EdGE Week 5

This week focused on the role of the public, private, and "third" sector in relation to themes of progress and inequality. There were many articles that promoted "neoliberalism" and a few that critiqued this idea. Adjustments to the private sector usually only aids the top 10%, who do not need help as much as the bottom half of the socioeconomic ladder. Sometimes, government interference can accidentally perpetuate poverty as seen in the "Haiti" article. A quick synopsis is that the government builds a garment factory in Haiti after HOPE II made by Clinton. The garment factory creates hundreds of jobs for the local people. The cloth produced is exported to USA. However, the service provided by these hundreds of local people remain underpaid. Daily wage is $1.75. There is no room for improvement. The labor is basic and creates health problems from the chemicals and over activity. How is this any different than the local people selling juice on the streets? This, in fact, may be better. They will make a higher daily wage. They are promoting their own economy. The factory promotes USA's economy more than Haiti's. In this case, the government should not have interfered at all since it made things worse. The "third" sector consists of NGOs and other non-profits. They fill in all the gaps. They are the philanthropists. They see more human than money. There are problems with all these sectors, which makes it harder for normal people to see that some people are actually trying to make things better.

The warm-up:

1. You are in your host country and walk past a beggar on the street. It is a young woman holding a baby. She rubs her belly and gestures towards her mouth, indicating hunger. She holds out her hand. You have plenty of money in your pocket. What do you do?
2. Your host organization runs a free library that lacks English books. In your hometown, lots of people have books they aren't reading. Before you begin your field position, your host organization asks you to collect books and bring them to donate to the library. What do you do?
3. Your host organization runs a free non-government school that struggles to find money to pay its teachers. You mention this to friends and family, and they suggest that you start a crowdfunding campaign (i.e. Kickstarter) to raise money to pay teachers. What do you do?

My response: 

1. I visit India every 2-3 years to remind myself of my roots and to bring back the zeal that fades away during my time in a much more luxurious environment, America. Seeing pregnant women begging on the streets is unfortunately common in "developing countries." It's a vicious cycle. Giving money to these women keeps them on the roads. It becomes routine for them. However, it is inhumane to ignore their extending, desperate arms at the same time. Women, mothers, the crippled, and young children initiate pathos in daily commuters. If it were me, I would look at the current status. The mother and the child need food at the moment. I am pretty sure I would be unconscious of the "vicious cycle" and contribute to help the family financially. 

2. I think this is a great idea! My school hosts plenty of book drives and I have hosted a book-a-thon myself. Spreading knowledge through books is do-able as well. The books have already been bought. Thus, the publishing firm has already made profit on it. Since the books are no longer of use to the local community, it would be better for them to go to someplace that would utilize their full potential. 

3. I have a Kickstarter myself to fundraise for a photobook of my experiences with my host organization. I need money for a basic DSLR and photobook supplies. Kickstarter is a great way to raise awareness about projects and bring the community together. The Kickstarter would allow the global community to make a difference by pledging just a few dollars. If a Kickstarter would keep the school and teachers functioning, it seems like something worth trying.

The next asked my reactions about "neoliberalism"

My response:

The french term "lasseiz faire" is synonymous to Neoliberalism. I am taking macroeconomics right now. Neoliberalism could be correlated with "classical" economy or "Says Law." Both state that the government and the federal reserve should stay out of the economy as much as they can. The economy, supply, and demand will readjust to create a new equilibrium. Humans changing the system could cause serious ramifications that we missed in advance. At the same time. If there are not strict rules and regulations, there are ramifications that could be just as severe. There is a voting age of 18 in America because most people under this age would not be educated enough to make national decisions. If the voting age were changed to 16 years old, these kids would have an amount of control over serious debates: abortion, ObamaCare, etc. The same applies here. If we let all businesses do their own thing, there could be ramifications that uneducated businessmen did not forsee. Government control is important to keep businesses within their limit and keep them from going bankrupt. A mixture of neoliberalism and liberalism would be the best way to handle an economy. I am sure many have tried. It is just hard for the federal government and an individual business to interact.

There was a TED talk where Dan Pallotta says something ironic: non-profits must function as businesses to actually work. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfAzi6D5FpM

My response after watching the video:

The video is amazing. I cannot believe I was a critic of some of his ideas. He has very valid points. The 5 major differences between the rest of the economic world and non-profits are definitely points to consider. If money is one of the major factors for a for-profit or non-profit, then a non-profit must do what it needs to obtain this money. A non-profit will function better if it has the same rights as regular businesses. If it functions like a business, it will attract customers and customers have money: the money non-profits need. It's one of those good cycles; I have seen very few good cycles.

Week 4 - Omprakash EdGE!

This week's question was:

 Identify the picture with the list below and write or record your response about this picture, addressing these questions:

1. How does this picture relate to 'progress' and inequality. Be sure to reference some of the thinkers and ideas presented this week.
2. Where do you and your life fit in to the picture? How are you entangled in it?

I chose the picture:

My response: 

I am choosing the picture of slums beside tennis courts (photo #10). 
1. This picture bleeds inequality. There is a clear divide between the poor half of the country and the wealthy 1%. As Martin Luther King mentions, "Edifices that produce beggars need restructuring." The rich few have the wealth to make all the important decisions. It is their poorly thought out decisions that continue to produce beggars. They spend their money creating Wal-Marts, destroying individual markets and bringing more people into the slum part of the divide. They spend more money on social service, which is a quick-fix. Canned foods will give the poor nutrition for a week; however, it will also get them attached to the rich. The poor start to see the rich as their caretaker, increasing the power and responsibility the rich have. It is a convoluted, mutual relationship. The better long-term treatment is to initial social change. It is to find the root of the problem and break the demarcation between the slum and the tennis courts. It is to allow the poor to see the rich. The huge wall makes it impossible for the poor to imagine the affluence of the rich. Once the wall is broken, they will see that a year worth of cans will never be worth the money and space the tennis court is taking up for the mere pleasure of a few family members. Progress will be made when there are more social changes and a break in the mutual relationship. The rich know they would not be rich without the poor. The only thing more powerful than fear is hope. The rich feed the poor to make the slum-half fear what life would be without these food items. The rich do not want the poor to have other priorities, or god forbid, hope of ever breaking out of the cycle. Distraction is suppression in modern times. It happens daily with fewer harsh divides. Television features the Kardashians to keep the population entertained long enough to ignore true problems. The rich few who know of the true problems do not have enough people working as a team to solve the problem. The solution is to turn off the Kardashians and feature the problem on all channels, but then, the rich would not be powerful. I think we give the rich their power. The poor feed the rich figuratively while the rich feed the poor literally. If we introduced social change, the poor would know to avoid the "fluff" or the "entertainment" provided by the rich to distract us. If we make the poor involved in the problem of poverty (ironic right?), we would have a better chance of improving the situation. 
2. I have seen these harsh divides before. I play tennis, but I am definitely not affluent. I know I can find a tennis court at the recreational center. That is where it should be. There are many ways the rich can share their wealth without actually giving monetary benefits. Make the tennis court public. Promote the girls to have a tennis team and compete with the boys team. Give social service and promote social change. Keep the wealth but divide the responsibility and power. Money is not power. People are power. The 1% would benefit more from the support of the 80% than hatred from this large population. I think I would want the bottom half of the socioeconomic ladder to make more decisions for themselves.

My mentor's feedback:

Wow Ruby, some big questions here, thanks for giving me so much to think on! 



"The rich know they would not be rich without the poor" - how can you relate this to Friere's concept of conscientization? Can we argue that 'the wealthy' are actively repressing 'the poor' through conscious actions? As a society, how responsible are we for ignorance & how does this play into education, and oppression (as per Friere's constructs)? 



I really thought this statement of yours was great: "Distraction is suppression in modern times" and I wonder if this is a modern affection - or if distraction has always been a tool of suppression/oppression. In the town I was near to in Bosnia, to appease a poor community that had limited infrastructure (many families had no running water) the local government had installed one of those giant swings, the ones you see at fairs, rather than provide them with tools or improved infrastructure.

Omprakash Grant Essay Submitted!

On December 16, 2012, Delhi was humiliated internationally through the “gang rape” of one of her daughters. This act infuriated a sleeping India. Women, formerly camera-shy, rose to confront the corrupt system that never reported half of its sexual assault cases. I left India August 16, 2012, just 4 months before the incident. The victim went by the name “Jyoti Singh Pandey.” “Jyoti” is my aunt’s name; “Singh,” my cousin’s last name; “Pandey,” my last name. It could very easily have been my aunt, my cousin, me. Even violence is not equal: most female victims are punished through assault; contrarily, most male victims are punished through automatic weapons or physical beatings. People for Parity does not want to see gender-based violence equalized but eradicated.

This year, through my thesis, I have completely focused on gender roles, gender discrimination, and gender-based violence. All women in my family were married before they were twenty, some when they were fourteen. All women gave birth until they gave birth to a son. I am the only woman who received an education higher than eighth grade. After my father lost his job last month, even my mother, a homemaker, noticed that the system needed a change. Never educated, she struggles to find a suitable job. All of this is different for me, and I try daily to make sense of it. Since this battle has become personal and I now carry baggage with me, my volunteer experience is extremely serious.

Violence at home in India is still considered a “personal problem.” However, People for Parity makes it their problem, too. Through my research, I have learned that gender roles cause gender disparity, which causes gender-based violence. People for Parity starts from GBV and works backward to eliminate the problem. I would fit perfectly into this organization. I can converse with the local population fluently in Hindi. I tell stories that they can relate to. I have initiated my own research, created my own questions, and am now looking for the correct answers. Also, I will be fully prepared through my EdGE course. My Partner’s goals and my goals are the same. Years after the “gang rape,” the infuriated voices have given up. People for Parity keeps the anger alive. In a room filled with quiet people, the few who speak are heard through People for Parity’s blogs, workshops, and app, “Pukar.” At the end of “Othello,” Othello kills his wife, Desdemona, after suspecting her infidelity. Desdemona dies never revealing who killed her. When Othello realizes Desdemona’s fidelity, he stabs himself. If Desdemona and Othello had trusted each other, had given each other a chance to speak, harsh consequences probably would not have ensued. Four centuries later, we still have “Desdemona”s and “Othello”s everywhere. It is time finally to give them a “happily ever after.”

As a volunteer with my partner, People for Parity, I will talk to the local population, especially those who come for help. I have to be an empathetic listener to convince them not to let one incident suppress them for a lifetime, to encourage them to fight. Also, I will publicize workshops and training that teach the local community about street harassment and masculinity. People for Parity has also designed its own app named “Pukar” that is interconnected with many local police systems. I will help advertise this app and teach others to download and use it. I have to enable “individual transformative journeys to overcome gendered identities.” Furthermore, I will organize events and work on the creative aspect of campaigning and advertising online and offline. All in all, I will promote their goals, which happen to be my goals as well. I will have travelled many seas to help with anything that can close the gender gap.  

“It is a small world after all.”  All seniors work on a project, “senior thesis,” for a whole school year and then present their findings to a group of judges talented in the subject. My current judges are Yogi Patel, co-founder of Pratham USA, and Jasmit Dhaliwal – Perez, a lawyer with a degree in women and feminist studies. My goal is to find a long-term solution to reduce gender disparity. I want to create an organization called “Sheroes and Heroes Unite” within my student body that will continue to serve this purpose. My thesis mentor, Kelly Rula, is an alumna from my high school, the School for the Talented and Gifted in Dallas, TX. My thesis instructor, Alfonso Correa, introduced me to Kelly Rula, who introduced me to Omprakash, which introduced me to People for Parity. As EdGE emphasizes, I must know what my recipients actually desire more than what I have in mind for them.  People for Parity will give me an opportunity to physically see the gender gap and will allow me to personally seek advice from the people I want my organization to help. I can return to the USA and continue the same work People for Parity does.

I promote Omprakash on a daily basis; I already have a Kickstarter, an “indiegogo,” and a blog that highlights my time with Omprakash. I tell my thesis mentor, judges, instructors, and classmates about my findings through the EdGE course. After I return from New Delhi, India, my organization will be up and running. The organization’s members, college and high school students, will learn about Omprakash through me. I will encourage them to grasp the resources Omprakash offers and will prepare them in our club meetings to become better candidates to volunteer abroad through Omprakash. After my organization begins to gain pace, I could even partner with Omprakash. Omprakash will benefit through an addition of qualified volunteers and a dedicated partner. My organization, “Sheroes and Heroes Unite,” will promote the younger generation to look outside their “personal bubbles.” Omprakash’s vision is to empower “everyone involved to become more conscious participants in processes of social transformation.” I am enthusiastic and want more people involved. Our goals are not only similar; they are synergistic. 

EdGE Course Week #3 Response

Grant application was submitted! yay!!

Question: 

For this week's response, we ask you to reflect on the term 'raising critical consciousness.' What is the difference between the very common phrase 'raising awareness' and what we've presented as 'raising critical consciousness'? How does the notion of ‘raising critical consciousness’ inform your sense of what you hope to give or gain through your EdGE experience, both in the short term and in the long term? Please discuss at least one example of ‘raising critical consciousness’ (in history or in your personal life). Who was driving this effort? Why was it an important effort? What was the impact?

My response: 

Raising awareness is more about a group than about an individual. Raising awareness is to let a population know that something exists. It literally "raises" a population to be more "aware." "Raising critical consciousness" is to go beyond just knowing a situation. One is not to be informed, he or she must question and discuss. He or she must rise above just acknowledging a situation. Often times, many people conform because it is easier than to portray different, individual beliefs. It is easier to conform when there is a group involved, which is more likely with "raising awareness" than with a more individual process, "raising critical consciousness." Raising critical consciousness allows one to understand the many biases, then use it to understand the problem and proceed towards change or a solution. It is a personal battle. It is up to the individual to be actually aware of the situation, know the ins and outs, and initiate a forum to solve a complex problem. Also, it is not a temporary process. " It is a lifelong struggle." It requires all of the senses of the body. One must observe, listen, question, and commit once they have started.  I hope that I am able to raise critical consciousness in myself and in others. I want to have a mutual educational experience. I want to know actually how my volunteer experience will help me and the local population. Long term, I hope this EdGE course causes me to question simple situations. I do not want to believe what others say just because they say it. I want to have that zeal to do some research myself, invigorate my own beliefs, question those in my group, and believe a situation and solution because I have thought about it and not because others have already thought for me. I think I started 'raising critical consciousness' last year. I was assigned to write a persuasive paper for a composition class. In bold headlines, the title read something along the lines of, "Clothing correlated with rape." At first, I believed it. In other countries, most woman cover themselves completely. The few who went against the norms were punished. However, when I started doing research, I realized that these women who went against the norms were formidable. They were volatile and capricious. Men would rape more of the covered woman because they would not speak out loud and they would not make the heinous act public if they cared about their social status and family. It shocked me. Fashion and rape had barely anything to do with each other. From then on, I try not to let something settle me. I try to work with it, argue with it, and reason with it, whatever "it" may be. Now, this course is allowing me to question things I was not sure I should even question. I mean, the newspaper did say it in bold, right? Wrong. "Raising critical consciousness," I think, is about raising yourself and looking beyond the ordinary and looking through different perspectives. It is to bring yourself into the picture. 

HACKED then UNHACKED: EdGE Week #3

My observations:

In response to: 

Mandarin Bennet, "Filling the Gap: The Step from Gap Year Volunteering to Global Citizenship"

Bennet's message is pretty accurate and ironical. Although empowerment is key to social transformation, it will not arise just because of a volunteer placement. Empowerment is something the individual volunteer must work on and seek. He or she must see that everyone and anyone can make a change if the right effort is put in. This belief may not occur just through a volunteer placement trip. It occurs after thinking and brain-storming. The volunteer experience might expedite this process. I think "Global Citizen" is a weird term used these days. "Global Citizen" is someone who can blend into any culture or part of the world and produce some positive change. I think it's very hard to do that, and this term is used too frequently, reducing its actual definition.

In response to: 

Semantics: Differentiating 'Us' vs. 'Them'

I never knew how the vocabulary became what it is today. This was a very interesting article. These short terms have begun to generalize a large population and many countries. I think it is necessary to put these terms in quotations because someone else coined it for simplicity and not for broad generalizations. Everyone should not believe that this word symbolizes a whole culture or group of people. It is good to know syntax. When connecting with the public, it is important to use terms they can understand. Most people in America feel pity when they hear "Third World." They have used the term as a pathway to lead them to poverty, famine, racism, inequality, etc. I believe it is important to let the volunteers know how to refer to the people they are helping to the people here in the "Western world."

Omprakash Grant

Edge Week #2 was a success! It is favorite lesson so far. It contains many videos that are from satirical to inspirational.

The week's focus was on the company, "Uncharted Play" and their invention, the SOCCKET. It is a soccer ball that has capabilities to turn 30 minutes of play into 3 hours of clean energy. There are many sources and excerpts that give different perspectives on this innovation. At the end of the lesson, I was asked why I liked or disliked the SOCCKET.

I replied:
I am not exactly sure if it is as efficient as it claims to be. A half hour of play is claimed to produce 3 hours of electricity. The numbers are attractive and seem to promote efficiency. However, this electricity cannot be distributed that well. Only one person or child can embrace these three hours of electricity. Soccer is a team sport. One ball for the whole team. One child takes one ball home, and the other kids either do not have a SOCCKET ball or could not play with it for the day to produce the electricity needed. The kids are less likely to play ball by themselves. Then again, this is not a non-profit organization. It is a business, which tries to produce some change with its profit. It is kind of like TOMS except electricity is probably more of a necessity than shoes are. I think the technology is definitely advanced. After this short radio piece, however, it seems as if even the technology does not work or harness energy well. The mass production of the SOCCKET reduces the amount of time taken to test every product and create a back-up plan if the product fails. From the 8 out of 10 people personally asked in Puebla, Mexico, it seemed as if the kids did not find it as fun or efficient to continue using it for more than a few months. The organization claims that its sole purpose is to enhance the fun and to promote play. After the electricity capability of the ball disintegrates, the SOCCKET still remains a normal soccer ball. The children should find fun in this toy despite the SOCCKET technology. On the contrary, after the electricity power fails, the children do not care for the ball anymore. If the organization's purpose to to promote play, the product should remain fun even without its electricity-generating capabilities. If the SOCCKET cannot match its own mission, the balls are a waste of a lot of money. These families and children need to be asked what they really want to create fun and play in the community. What would they want to play with? Around $60-$80 for one ball that does not even work that well is a waste of technology and time. Instead, this money can be used to connect the house to the power grid, as suggested in the radio piece, which will give electricity to the whole family rather than just one child. The efforts of this organization is definitely a step in the right direction. A better solution would be to think of their ultimate "customers." Although large companies such as State Farm and Porsche buy this product in mass, the SOCCKET eventually ends in the hands of children from "underdeveloped" cities. It is not necessary to appeal to the large companies. These companies will always have money, and will spend this money as charity to promulgate their company's name across the globe. After surveying a population, the organization should use the energy-technology towards something that will aid the community as the community sees fit. A business is afloat on customer satisfaction. This radio piece shows more dissatisfaction and nonchalance among its ultimate customers.

Kit Dobyns' response: Ruby, those are some great insights! With such high rates of customer satisfaction, why is that SOCCKET continues to excel as a business?

My response again: I think it is highly due to its inventors. The technology and design are flashy, and it was a student-originated idea or invention. I think it is because the middlemen, such as State Farm, do not follow-up with the product as the radio piece did. The SOCCKET has been appreciated by the President of America, by Fortune 2011, and Harvard College. Sponsors can paste their company logos all over the balls, achieving goals of advertisement and charity at the same time. It has a lot to do with the hype. 1/5 of the human population lacks stable electricity. This SOCCKET ball produces clean energy. The companies think they are making a great difference since they are helping one fifth of the human population. They cannot even reach these many people through television advertisements since this one fifth does not have enough electricity for cable connection. It is a win-win for them. It is a $99 ball. Individuals are less likely to buy it; however, it appealing to larger companies. There are probably a lot more factors to consider. I believe that SOCCKET is a great innovation and idea that produces lots of capital and somewhat minor change. The lots of capital attracts more capital investors, keeping SOCCKET in business.

EdGE Week 2

This week's question is: 

In what ways -- and for what reasons -- do explicit efforts to 'help the poor' often have unexpected consequences?

My observations:

Aaron Ausland: Taxonomy

I think I am part of Type 4, 5 and 6. I am going to learn and do "service learning" as well. I want to go with an open mind, create my own questions, and learn how to solve them through a long-term solution. I think my trip could be classified as a Type 5 as well. It is not as short, but it does share some similar beliefs. If made explicit by all parties: the volunteer, the sending organization, and the host community, the trip would be more than valuable. In the end, all parties will have been impacted positively. All the parties work together as a team, and I think I will be doing the same during my trip as well. I think it is also a Type 6. It is not exactly a community "tour," but the community controls it. Omprakash does not send us to go in, help a little, and then remove ourselves from the community. It makes us join the community, help the community, leave the community in a better condition, and leave the community leaders to take care of the community while we are gone. It immerses us into the community. Since the organizations we help have people working there who are part of the community, they can make sure the good work and progress continues. The community in the end profits. It is the most benign type. We involve ourselves and the people who live there to the greatest extent. I think the EdGE program is a little unique. It definitely touches on Type 4 and 6. However, it also promotes long-term volunteerism. It does not make us see the poor; it makes us work with them and live with them. It is a different approach to the same problem: a better approach.

Omprakash on Incentives

I researched a lot of "volunteer programs," and it just does not feel as fun. It does not leave any room to discover, to create a profile, to connect with other volunteers and previous volunteers, and especially does not allow you to talk to the directors and coordinators of the programs you want to volunteer with. Omprakash leaves some room to discover. You can browse through the programs all over the world. Also, the programs reply back really quickly. I think Omprakash is a good middleman. It does not interfere; it just promotes and pushes.

http://www.mulagofoundation.org/ideas/pwp/go-big-or-go-home-investing-scalable-solutions

Schedule

February 2 - 16

• Finish grant applications (due date Feb 15th)
• Finalize judges
• Get to know more about Kohl's Cares Scholarship Program
• Make a video about my work
• Finish Indiegogo and Kickstarter
• Start non-profit paperwork

February 16 - March 2

• Launch online fundraisers
• ACTIVELY FUND RAISE
• Schedule a date to present
• What location to present?
• Start website
• Start logo
• Actively do non-profit work

March 2 - 16

• Make a Twitter and Facebook account for my organization
• Start thesis process paper
• Start creating a way to present to an audience
• Make a represent.com if necessary

DON'T FORGET TO KEEP UP WITH THE EDGE COURSES!!!!