Though you may think this blog post is going to have something to do with a recent fishing trip that we went on with Luis (who loves fishing and keeps telling us about when he's going to take us), it's not. I want to ask some questions to our large, devout, and interested readership that I hope exists. And if you, Readership, are not there, well then I'll use this to record some personal thoughts I've had.
We've all heard the adage: Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish; you have fed him for a lifetime. (thanks to the internet for providing the precise wording)
My main question: Does it really matter that we teach the man to fish if he's never going to fish anyways? What if, for example, he doesn't have a boat? Do we give him a boat, too? But we shouldn't do that; it would be better that we teach him to build a boat so that in the future when his boat breaks and starts leaking he can fix it. Of course. But really, is teaching a man to fish better than anything else even if he's never going to fish after we leave?
Another question: The man obviously has been keeping himself alive on something before we showed up, so what if he's actually not too bad at growing corn? Why do we bother to teach him how to fish? This goes back to the first question: why would the man keep fishing after we leave when he already knows how to grow corn and that's easier for him? Maybe he likes corn more than fish. Does he have to learn to like fish? What's so much better about fish in the first place?
So we show up and find (let's call him) Carlos growing corn for his family. We could even say that we find his whole community growing corn for their families. We think that if Carlos and his neighbors had fish in their diet they'd be healthier, they'd be happier, they might learn a trade, and maybe we'd even stimulate some local economic activity. So we teach them to fish.
Another question arises here: How do we know that eating fish is going to be better than eating corn? It may very well be better, but how do we know that? Who is saying that fish is going to be better for Carlos and his family and how did they decide that?
Even if eating fish really is better for Carlos and his neighbors, the problem is that we're the ones telling them this. Carlos has no reason to keep fishing after we leave just because we told him to. Remember, he already survives alright on corn and is loving his daily tortilla with cornbread. What's his incentive to go down the hill to the lake and hold a stick in it for a few hours? But if he and the rest of the community came up with the idea of fishing themselves, could we then be a little more certain that they would change their habits and decide to fish? It's probably a little more likely, though still not entirely certain.
What do we do, then? How do we make a positive impact in the lives of Carlos and his neighbors? (which brings up another issue that we won't discuss right now: why are we trying to make an impact in these people's lives in the first place? How is it our place to do that? And what does that mean?) Is it best to teach them to grow their corn just a little bit better? Is that the best impact we can have? That would make them at least a little better off, right? But would they even continue to do that after we leave?
One last question just to consider: If it's good to have Carlos and his neighbors come up with the idea of eating fish themselves, is there something we can do to help guide them to the idea at least? And what is that?
I'm really not trying to be completely critical of revered adage's here, but I think these questions are pretty central to development issues, and are central to our evaluation project here, too. And in terms of evaluation, I think that questioning one's actions is the first and last place to focus one's efforts.
I know there are a lot of holes in this "fishing theory" I've tried to develop. And obviously I'm pushing the symbolism a little too far. But hopefully asking questions like this has gotten you thinking a little about why we take the approaches we take.
Please comment.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Welcome to Bolivia
We are volunteers for ASCEND, a Humanitarian Alliance, serving in Bolivia. Some of us are here on expeditions, lasting a couple weeks, and others are interning here, lasting anywhere from two to six months. We hope you enjoying reading about our experiences and adventures, while we assist in empowering those in need to save their children and ASCEND out of poverty.
Check out our other sites
Followers
Blog Archive
1 comment:
I wonder if “guiding someone to the idea of fishing” (in the context of your analogy) is ultimately and philosophically much different than teaching fishing, especially in terms of how the guide/teacher values fishing as definitively more desirable, and because of which, intentionally or unintentionally, sees a greater need for it being established in either case (arguably still an imposition). But what if I sincerely believe Carlos needs fish and want to give them to him out of a sincere desire to do what's best for Carlos? Is this any different?
On the other hand, what if it were possible to participate in a different form of exchange, that had little to do with fishing and everything to do with people, about interaction, dialog, relationships…? Where I exchange with Carlos the corn grower, who comes from a specific place, who has a lovely family and who is familiar with my family too. We tend to the corn together in the mornings and in the evenings we go fishing. I’m not there because he needs me or because he needs fish, only because we are human and we need each other. We give and we take. Not that this answers any questions, in fact I think you can't help but critically respond with a whole list of questions. For example, am I proposing this is a natural process? How do I meet and interact with Carlos in the first place? Wouldn’t this approach require a very specific context?
Post a Comment