El Campo

Well, this weekend we came back from a 4 day visit to the rural community of La Avispa in Olancho. Ben and I stayed in the house of Jesus (I think my favorite part of this name was being able to say “ya viene Jesus” every time he was walking toward us) and Erika, a three room house with no electricity or windows, but with running water and a pretty nice wood stove. To be honest, the “rustic” setting that we were in didn´t really phase me that much. I expected things to be rustic, and after spending a week in La Moskitia, our living conditions were not that shocking to me. That being said, by the end of the week, I was getting quite dirty and smelly, and I think it would have been a challenge for me to maintain myself in a cleanly state over the course of a month.

I loved the chance to share in the activities and the lifestyle of the community. Jesus was sick while we were there, so we had the chance to chapear his field for him with machetes. And while the cow is probably in disagreement, I enjoyed the chance to try to ordeñar (to milk), although, as Jesus explained to everyone, we have machines to milk in the states, that´s why I was so bad at it. We also surprised them when we told them that not only did we eat tortillas (they were convinced we would only eat sliced bread), we wanted to eat the same food as them and share in there normal diet. I also had the chance to spend the evenings playing futbol with all the young men of the community, and through a couple of lucky breaks I was able to make a name for myself as a “goleador.” This was especially fun because it meant that every time I passed a house with kids in it that watched us play, they would always shout “Jacobo!” and ask me if I was going to play again that night. I would also run in the mornings right after waking up, which was not early enough to keep the community from talking about the crazy Jacobo that ran all the way to Buquerrón and back.

The thing that was most incredible though was the acceptance that came amidst it all. There we were, a group of 20 foreigners with almost can´t function without our computers, let alone know how to do any piece of what life in the campo entails, and yet we were treated with care and patience amidst it all. The culture in the campo was another beautiful thing. While each and every person in that community knew what it meant to work hard and well- (like Elvin, a 16 year old who woke up at 5 to walk an hour to his family´s field and spent a good 6 hours clearing the field with a machete), there was also a relaxed nature about everything. If I was walking up the hill to visit one family, chances are I would stop at at least two houses that would invite me in and give me their chair so that I could sit and talk to them. The best part about this acceptance and laid back nature is that it wasn´t hollow at all, but came from the genuine desire to get to know us, to make us feel comfortable, and to show us love.

It´s not as if the culture of La Avispa was perfect, either. Sometimes when we would talk, I would see glimpses of a strong pride and a lack of humility. The cultural response to someone being emotional is to laugh, a little with them, a little at them, and the mentally handicapped in the community were not treated with full respect (though they were still definitely loved). However, as I was leaving the community on Wednesday, I realized that despite these things, I still was able to love there culture as a whole. Yes, it did have it´s shortcomings, but at the same time there were many positive and exemplary pieces of the culture that were direct results of the desire to show love. Maybe this is a part of what John was talking about when he said that love covers a multitude of sins. While we are all screwed up, both culturally and individually, love has the ability to permeate through that brokenness, and the light of Christ can still shine through a marred lamp.

This week in rural Honduras gave me a new idea of what it means to be Christ to others. Everyone in La Avispa was well aware that the gringos were the rich ones, and that the campesinos were the poor. And yet when we showed up on Tuesday morning, we really were the poor. We had no food to eat, and Erika served us a chicken dinner that she had fretted for days over, worrying about whether or not we were going to like it. Whichever house we went to, we were always invited to a cup of coffee in case we were thirsty. We had no place to sleep, and we were invited warmly into the homes and households of La Avispa. In the short time that we were there, the people of La Avispa wholeheartedly took the opportunity to treat us with the love and care with which Christ calls us to treat the “least of these.” I am still contemplating and wondering at the encouragement and challenge to go and do likewise that I was shown this week. I sure hope that it finds its way into my actions.

De entender la pobreza

Take a moment to think about it: why do you think that poor people are poor? It's not an easy question, but if you think about it, it is probably the most important indicator of how you treat the poor.

Well, as promised, here's part two of my paper. To keep you from the pain of having to go read the whole first part of the paper, basically what I'm suggesting is that development is the process of recognizing the dignity of all people on this earth.

When we think about things this way, the focus is changed. No longer can we say, "my, what good people we are" when we feed the hungry. Rather, it is our duty, our responsibility to provide what is necesary for others to live as humans. Benevolence without justice will always lead to oppression. We must not be content with a giving that tries in no way to change the injustice around us. If we really recognize the dignity that people have just because they're people, our love ought to go a whole lot further than painting a church or providing a meal once in a while.

Next week I will be living in the rural pueblo of Los Charcos in Olancho. I'm looking forward to embracing my farming heritage in a setting quite different from Holland.

This next part of the paper is trying to talk about why things are the way they are, or why there is poverty and inequality in the world. (Unlike one of my friends suggested, I did not conclude that it's just that some areas of the world are lazier than others.)

Applying this definition of development to the present day world, it’s clear to see the stark reality of underdevelopment. As the 1999 Human Development report states, 1.3 billion people, nearly a quarter of the world population, live on less than one dollar a day.[15] As of 2006, nearly the same amount of the world, 1.2 billion, was without access to clean drinking water, and 2.6 billion people lacked sanitation.[16] On an international level, in 44 of the 141 countries of the world, over 40% of the population lives below the nationally defined poverty level,[17] and according to the World Health Organization, this poverty is responsible for 50,000 deaths per day.[18] Such poverty is a clear indicator of the lack of development at present, and more importantly, the need to work to bring development to these oppressed.

In the last 40 years, numerous theories have developed trying to explain the lack of development in a large part of the world, as well as prescribe ways to bring change. Most of these theories have managed to recognize parts of the problem, and have gathered support as people have recognized and resonated with the problems defined by the theories. Unfortunately, recognizing the problem does not constitute creating the solution, and the reality is that the development theories put into practice thus far have failed to bring significant and complete change. In fact, newer developmental theories in large part attempt to explain the current problem in terms of the shortcomings of previous development work.[19]^,[20] If significant development is to occur, the problem of underdevelopment needs to be understood in full, both at the roots of its original causes as well as in the present and what needs to be done.

In his book Guns, Germs, and Steel, Jared Diamond writes, “the striking differences between the long-term histories of peoples of the different continents have been due not to innate differences in the peoples themselves but to differences in their environments.[21] This statement comes after giving a thorough analysis of the global appearance of farming and husbandry, and how these means of food production, although arising by chance in different areas of the globe, allowed for the marked development of some regions of the globe while others remained largely undeveloped.[22] He demonstrates how this agricultural development allowed for further immune resistance and development of technologies; advances that widened even further the gap between the “haves and have-nots.”[23] Contrary to social Darwinist thought, which Diamond openly disputed and refuted, Diamond’s geographical theory of development recognizes that regional differences are capable in large part of explaining the unequal historical development that has occurred across the globe.

This geographical theory of development has received praise for it’s thoroughness and scientific approach, and considering this legitimacy, it provides an important implication for understanding development. Geographical theory recognizes the historical reality that if human action were removed from development, either positive or negative, history shows us that some areas of the world naturally would favor more development than others, giving rise to inequality. As Jeffrey Sachs puts it, “An appropriate starting point for the international community would be to set actual developmental goals for [geographically unfavorable] regions rather than ‘make do’ with whatever economic results emerge.”[24] Development becomes more than an issue of simply ridding a country of the human forces and practices that are hindrances; measures must be taken to compensate for the natural disadvantages of an area.

That being said, it would be foolish to assume that human action has had no affect on world development. Unfortunately, a look at world history over the last two centuries shows the inequality fostered by geographical advantage presented the opportunity for the developed West to overpower and exploit the weaker areas of the globe.[25] The rise of colonialism during the 17^th centuries and the ensuing imperialism at the close of the 19^th century installed capitalist systems throughout the world, and these systems served primarily to pursue the economic interests of the imperial powers. Given the fallen nature of humanity, it is understandable that human greed would set up such exploitation, and that this exploitation would continue past the colonial period as the West continued to hold the majority of the world power. As Andre Gunder Frank concluded at the end of his case studies of Latin America, “present underdevelopment of Latin America is the result of its centuries-long participation in the process of world capitalist development.”[26]

Colonial and imperialist history supports the explanations for underdevelopment given by dependency theorists. However, given the interconnectedness of the current global situation, the same theorists’ claim that “in order for development to occur [ties with the capitalist world] should logically be severed”[27] does not hold viability as a solution. Let me provide one example. In a world where the majority of medical and scientific research occurs in these same capitalist, developed countries,[28] the severance of such ties would not only set back the scientific advancement of a country, it would unavoidably result in the loss of development as the right to complete and modern healthcare diminishes under the new severance. The unhealthy relationship that exists between the developed and the underdeveloped world cannot simply be abandoned; it must be healed and repaired, integrating justice where exploitation has ruled and turning dependency to mutualism.

Bringing development in the midst of a history of natural and human driven inequality is a daunting task. In the past (and present), people have treated the need for development as a benevolent endeavor, giving funds and resources to alleviate the unfortunate situation that so much of the world faces. Charity drives in Minnesota ship boatloads of used clothes while American farmers send agricultural surplus to sub-Saharan Africa. Calvin students gather up their loose change in a plastic orange fish in order to “teach a man to fish.” If we are to believe that development truly is the recognition of the rights and dignity of all humanity, these acts of charity fall horribly short of development. As Nick Wolterstorff noticed as he viewed the charitable activity of Afrikaners toward the native Africans in the midst of apartheid, “benevolence without justice inevitably leads to oppression.”[29] True development necessitates that justice is done, and that human rights and dignity are recognized. When this happens, “development work is no longer just a service, a gift, an aid; it is a duty.”[30]

Given the foundation of natural inequality understood by geographical theory as well as the dependency and exploitation created by the developed West, this duty needs to be approached carefully. Development takes a decided effort to work for the rights of individuals, and will not come about as a secondary effect of any institutional growth; whether economic, governmental, or societal. Democratization theory provides a sound framework from which to fulfill this duty. Recognizing the potential for exploitation both in powerful government and powerful economics, this theory asserts that the responsibility belongs to us, as fellow members of a global society, to demand the realization of human rights and dignity. As Uvin writes, development in this way can come through “social movements using human rights as a tool to focus on reform in the international political economy.”[31]

All workers deserve to make a living wage, and it is our responsibility to demand that businesses are held to this standard. This demand must go beyond a mere market force deeming it economically favorable to supply products made on a just wage, human rights must make their way into international law. A 10-year old Ecuadoran child should not be exposed weekly to toxic pesticides while harvesting bananas for American school lunches, nor should a young mother watch her baby die as she sits in an overcrowded hospital waiting room. If we truly believed that these things were true, we could bring the realization of each one of these rights. According to the UNDP, in 1997, it would have cost about $30 billion per year to supply every single person in the world with basic education, health and nutrition, reproductive health and family planning, water, and sanitation.[32] It is time that the dialogue encouraged by Democratization theory begins, and that we decide what needs to change to recognize these rights.

[15] Human Development Report. 2009. http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2009/

[16] Human Development Report. 2006. http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2006/

[17] http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_pop_bel_pov_lin-economy-population-below-poverty-line

[18] World Health Organization. 1999 Report. http://www.who.int/whr/1999/en/whr99_annex_en.pdf

[19] Marglin, Stephen. Devlelopment as Poison: Rethinking the Western Model of Modernity. Annual Editions. Developing World. 2005-2006.

[20] Uvin, Peter. Human Rights and Development. Kumarian Press, 2004.

[21] Diamond, Jared. Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. W. W. Norton & Company Ltd. 1999. p. 405

[22] Ibid. p. 83-176

[23] Ibid. p. 193-295

[24] Sachs, Jeffrey. Institutions Matter, but Not for Everything. P. 13

[25] During the rise of European colonialism, a popular explanation for European success came in the British ditty, “Whatever happens, we have got, the Gatling gun (one of the first machine guns), and they have not.” (Hillaire Belloc)

[26] Gunder Frank, Andre. The Development of Underdevelopment. p. 115

[27] Ibid. p. 111

[28] The National Institute of Health alone had a research budget of over $30.5 billion last year, more than double Honduras’ complete GDP of $14.3 billion. (www.nih.gov/about/budget.htm)

[29] Wolterstorff, Nicholass. Public Seminar. Tegucigalpa, Honduras. March 22, 2010.

[30] Peter Uvin p. 179. Recognizing development as a duty does not necessitate the abandonment of generosity, nor is generosity a unimportant virtue; rather, in line with Wolterstorff’s teaching, once justice is established we have the opportunity (and calling) to truly be generous. It is our duty to feed the starving, it is generousity to throw a banquet.

[31] Uvin, Peter. Human Rights in the Practice of Development. p. 198

[32] Ibid. p. 200

Regreso por fin

Hey Everyone,

I am well aware that I have taken a quite long break from writing on my blog. Through a combination of a crashed computer, a 15 page paper, and a week long trip into the jungle of central america (more on that too), I was left with not much blogging time. But, finally, things are wrapping up, and I'm left with some time.

I decided I will publish the paper that I had to write for my last class. The paper was really important to my understanding of what development is and what it means live as a Christian in a global world, so I figured it belonged on the website dedicated to my thoughts on things of the like. Because it ended up being so long, im going to publish in 3 parts, so stay tuned my faithful readers.

Also, we are down to 46 days until I am in grand rapids (but who's really counting), so I can say that I look forward to seeing you soon.

The Recognition of Human Dignity in the Practice of Development

Jake Baker

April 4, 2010

The origin of “develop” comes from the French verb “développer,” meaning “to fold or unfurl.”[1] When considering development work, this origin gives meaningful distinctions about the nature of what development actually is and how it ought to be done. If to develop is to unfurl, the act of development is not transplanting a new system into a place, but rather to mature and advance what already is present. To develop is to begin to appreciate what something was meant to be and to work toward its maturation. To use the imagery provided by the French verb, for a sailboat to cross the sea, the sail must développer and unfurl to catch the wind. Installing sturdy oars all along the side of the sailboat would not only be a much more laborious task, but would never allow the sailboat to sail in the way that it was designed to sail.

When we seek to do development work, we must understand what exactly it is that needs to be developed. People have grasped at market economics, institutional stability, and public service improvements as the fundamental units of a country or area that need to be developed. Although these areas are important to the fulfillment of development and have their individual merits, they are really the superficial means to achieve development. The actual aim of development lies in a deeper and more complete purpose. Development must view the rights inherent in all of humanity as the motive for change and the very sail that needs to be unfurled.

It’s difficult to develop a comprehensive list of rights that humans must be allowed in order for development to be complete. The United States Bill of Rights provides a list of rights, including the right to a speedy and public trial, the right of assembly, and right to security of persons and properties.[2] This list includes many crucial human rights that must be in place for development to occur and to support justice; however, it also fails to address the critical reason why these rights ought to exist.

In a recent seminar in Tegucigalpa, Honduras, Nicholas Wolterstorff defined justice as the fulfillment of our right to be treated with our inherent dignity. This dignity of all humanity is central to the understanding of what our rights as humans are, and how we are required to treat all others. The Bill of Rights doesn’t state the right to food, but when faced with a starving family, it is quite logical to assert they ought not die, and should they die, it would be an injustice; a refusal to recognize their dignity as human beings.[3] Peter Uvin writes, “It makes sense to conceive of a certain social minimum we all guarantee nobody should be without.”[4]^,[5] This “social minimum” that he speaks of must be the work of development, in order to bring realization and protection of human dignity.

Although this understanding of humanity is central and inseparable from the work of development, it can only be effective when applied in concrete and functional ways. Wendell Berry recognizes this concept in terms of economics when he writes, “If there is no denying our dependence on the Great Economy, there is also no denying our need for a little economy-a narrow circle within which things are manageable by the use of our wits.”[6] In order to bring to fruition this all-encompassing respect of human dignity, systems need to exist to both attain and protect development. To bring the development described above requires the establishment of sound economy, societal infrastructure, and rule of law.

A good example of the need for sound economy comes from the observance of the United Soviet Socialist Republic. Although created under the claim of bringing economic equality to all, the ideology fell apart as the economy was unable to support or recognize the rights of each person. Even the most pure and honest intentions to bring food, shelter, or healthcare to an area will fail without the economic stability to support such an effort.

At the beginning of the 20^th century, the economies of the urban United States were expanding rapidly. However, despite the economic stability, this time period was also when the Red Cross, Salvation Army, and YMCA emerged in order to meet the existing needs of such a large part of the population. A sound economy had not brought development to the United States, and societal infrastructure was needed to protect the rights of the people. Education and health systems need to be well established to bring the rights of education and health care, and a police system is necessary if justice and order are to exist. In order to respect the dignity of all society, public services must be well founded and available to all who require them.

However, the establishment of a sound economy and societal infrastructures remains meaningless if they are not accompanied by rule of law. That is, if the laws and procedures that define the economy and infrastructure of an area are not consistently applied, still there will be no development. If the police force of an area is well funded and trained, and yet the court system decides it more pertinent to serve personal interests than to follow the law, rights will not be protected. Without rule of law, neither economies nor societal structures can function smoothly or efficiently, and corruption will constantly lead to the violation of rights.

The final piece necessary to bringing development to an area is sustainability. The recognition of rights in the present should not be at the expense of the future; instead, development ought to be done in a way that guarantees the longevity of both economy and societal structures. A large piece of this is environmental sustainability, as the ramifications of environmental degradation have serious implications for the ability to develop an area. Food production that causes massive soil erosion or loss of fertility is not development, nor are lumber businesses justified by the short term economic growth when they deforest the mountainsides. The ends never justify the means, and it is important to approach development cautiously, considering whether the proposed economy or infrastructure is something that can be maintained for generations to come.[7]

So what is development? Development is the fulfillment and protection of the dignity of all humanity, accomplished through sound economy, societal infrastructure, and rule of law, in a manner that ensures its own sustainability.[8]

Recognizing the dignity of humanity is not limited to the Christian tradition; as Peter Uvin writes, “We are all in this together.”[9] As Christians, we must move beyond this recognition, especially in light of God’s view on the very issue. The Old Testament is very clear about God’s heart for the oppressed, for those that have not been shown the justice their dignity requires:

For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality and accepts no bribes. He defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the alien, giving him food and clothing. And you are to love those who are aliens, for you yourselves were aliens in Egypt.[10]

Over and over through the prophets, God pleads the case of these oppressed. He cries out, “Seek justice, encourage the oppressed. Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow.”[11] When He commands, “The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt,”[12] we see him imploring us to treat each other with the equality and love with which he created us.

Beyond commands, God’s call to care for the oppressed is a spiritual discipline by which to know God. He makes this very clear through the prophet Isaiah:

“Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen: to loose the chains of injustice and untie the cords of the yoke, to set the oppressed free and break every yoke? Is it not to share your food with the hungry and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter-when you see the naked, to clothe him, and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?”[13]

God is constantly reminding us that if we want to know him, we must seek justice and defend the cause of the oppressed, and through this we will begin to understand his heart.

God’s concern with justice, for this reverence of our dignity, continues through the ministry of Jesus. When Jesus quotes the prophet Isaiah, he is recognizing that his life has the purpose of bringing justice to those that have been denied their human dignity:

"The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."

The “year of the Lord’s favor is indicative of the Hebrew concept of Jubilee, and Christ is declaring that he has come to complete this jubilee recognition of human dignity.[14]

In Matthew 25, when Jesus talks of the final judgment, the criteria by which the sheep and the goats are separated is not the clear cut “grace alone, faith alone” distinction so championed by Luther.[15] Rather, the distinction is who has fed the hungry, given a drink to the thirsty, given shelter to the stranger, clothed the naked, cared for the sick, and visited the imprisoned. Even if we completely ignore the fact that Jesus used this as the deciding factor for eternal life or damnation, our treatment of the “least of these” is still our treatment of our God and Savior, and our actions speak clearly about the faith we truly have.

Given the consistent and thorough concern that God places on caring for the oppressed and realizing the dignity of humanity, we have the duty and command to live in a way that this development permeates our actions. We can know that a change is good when it creates a further recognition and fulfillment of human rights, and when this change happens, we can know that God is pleased to see justice bring peace.

---

[1] New Oxford American Dictionary.

[2] United States Bill of Rights. http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

[3] The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), written in 1948, provides a sound foundation for this understanding of rights. The preamble begins, “Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.”

[4] Peter Uvin. Human Rights in the Practice of Development. p. 201

[5] Article 25 of the UDHR states, “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.” This is the sort of human rights that becomes central to the work of development.

[6] Berry, Wendell. Two Economies. p. 57

[7] While traveling in El Salvador, I met a backpacker from Winnipeg, Canada. Amidst our conversations, he made the point that prior to making any large decision, the aboriginals native to his town would consider the 10 generations behind them and the 10 generations to come in the future, trying to decide how their decision would affect each of them. This is the kind of prudence toward sustainability that our Western culture lacks and yet is so vital to development.

[8] In my definition of development, I have failed to overtly include the Hebrew concept of Shalom, as other development theorists have tried to incorporate into development. Wendell Berry explains his incorporation of Shalom, or the Kingdom of God, by saying, “The Great Economy, like the Tao or the Kingdom of God, is both known and unknown, visible and invisible, comprehensible and mysterious.” In an effort to make the concept of Shalom understandable, Berry has made it a cognate to other traditions like the Tao or an Economy. According to one Hebrew concordance, “Shalom includes everything given by God in all areas of life,” and it seems nearly impossible to maintain this complete significance when applying a concept so dependent on a true understanding of God to the secular arena.

Furthermore, the danger of assuming that the work of development would be to bring Shalom is seen in Judges 6:24: “Yahweh is Shalom.” The presence of Shalom is utterly and completely dependent on the presence of God. This can also be seen in the benediction found in Num. 6:24, where the blessing is that Yahweh may grant Shalom. This connection is so strong that Shalom “approximates closely to the idea of salvation.” The arrival of Shalom in an area is not the work of development, but rather the grace of God and His Spirit. (Quotes from Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Volume 2. p. 776-779)

[9] Peter Uvin p.201

[10] Deut. 10:17-19

[11] Isaiah 1:17

[12] Leviticus 19:33

[13] Isaiah 58:6-7

[14] Christ fulfills this justice, with grace, through the cross, and decisively portrays just how much value we have as His creation when he died for us. This sacrifice for the sake of humanity gives a pure image of what it means to “take up your cross” (Mark 8:34) in a world that has so despised human dignity.

[15] I am not suggesting that Luther was mistaken when he said we are saved by Grace alone by Faith alone; however, this passage seems to indicate what sort of faith and grace it is that saves us, and is another strong reminder not to submit ourselves to the “cheap grace” that fits so easily into our American culture, and that the Bible and writers like Dietrich Bonheoffer have deplored.