Friday, May 13, 2005

How Can I Help You?

Tonight I met a woman begging for money along a lamp-lined avenue with her two children. Initially, the lamps aroused my interest more than did the destitute family. They were a rarity, well-built and well-maintained. By contrast, the woman’s face faded into those of the countless other beggars I had already passed today. On second glance though, she seemed a little more shy, a little less likely to ask again, a little ashamed perhaps. She asked softly and I didn’t see in her eyes or her childrens’ the contempt that usually comes from a life of begging amidst an endless swarm of rich white foreigners.

I had just refused two other children with that same look of contempt. Normally, had I been in a market, I would have offered to buy them some food. Walking along the street late at night though, I simply didn’t have the energy for it.

The problems of street youth here are similar to those at home. Living in a poorer country, the only difference is that crystal meth, cocaine, and heroin, have been replaced by glue sniffing. I was thinking about something a friend I met in Sihanoukville had told me. “I never give money to children. It could go to glue or to someone exploiting them. I keep with me the toothbrushes and paste from a dozen hotels. I give these to children who don’t ask. It’s a surprise. It’s something they know is just for them. Every mother and every child for whom I’ve done this has been both incredulous and overjoyed. Sometimes, if I can, I buy them food. I make sure that they decide what they want though.”

It seemed like good advice. I turned, walked towards the woman, and told her in Khmer, “Money, I can’t. Have you all eaten dinner yet?” “No, we haven’t eaten,” was the reply. “I pay,” I offered, “Please come.” I motioned for her to follow to a restaurant across the street.

Stretching my language abilities to the limit, I asked her to tell the cook what she wanted, and asked the cook how much it cost. The woman kept trying to talk to me. It was too difficult. I couldn’t understand a word. I paid for the meal for her and her children. “I have no rice,” she ventured as I began to pocket my change. I handed it to her. “Rice,” I said. Feeling slightly awkward, I smiled, told her she was welcome as she thanked me, and left quickly.

The disappointment in her eyes as I left had been genuine. I’ve come to recognize the other kind. The awkwardness came when I realized too late that though the money I gave her was enough for nearly two kilograms of rice, I had just spent three times that on a single meal. Had I trusted her to manage that money herself, she could have stretched it into several meals for her family. I suspect she had hoped to convince me to let her do so, or at least to use the money more effectively myself. I, on the other hand, felt rushed, confident in my plan, and embarrassed by the language barrier.

It seems to me an apt analogy for some of the pitfalls of development work: A well-intentioned foreigner decides to help. The motives are genuine, a desire to do good, and a desire to feel good about doing it. The approach is pragmatic: Let the recipient decide what they want. Unfortunately, there are always constraints. The use of funds is restricted to choices that the donor feels is appropriate. There are barriers to the recipients offering genuine feedback on what they think of this process. Maybe the donor cannot understand. Maybe he or she assumes he or she knows best. Maybe it’s both. The end result is that some good is accomplished but not nearly as much as what might have been.

What could I have done better? Sadly, not much. I didn’t know this woman and still don’t. She might have a drinking problem. She might be keeping her children from going to school in the hopes that cute faces garner more money. I don’t know what my money would have been supporting. I could have bought rice to feed the whole family for a week and still not have solved their problem. Eventually, I or my money would no longer be there.

To really help her and her children I would need to give them the resources to keep themselves secure. Finding the woman a job as a housekeeper, though paying only fifty cents a day, could help her to support her family. Teaching her children to speak English, a skill that would help them to find work in business, tourism, or government might be another option. Both would have taken far more time and resources than I, with my fitful desire to help, was willing to give. This was not unreasonable on my part. On a larger scale though, it’s what can make development so difficult.

There are a huge number of problems here but also a massive potential to do good. Realising that potential requires that commitment and a willingness to listen exist amongst everyone involved. I don’t know how much I helped that woman and her two children tonight but they certainly helped me. Sometimes it’s good to be reminded just how easy it is to think one is listening to the poor while all the while ignoring what they say. Given my goals here, I can’t think of a more important lesson to learn.

4 Comments:

At May 23, 2005 1:57 AM, Blogger Andrew said...

OK Adam, I can't match the above interpretation of Judaic tradition or views, but here are my few humble thoughts:

Your story reminds me, strikingly, one time I was on the streets of Cuzco, Peru. A lady was begging for money for her and her large family - they had been forced from their home to cover her hospital bills, or so she said. I was in a particularly good mood that night, so I did the ridiculous thing and went back to my hostel to get her what essentially amounted to about a month's worth of money (for a Peruvian) - or about three days worth of food to a North American. I'll never forget that, once I gave her the money, instead of receiving the thanks or display of happiness one would have expected, I received nothing more than a continued request for more and even more money, the same pleading eyes.

I wholeheartedly agree with you that there exists in the developing world a huge number of problems, but also a massive potential to do good. Yes, those problems are not easily solved. But are any of life's deeper problems ever truly solved easily? (Where would the fun be in that?) It's a bit of a blessing, I would think, to be able to BE the westerner, the educated one going to be the helpful person, to be struggling to overcome the barriers to change. Sure, you might not have 'optimized your resources' tonight, but it's a far cry from the "Sheer Dallas" (read: excessive consumption, wasteful opulence) mindset that too much of our culture currently embraces. You recognized that there are problems in the world, and you're trying to fix them. You know that you don't have all the answers, and that you might make a mistake or two, have a "learning experience" so to speak.

Now you've learned - and so, through you, have I. Now the lives of BOTH you and the lady in your story are enriched (even through a "failed" interaction) and so has my own life. For, as you point out, you did learn a great lesson. What's more, you're bravely willing to share this sort of lesson with quite a few people on a regular basis. Go, Adam, make mistakes, learn lessons, so that the rest of us here in the so-called "developed" world can continue to be reminded something we forget all too easily: change, real change, requires a real openness, the ability to really learn to listen well, and that it can be a lot of work but it's work that must simply be done.

[Hehe, my am I in an interesting monologue tonight, but hey Adam I hope you're having a good time up (down? over? around?) there in Cambodia. I would say, keep in touch, but you seem to be doing a good job of that already.]

 
At May 24, 2005 6:39 AM, Blogger Adam Kaufman said...

Good to hear from all of you. :)It's always nice to know one's not alone in situations like this.

I recognise that any money given in this way is a band-aid solution at best, so it seems a bit like splitting hairs to ask how best it should be done. However it's done, the long-term impact will likely be non-existent. Still, the emotional benefits of even a small act of genuine kindness in which mutual trust and respect exists between donor and recipient, still seem too worthwhile to me to ignore completely.

Unfortunately, the physical, cultural, and psychological barriers between the rich and the poor are mostly uncrossable. I can work to help and to better understand the poor but I will never for an instant be able to know what it is like to live their daily struggles nor to gain acceptance as a fellow poor person. Being able to find trust and respect on both sides of a fleeting relationship like this one is both difficult and improbable, hence the frustration.

For me, when it comes to giving, the best I've been able to do is to trust my instincts on a case by case basis and to do my best to pour the bulk of my support into groups that were there before my money came and will continue to work to better people's lives after I'm gone.

With that in mind, I've been doing my best lately to support the work of Krooasa Thmay, a Cambodian charity that works to support, educate, and empower street youth, blind or deaf children, and orphans. When I can though, I still buy the kids in the market a square meal. They can look down on me and my riches with contempt and righteous indignation all they want. At least they'll be doing it with a full belly. ;)

 
At May 30, 2005 3:58 AM, Blogger Adam Kaufman said...

If there's one thing that working at ROOF taught me, it's that even folks living on the street still retain a sense of standards. If you don't believe me, try offering a nasty pair of garish 1970s mittens to a street youth. ;) I find it kind of encouraging. It reminds me that human dignity doesn't automatically disappear when poverty comes into play.

 
At June 07, 2005 12:12 AM, Blogger Adam Kaufman said...

I agree that it is wrong for me to judge others, especially when I do not know their context. I would, however, like to think that I do not view my fellow human beings as lab rats. As with Mosaic Law, there is a surface reading and a deeper truth.

The philosophy of development for years was to provide without consideration of consequences free pumps to areas without water, free tractors to areas that needed tilling, and free food to the starving. The result has been endless fields of broken pumps, rusting tractors, disillusioned donor countries that are unwilling to give, and recipient countries that are having increasing difficulty feeding themselves. To borrow from a colleague in Zambia, currently experiencing a massive drought, why should a farmer seek to grow his crop when by doing no work at all, he can qualify to receive free food from the World Food Programme for the next year? Taking the problem one step further, as more farmers follow this path, less food is grown, more food is needed, and a whole country can become trapped, endlessly unable to feed itself.

Mosaic Law seen on the surface appears to be an arbitrary combination of reminders to observe the sabbath, stone homosexuals and rebellious children, and live in huts for seven days of the year. The bulk of Judaism is about going beneath this surface to solve the real problems of human frailty, communion with God, and love for one's fellow beings.

There is no neat and compact theory when it comes to dealing with human beings in any situation but there are unanticipated consequences. Which shows the greater degree of respect for the plight of others, to give money and leave, or to make a constant continuous effort to understand the consequences of one's actions so as to find the greatest good for the greatest number of people?

Scripture says that the poor will never cease from the land but as you've previously pointed out to me, it also says that though you are not here to do the whole of the work, neither are you to shirk from it. From my perspective, giving without thought and leaving wihtout consideration shirks one's duty of Tikun Olam (Repairing the World). How can you fix it when you don't know what's broken?

Look deeper.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home