Geography 331H:
Global Poverty and Care
Course: Geography 331H (Global Poverty and Care)
Taken: Winter 2012, Freshman Year
Professor: Victoria Lawson
Taking Professor Lawson's class my Freshman year was one of my first encounters with the concept of privilege. It was a rather uncomfortable experience that I honestly did not enjoy at the time, but digging into the causes of poverty forced me to reflect more deeply on how fortunate I am to have been born into such a loving and supportive family and to have always been encouraged to pursue my dreams. This class helped me to open my mind to listen to other viewpoints with more compassion and understanding.
Reflection, written March 2012
At some point in your college career, it is inevitable that that you will eventually stumble into a class that challenges what your parents taught you. In Global Poverty and Care, which I took as honors social science credit, we examined our views on poverty and what causes it through the lens of care ethics. In this way, we discussed why individuals who preform caring labor for a living, like home care workers, daycare employees, and mothers, are more likely to be in poverty, as well as how we can better care for those less fortunate by evaluating our work using care ethics. An important idea that we discussed is the difference between residual views on poverty, which look down on the poor because they didn't work hard or are someone inferior, and relational views on poverty, which look at the poor as a function of the behaviors of the rich. Our professor, Victoria Lawson, urged us to avoid thinking about poverty in residual terms and condemned that philosophy as socially unjust.
This is where I started having problems. My dad grew up one of 9 children in a Catholic family in Sacramento. Even though his father was a doctor, they were not wealthy, and his whole childhood they lived thriftily in order to get by. Even though my dad was heralded by his teachers as one of the brightest students in his graduating class, he went to community college before transferring to UC Berkeley because he had to pay for college on his own. My dad went on to become an engineer and a consultant, often working 50-60 hours a week to keep his company going. His success can be directly traced to his hard work and long hours of commitment. My dad taught me that anyone can be successful if they work hard enough and that we are all responsible for supporting ourselves, and when I think about his story I can't help but believe him. Why should we provide benefits to the poor then if receiving handouts will only encourage people to depend on assistance? Throughout this class I wrestled with what I believed and what I was learning, looking for a way to reconcile these ideas.
The answer, I think, lies somewhere in the middle. Yes, there are people who are poor because they are lazy and selfish. And working hard will always lead you to better opportunities than you have now. And encouraging people to accept charity when they are capable of providing for themselves is fundamentally wrong. But my dad's model assumes that the playing field is level when it's not. Some children are born into loving, supportive communities that foster success. Other's aren't so fortunate, or they live in regions or countries where their opportunities for personal growth are limited. To truly care for the poor, we need to address the issue of why they are poor, because only after we solve that will their hard work truly pay off.
Taken: Winter 2012, Freshman Year
Professor: Victoria Lawson
Taking Professor Lawson's class my Freshman year was one of my first encounters with the concept of privilege. It was a rather uncomfortable experience that I honestly did not enjoy at the time, but digging into the causes of poverty forced me to reflect more deeply on how fortunate I am to have been born into such a loving and supportive family and to have always been encouraged to pursue my dreams. This class helped me to open my mind to listen to other viewpoints with more compassion and understanding.
Reflection, written March 2012
At some point in your college career, it is inevitable that that you will eventually stumble into a class that challenges what your parents taught you. In Global Poverty and Care, which I took as honors social science credit, we examined our views on poverty and what causes it through the lens of care ethics. In this way, we discussed why individuals who preform caring labor for a living, like home care workers, daycare employees, and mothers, are more likely to be in poverty, as well as how we can better care for those less fortunate by evaluating our work using care ethics. An important idea that we discussed is the difference between residual views on poverty, which look down on the poor because they didn't work hard or are someone inferior, and relational views on poverty, which look at the poor as a function of the behaviors of the rich. Our professor, Victoria Lawson, urged us to avoid thinking about poverty in residual terms and condemned that philosophy as socially unjust.
This is where I started having problems. My dad grew up one of 9 children in a Catholic family in Sacramento. Even though his father was a doctor, they were not wealthy, and his whole childhood they lived thriftily in order to get by. Even though my dad was heralded by his teachers as one of the brightest students in his graduating class, he went to community college before transferring to UC Berkeley because he had to pay for college on his own. My dad went on to become an engineer and a consultant, often working 50-60 hours a week to keep his company going. His success can be directly traced to his hard work and long hours of commitment. My dad taught me that anyone can be successful if they work hard enough and that we are all responsible for supporting ourselves, and when I think about his story I can't help but believe him. Why should we provide benefits to the poor then if receiving handouts will only encourage people to depend on assistance? Throughout this class I wrestled with what I believed and what I was learning, looking for a way to reconcile these ideas.
The answer, I think, lies somewhere in the middle. Yes, there are people who are poor because they are lazy and selfish. And working hard will always lead you to better opportunities than you have now. And encouraging people to accept charity when they are capable of providing for themselves is fundamentally wrong. But my dad's model assumes that the playing field is level when it's not. Some children are born into loving, supportive communities that foster success. Other's aren't so fortunate, or they live in regions or countries where their opportunities for personal growth are limited. To truly care for the poor, we need to address the issue of why they are poor, because only after we solve that will their hard work truly pay off.