It is a natural tendency of people to see everything in terms of the world that they are accustomed to. We call this “cultural bias.” Cultural bias is manifest many ways, one for example, when the people of the so-called economically prosperous countries set out to both measure, and fix, poverty. Because in their world, their conception of poverty, or lack thereof, is determined by monetary income, they project such a perception on the remainder of the world. Looking at the entire world in terms of income they find that the better half of humanity is poor. Good souls that they are, they want to fix it.
One of the difficulties is that poverty is a cultural conception, and it is perceived in different ways by different people. Does a poor person in a poor country experience the same thing as a poor person in a rich country? Experience says no. Instead, the experience of life relative to income is different in each culture. However, a general observation has been made that in “poor countries” most people are relatively comfortable, but in “rich countries” the poor are not.
I have personally met Indian villagers who would be classified as poor under United Nations guidelines of having less than $1.25 daily income per capita, and I can say from direct experience that these people do not think of themselves as poor, nor do they feel the effects of poverty as a person in America would at the same level of income. The same is true of the “poor” people I know in E. Europe.
What makes the difference? In a word, culture. The culture of an Indian village is vastly different in terms of values and expectations of life. Neither better nor worse, it is simply, different. For example, what passes as an acceptable house in an Indian or Ukrainian village is vastly different than that of urban or suburban America or Europe. Regardless of the contrast in appearance and amenities it is still considered an adequate house, and people will live there just as happily as the wealthier people live in their house. The same is true for other daily needs. Moreover, villagers in India and Ukraine produce a good deal of their own food, have less clothing requirements than their Western counterparts, and fewer other financial demands for things such as cars, insurance, or frivolous consumer goods, because these things are not a necessary part of their culture. Nonetheless the UN wants to change their culture, and that of many other people around the world, in order to raise them above “poverty” by making sure that they have more than $2 a day. That seems like a nice goal, but perhaps we might pause to consider just what having more money is likely to do.
We have an example from recent history. Anthropologist Helena Norberg-Hodge was the first foreigner accepted to make her home in Ladakh (Kashmir). She had the privilege of living there over the course of three decades, coming to know life in the traditional villages before the intrusion of Western culture, and she documented what it was like. The Ladakhis lived in a agrarian subsistence economy. Though not an easy lifestyle by Western standards, people met their basic physical, social, spiritual and creative needs within the security of a caring, sharing community, and experienced evident joy. Their happiness was not dependent upon anything external, such as income or possessions; it was simply experienced as a matter of daily living. Being mutually dependent they maintained a deep-rooted respect for each other’s fundamental needs, and an acceptance of the natural limitations of the environment kept the Ladakhi people free from misplacing values of worth.
At the time when this was observed, the Ladakhis might well have been considered poor by international standards because their income was minimal and most of their needs were obtained as a product of their own hands. While international observers might have classified the Ladhakis as poor, they themselves certainly did not. They were a satisfied and joyful people. But something happened to change that—the introduction of Western culture along with its money. Norbert-Hodge explains how it was the tourists who brought poverty to Ladakh:
“A Western tourist can spend more money in a day than what a Ladakhi family might in one year. Seeing this, Ladakhis suddenly feel poor. The new comparison creates a gap that never existed before because in traditional Ladakh, people didn’t need money in order to lead rich and fulfilling lives. Ladakhi society was based on mutual aid and cooperation; no one needed money for labor, food, clothing, or shelter . . . In the traditional economy, Ladakhis knew that they had to depend on other people, and that others in turn depend on them. In the new economic system, local interdependence disintegrates along with traditional levels of tolerance. In place of cooperative systems meeting needs, competition and scarcity become determinants for survival. Perhaps the most tragic of all the changes I have observed in Ladakh is the vicious circle in which individual insecurity contributes to a weakening of family and community ties, which in turn further shakes individual self-esteem. Consumerism plays a central role in this whole process, since emotional insecurity generates hunger for material status symbols. The need for recognition and acceptance fuels the drive to acquire possessions that will presumably make you somebody . . . It is heartbreaking to see people buying things to be admired, respected and ultimately loved, when in fact the effect is almost always the opposite . . . [they are] set apart which furthers the need to be accepted.”[1]
It is interesting to observe how it was the introduction of money that brought poverty to Ladakh. Prior to Westerners arriving with a lot of money to spend, nobody thought of themselves as poverty-stricken, although it was likely that their income was less than $1.25 per day. Only by comparing themselves to these foreigners, what they possessed and how they lived, did the Ladakhis begin to see themselves in a different light, as being in poverty and needing what they didn’t need before—money and whatever it buys. Sadly, at the same time, they were purchasing alienation and isolation.
Is it due to our cultural bias that we want to eliminate poverty in the sense that we know it? Will that actually eliminate poverty or create it where it didn’t exist before? One of the United Nations’ Millennium Development Goals, the elimination of global poverty, includes these three targets:
- To halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people whose income is less than $1/day
- To achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all, including women and young people, and
- To halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people who suffer from hunger
Although these seem to be worthwhile goals arguments can be made that the manner in which the goals and targets are stated are culturally biased, in effect determining the approach, and thereby limiting the means of attaining the targets. The manner in which the targets are stated presupposes a business development model of production for the market economy, employing people to work for others’ interests. Last year, in a vague report, the UN Secretary General said that although “significant progress” had been made, urgent and increased efforts were needed to meet the Goals by 2015. Needless to say hundreds of millions of dollars are being invested in accomplishing these goals. But if the cultural bias were lifted these same goals could be accomplished with much less money. Here is an example.
In the past half-century, nearly every development model has failed to bring Sub-Saharan Africa to a level where it can compete in an international market, and at the same time give people needed jobs. But all of these international development concepts have been stood on their head by the single-handed efforts of one young man. A second generation devotee of Krishna, Alexander Petroff,[2] 25 years of age, went to the war-torn, economically destitute Democratic Republic of Congo with a proposition for the government. He wanted to build a self-sufficient, environmentally sustainable village. The government agreed to his proposal and he was given 40 hectares of land on which his organization, Working Villages International (WVI), created a development model called Village Self Reliance. Village Self Reliance is founded on the two ideas of swadeshi and sustainable agriculture. The Gandhian principle swadeshi, or “localized economics,” refers to local production for local consumption—people producing for their own needs. According to the principle of swadeshi, whatever is made or produced in the village must be used first and foremost by the members of the village. Any excess can then be sold. At the very least in this approach, people have jobs and they are fed. Sustainable agriculture is accomplished by using organic methods without external inputs, and using bullocks for plowing instead of fuel-thirsty tractors.
Starting with $70,000 from private donations, within two years WVI employed 400 workers supporting 350 families, and producing 50,000 lbs. of rice per month, becoming the second-largest rice producer in the province. Besides the rice they also grew tons of other vegetables. Instead of solving problems at the symptom level, WVI addressed the root causes of hunger, unemployment and violence using a development model that can be adjusted to almost any region in the world. So in two years, not fifteen, one young man working with local people on a very modest budget accomplished not only the economic targets of the MDG, but many of the other targets as well.
The point that I am trying to make is that instead of jumping through a lot of hoops to adjust the income, why not simply adjust the culture by removing the external demands? This is easier because in many parts of the world a simple culture already exists. We have an uphill battle however, if we want to change the culture by luring people into being consumers, having jobs, commuting to work each day, and changing their lifestyle to one of artificial dependence on others. In fact, by choosing the latter approach, it is likely that although external economic targets may be realized the people themselves will be less happy and less secure, just as the Ladakhis were after the arrival of Western culture.
Changing the culture to one of simplicity is actually the easiest way to achieve security and happiness. That is what ISKCON’s founder-acarya, Srila Prabhupada, encouraged his followers to do. He called it simple living and high thinking—living simply in order to sufficiently care for the needs of the body, and reap the benefits of doing so in terms of time to be used in activities of self-realization. If our time is properly utilized in worship of the Lord, then our simple living can also be very fulfilling and satisfying. Devotees of Krishna all around the world have experienced the satisfaction that comes from devotional service to the Supreme Lord.
But, we may protest, we can’t all go backward to a simple village life. It’s not possible!” Not everyone will of course, but certainly many can. And why not, if we can actually become secure and fulfilled there? In my experience, having lived in villages both in India and Ukraine, I have found that it’s actually not so difficult, and there are many enjoyable aspects of village life that are impossible to achieve in cities. Right now I live in a simple 3-room house. The central wood stove heats the house, the water, and cooks our meals. There is no running water in the house, meaning no bathroom, and the toilet is outside. Why am I, an American formerly accustomed to modern amenities, living in such “primitive” conditions? Because I want to follow the instructions of my spiritual master, and to learn first-hand the challenges and advantages of simple living.
The village of Ryabuino, about an hours drive outside of the city of Kharkov, Ukraine, is the site of our developing eco-spiritual community Gitagrad. Our effort here is to live a simple life of Krishna Consciousness. Actually, it is one of our goals is to become self-sufficient to the point where we can achieve what the UN considers poverty, living on less than $2 a day. Ironically however, we need money to achieve that goal since we need to buy our way out of the system, building our infrastructure to the point of self sufficiency.
Like poverty, the concept of wealth is also a cultural consideration. All wealth is not measured in terms of dollars. Wealth is also be measured in terms of personal happiness and fulfillment. We think that the internal, non-tangible experiences of happiness and fulfillment are more worthy goals to attain than an external income of $2 a day, or even $500 a day. When we can live a simple natural life in Krishna Consciousness we believe that we will have then become very wealthy.
Keep up with my adventures in simple living by subscribing to my blog: Gitagrad.blogspot.com
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment