typically make each participant better off."
It seems that at one point much of American society operated largely on a system of reciprocity. Tocqueville noted it as a cornerstone of American democracy. A cornerstone I believe we have removed and dropped into some piece of landfill somewhere.
So why should we help out on anything happening in Africa? If we took our role as global stewards seriously (not a God-given role, just a practical end-result of having more of lots of things than just about anyone), then I think we should turn our attention to eliminating disparities around the world. All types of disparities: economic, health and political. Were we to approach the world from this standpoint, then resentments of our "freedoms" and our economic position would necessarily be chipped away. These resentments are the foundation of so much anti-American feeling globally that I think it's ridiculous to ignore them. I was always taught that to deal with the symptom and not the disease was short-sighted.
I would tell the man in Oregon that taking care of Africa helps to reduce the global burden of poverty, and that that is good for everyone in the world. Africa -- a continent currently struggling under the weight of painfully high rates of HIV, TB and malaria, a continent daily under the siege of civil wars and genocide -- Africa is still a continent which provides the rest of the world with many natural resources, with diamonds, with oil, with awe-inspiring athletes, with brilliant politicians and musicians... If we help Africa elevate itself, then down the line the continent could become a source of so much more. It was once the "cradle of civilization." Why should we think it can not rise up again?
If we truly took reciprocity to heart, this behavior would not just extend internationally, but would also be turned domestically. Were we to universally elevate the education and health levels throughout the country, then I am confident that less money would be spent on jails and emergency rooms. That's taxpayer money that could be redistributed for the good of society as a whole.
So I guess that really my answer to the man in Oregon is not that we should care about Africa, but that we should not be drawing lines. Today's society is not insular, it's global. And a global society built on reciprocity is one in which I would like to live.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
