To share some thoughts and observations with you:
- One thing I really love about these conferences is being surrounded by people who have the same intense interest in certain issues as I do. Even if we disagree on many points, the idea-exchange is motivational. I felt that this conference, in particular, emphasized the importance of dialogue and listening (something I also learned a few years ago at the UN). Everyone is passionate and can get carried away, but it’s disconcerting to see people more interested in being right and in making accusations rather than engaging others in thoughtful, respectful debate.
- My favorite session of the conference was the Ashoka panel (www.ashoka.org) with fellows from all over the world (I’ll get into social entrepreneurship below). The fellows were from Kenya, Spain, Colombia, and Peru, and have done some fantastic work in education, agriculture, health, and the environment. You should check out their organizations: www.kacekenya.com, www.escuelanueva.org, www.ciudadsaludable.org, and www.comunidadescaf.org. What I enjoyed so much aobut their talk was not only learning about their fascinating projects but also their failures. Listening to successful NGO leaders candidly talk about their setbacks made them that much more inspirational.
- I felt there was something obviously missing from the conference. I’m sure many people would argue with me about it not being the right space or unrealistic. However, it seems strange to me that at a development conference located in a very confined region that there were no people who NGOs provide services for. In an area where it is feasible for those people to be present, are we doing them a disservice by not having them there? How are the NGOs representing them? One thing I admire about Mann Deshi is that it often fights to bring clients with them.
- Sexy words. I am of course guilty of this in my own work. Sexy words are undefined words used repeatedly in the NGO and development sectors. This is not to say that there aren’t people who critically examine these words, but that I have yet to find an NGO in my immediate surroundings that uses these words in its core vocabulary while also explaining what they mean.
· Holistic and comprehensive: These words are often used interchangeably, but are they really interchangeable? Mann Deshi is very guilty of using the word “holistic” when (I think) it is inappropriate and misrepresentative.
· Empower: This word is thrown around left and right, especially within microfinance and institutions who work primarily with women. But what the heck does it mean? Is it something measurable? How would you measure it? Is it something people feel? Who gets to say when someone is empowered? I’m beginning to consider throwing this word out of my vocabulary.
· Community: This is the big one, the queen mother of undefined and overused words, and I am just as guilty as anyone else of (mis)using it. What makes a community? Can it only be defined by the community itself? Who in the community gets to define it? Who gets left out of the definition, and who is included who does not want to be included?
- Sexy ideas. The latest popular trends in development.
· Microfinance: Since this is what I do, I’ll have to get into this one at a later post.
· Social entrepreneurship and sustainability: Firstly, I don’t mean “save the environment” when I use the word sustainable. I mean ensuring that an NGO’s projects, organizational functioning, and model are sustainable. I am doing a bit of disservice by tossing these words together, but choose to do so because social entrepreneurship functions around the concept of sustainability.
Maybe it’s because I come from a rights-based background and am (overly) idealistic, but I’m not going to lie; social entrepreneurship really irks me. That’s not to say that social entrepreneurs haven’t done good things; the above Ashoka fellows certainly have. I’ll bore you all if I get too into my concerns so I’ll keep my already underdeveloped thoughts and argument on the topic brief.
I find the idea of social entrepreneurship too business focused. I feel that instead of maintaining particular ideals and concepts that if those particular principles aren’t sustainable or don’t fit into some innovative variation of a traditional business model then they are often dropped. I know that all non-profits must exist in the real world, and that they often have to play around and do a great deal of accommodating and adjustment to get the funding they need.
What social entrepreneurship really fails to do is critically analyze the historical, political, economic, and social context of certain issues. In this way, it fails to hold accountable actors that have historically exploited marginalized groups of people. While many of these actors contribute to improving the lives of those people through social entrepreneurship, it’s the marginalized individuals and communities that must make adjustments rather than those actors that must make adjustments to accommodate those individuals.
At the same time, I realize that perhaps fighting that kind of fight could do a greater disservice and injustice to those people by failing to facilitate the improvement of their lives. Being too focused on certain ideals might not get people what they actually need. *Sigh* it gets too complicated for me to wrap my little brain around…
- Representation. I don’t know how much of my women’s studies career focused on this word, but it’s finally coming into play in my “real world” experience. I’ll give two examples to illustrate my conundrum:
· Many of the villages that Mann Deshi’s clients live in face power problems that severely limit their productivity. Some clients can afford UPS batteries or environmentally unfriendly generators. Others cannot and simply go without light. At the conference we made a connection with a man who makes solar power lights that cost about half the price and do not really need to be maintained or replaced. Plus they’re better for the environment.
We’ve been thinking about how to get money for these solar lights to give to some clients (others might be able to afford them). Chetna had the idea of using our global giving website and having a “give a family (or a woman) a light” sort of campaign. Now, of course this is appealing to westerners; we’re totally exploiting their perceptions of poor families in rural India. At the same time, we’re also perpetuating those perceptions. So, what should we do: tell the boring story and get less money, or appeal to their emotions and get more money?
- I attended a case study on using self-help groups to help people manage their diabetes. For the most part it seems like the organization is doing pretty good work. However, they repeatedly referred to patients’ apathy and noncompliance as a major setback for the organization. These two words strike a chord with me, and often I feel that what some people may understand as apathy and noncompliance may mean any number of things. Maybe they have trouble travelling, or can’t find the time or money to invest in their care. Perhaps they need more assistance caring for themselves. Perhaps the disease and people’s perceived attitudes need to be further explored and viewed in the broader context of their lives. When I hear the words apathetic and noncompliant, my immediate response is, “why?” Why are we seeing them this way? Why are they this way? Are they feeling this way? What can we do to not make them feel this way?
