Sending you good vibes from Stanford ;)
Salam, muraho!
(that’s hello in Arabic, Kinyarwanda :))
Sarah: I am originally from Jordan and this is my second year at the fabulous Stanford University. My long-term goal in life is to return to Jordan, and using the skills and connections I have made here in the US, help my country go from a developing to a developed nation. Originally, I thought the best way to do this is to become involved with the UN or non-profit work, but last year, I read a book called The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid by C. K. Prahalad that completely blew me out of the water and made me question all my presumptions. This book argues that the best way to improve a country’s welfare is to start a for-profit and treat the lower class population – or the ‘bottom of the pyramid’, as the book refers to them – as consumers, and not charity cases. By engaging them as discerning consumers, and providing them with the products and services they need, you can greatly improve their standard of living.
Questions for the students in Örebro and Khaborovsk, out there in cyberspace:
What do you think about Prahalad’s proposal? Do you think his business/consumerism model is a better model for development than philanthropic work?
What about ethics? Do you think that it is unethical to make a profit from those in the lower class?
Ingrid: It is really interesting that you post your age in your intro! Where I am from in Rwanda, it’s quite normal to include your age in your intro, just like you guys did, Contrary to here in America, where it is not that common to have age as relevant in a introduction; so talking of intercultural, this is something!
My research topic was analyzing the rhetoric of raising awareness for social justice, specifically the rhetoric that Dr. Paul Farmer, the founder of Partners in Health (a non-profit organization that provides medical services to the poor- see pih.org) uses to raise awareness for social justice. I was interested in this topic because I had a suspicion that raising awareness about social justice has become an end in itself instead of it being a tool to have Social Justice. I found that the reason why raising awareness becomes an end in itself is because the term “raising awareness” is ambiguous; as a leader whose goal is Taking action and creating change, your rhetoric has to always emphasize the start point and the end point- the problem at hand and the transformation that you are working for. A leader has to thoroughly understand the problem he/she is dealing with and the transformation that needs to occur, most of the time, to understand these things means learning from the people concerned with the problem you want to solve; their culture, customs, beliefs, their suffering, their ideas…
Questions:
Is activism for Social Change is something commonly done in Universities in Sweden?
Take a look at the abstracts of the research projects we each worked on this quarter and let us know what you think:
Abstract for Ingrid's paper:
Raising awareness is incorporated in everyday life encounters, from videos of Bono talking about poverty and Save Darfur wristbands distributed at events in high schools; raising awareness is a vital tool in affecting Social Change. Effective Raising Awareness incites the population to take action. It brings a change and a solution to a problem. This paper explores the mechanisms between raising awareness and Taking action. My argument is that the rhetoric used in raising awareness will determine whether your raising awareness begets taking action, or whether your raising awareness begets more raising awareness. By using Dr. Paul Farmer’s rhetoric as a model, I claim that the rhetoric of transformation used in effective raising awareness and not used in ineffective raising awareness is the main difference between effective awareness raising and ineffective raising awareness.
Abstract for Sarah's paper:
After more than sixty years of failed negotiations, many Arabs believe that little can be done to see a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, the Palestinian Leadership does have the means to broker a definitive peace deal with Israel, by first committing a reformation of the style of rhetoric it employs. In this paper, I argue that the choice of rhetoric employed by Palestinian leaders is of colossal consequence. The rhetoric employed by the current ruling party, Hamas, is greatly hurting the Palestinians’ self-interest, and I demonstrate this by examining the party’s rhetoric and the Israeli response to this rhetoric. Hamas should abandon the line of rhetoric they currently employ and instead opt to adopt a style of rhetoric that emulates that of Palestinian Statesman Haydar ‘Abd Al-Shafi at the 1991 Madrid Peace Conference, whose opening address I analyze rhetorically. Informed by the findings of the rhetorical analyses, I put forth a preliminary model whose recommendations the Palestinian Leadership should use to fashion a policy of rhetoric that will manifest enormous impact on the progress of peace negotiations.
Comments
Ingrid,
I really like the focus of your paper! Especially since it seems like the Stanford community is really all about social justice and service, i feel that the rhetoric behind social awareness and the leadership behind it should be explored.
Posted by: Andrea Sy | April 1, 2009 07:53 PM
Sarah,
I enjoyed reading your ideas about different ways to treat the lower class, it is a timly social issue.
I believe business,consumerism model is better for developement than a philantropic one, because bisiness model teaches a lower class "a real life" model and sometimes it provides them with a tool to start business by themselves. As we say here "one can feed the poor for a long time or give him a tool and teach how to make secure his/her own life by him/herself" .
The second variant looks a lot worthier.
Posted by: Olga Kovbasyuk | April 4, 2009 04:28 AM
Hi Ingrid,
Your topic sounds very interesting especially because Paul Farmer has become one of the most recognized leaders in global health and international social justice. However, I wonder whether his organization, Partners in Health, and thus his ethos allow him to be such a powerful figure in raising awareness--because he is simultaneously creating real change. As a result, I don't think he is necessarily an example of only trying to raise awareness without promoting real efforts at progress toward social change.
Posted by: Avery | April 4, 2009 06:18 PM
Hi Sarah,
I am currently in Alyssa's spring PWR 2 on Global Controversies. The new perspective that you write about--coming out of Prahalad's book--is an interesting one that I am not familiar with. Does Prahalad suggest a way that the "for-profit" can be specifically geared towards helping this "bottom of the pyramid"? Or is the idea more that they should be exposed to the full force of the business/consumer model in order to learn from it?
It seems to me that some sort of support structure would have to be built in, as the lower class might not have the means to buy the services offered. If they don't have the means, then I don't think I see how this model helps raise their standard of living. But I might be missing something! I can do some reading on my own... Thanks.
Posted by: Byron Milligan | April 4, 2009 10:04 PM
Hi Sarah,
You have a very interesting topic because I know the potential ramifications of a widescale Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Because of the US's alliance with Israel and the hostility of other nations toward Israel, a conflict could escalate drastically. It is also a very delicate situation, in which overly aggressive rhetoric could spark a war. This topic represents the perfect combination of controversy, rhetoric, and leadership.
Jonathan, Spring
Posted by: Jonathan | April 5, 2009 03:25 PM
Hey Sarah,
Since coming to Stanford, I too feel as though my opinion of our world has greatly changed due to my experiences in econ classes in much the same way yours has. I can see how charity and lower class assistance would simply keep the lower class in a constant state of poverty, because they would have a difficult time of finding their role in the economy. By treating them as a consumer, they are able to maximize their utility. They are also able to see their work turn into goods and services that directly benefit them, as opposed to receiving assistance without doing anything to benefit society.
Posted by: Charley | April 5, 2009 09:48 PM
Hi Sarah,
Your research on the role of rhetoric in the Israeli-Arab conflict sounds fascinating. I would be curious to take a look at the rhetoric on the Israeli side of the debate.
Posted by: T. McCormick | April 5, 2009 10:02 PM
Ingrid:
I completely agree that there is a distinct line between raising awareness and creating change. It is so trendy now-a-days to be "aware" of every social problem under the sun, but very few people every change their actions or their dedicate part of their lives or resources to seeing change in the world. It would be interesting to see how rhetoric can be used to instill an urgency for action rather than just an educated mind.
Posted by: Kerry Kraemer | April 5, 2009 10:03 PM
Hey Sarah!
You mentioned that Prahalad's suggestion for improving the quality of life for those belonging to the lower classes is to give them opportunities to achieve their own success instead of treating them like those in need of charity.
Prahalad's comment is reminiscent of my interest in Muhammad Yunus's work in microfinance--he founded the Grameen Bank, which provides loans to those who are too poor to qualify for bank loans but have an entrepreneurial spirit.
What's very encouraging is that microfinancing has enabled many families to increase their standard of living! I believe in the future microfinancing will play an important role in development in third-world countries.
Posted by: Chun Pan | April 6, 2009 01:36 AM
Hi Ingrid,
I really like your analysis about raising awareness. I totally agree with you when you mention how a leader must understand the problem deeply and the solution needed. However, I would argue that raising awareness is part of a process of transformation therefore it may not be an end in itself. I think that finding the solution and bringing a real transformation should be the end sought, if not everything would result in words without concrete actions.
Posted by: Daniel | April 6, 2009 02:57 AM
Hi Ingrid,
You're paper strikes me as extremely interesting. Critically evaluating projects that are unarguably well-intentioned is a difficult thing - it's hard to make sober assessments without seeming cynical or contrary.
I think it's so great that you've made this study, as you seem to have done it in such a constructive way - with an eye towards redirecting our good intentions and enacting positive change, not just towards destroying. I agree with your argument that the inherent vagueness of the objective of "raising awareness" makes it illegitimate as a transformative goal. Awareness should be a means for achieving more concrete, practical goals. Very interesting!
Thanks,
Alex
Posted by: Alex Connolly | April 6, 2009 09:53 AM
Hello, Sarah!
I like your topic very much. I don't think consumerism model is unethical. The rise of the lawer class' standard of living and growth of corporations' profit are supplemental factors. And I believe its'n necessary to choose between these two approaches: consumerism model or philantropic one. To develop a business wiht the people who have less than 1$ a day is difficult. It shouldn't be focused only on charity or business, the combination of these models I think is more apt. At first - to support the minimum needs of people(the goal of charity) then - to learn to use it.
Posted by: Ann Timyacheva | April 8, 2009 06:43 AM
Hey Sarah,
Im in the cairo integrated writing class. I just wanted to contribute to what you said about Jordan being a developing country and how you want to help reduce the gap between the poor and the rich. I thought it was very interesting how Jordan is still a developing country as opposed to a developed country. The value of the Jordanian dinner is higher than dollars. 1 Jordanian=1.4 US dollars. I personally havent been to Jordan but my cousins have lived there for almost 7 years before moving to canada and they keep telling me stories about how modernised it is. Its very fertile i hear and on average people live a comfortable living, living in houses and not appartments.I think king Abdullah has done a great job with Jordan. It rivals Kuwait to me only wihtout the oil and for a country to do this well wihtout natural resources is amazing to me.I just find it interesting how the west has set the bar on what country is a third world, second world or first world like themselves. However, your ideas on how the working and proletariat classes should be regarded as consumers and involved in the system are rather intriguing. I should read that book!
Posted by: Nada Elsayed | April 12, 2009 01:55 AM