Nicholas Kristof recently wrote, of new research on pediatric health and poverty, that
“This new research addresses an uncomfortable truth: Poverty is difficult to overcome partly because of self-destructive behaviors. Children from poor homes often shine, but others may skip school, abuse narcotics, break the law, and have trouble settling down in a marriage and a job. Then their children may replicate this pattern”.
Besides questions around the differences between correlation and causation, a theme and assertion emerging from Kristof’s writing seems to be this: that ‘poor families’ simply do not love each other as much as non-poor. Whether this is a conscious assertion or not, I do not know. But, it seems to be quite visible. In a 2010 New York Times Op-ed on global poverty, he states
“that if the poorest families spent as much money educating their children as they do on wine, cigarettes and prostitutes, their children’s prospects would be transformed. Much suffering is caused not only by low incomes, but also by shortsighted private spending decisions by heads of households”.
Besides being an extremely broad and patronising generalisation, it is dismissive and unaware of the structural, geographical and local factors that can affect a family’s income, its allocation and access to education. Kristof’s assertion is based on his own experiences in the Republic of Congo, which only encompasses a passive viewing of poverty and not the actual experience of living in, and on an M.I.T study that examined spending patterns in 13 countries. The dates of data for 8 of the 13 countries falls within the range of 1988-1997. The most recent data used in the study was from 2005 (Hyderabad in India). How much can be extrapolated from data that is up to 23 years old? Are ‘poor families’ the only ones that make poor decisions regarding spending and consumption? Do they simply not love one another as much as non-poor families?
The title of the former Kristof article is ‘A Poverty Solution That Starts With a Hug’. The latter, ‘Moonshine or the Kids?’. Another, ‘She’s 10 and Now May Be Sold to a Brothel‘, opens with the following:
“M. is an ebullient girl, age 10, who ranks near the top of her fourth-grade class and dreams of being a doctor. Yet she, like all of India, is at a turning point, and it looks as if her family may instead sell her to a brothel”.
A meta study of Kristof’s writings would be revealing. I know a number of commentators in the development community (and elsewhere), most notably William Easterly, take issue with his writings. In particular, and which is very relevant to the aforementioned articles, is his tendency to ignore and examine the broader, socioeconomic contexts of his subjects. When Kristof does notice and attempt to examine context, he does so clumsily and stereotypically:
”The obsession with schooling is a legacy of Confucianism — a 2,500-year-old tradition of respect for teachers, scholarship and meritocratic exams. That’s one reason Confucian countries like China, South Korea and Vietnam are among the world’s star performers in the war on poverty…Granted, Asian schools don’t nurture creativity, and Vietnamese girls are sometimes treated as second-class citizens who must drop out of school to help at home. But education is generally a top priority in East Asia, for everyone from presidents to peasants”.
Saying that certain Asian countries’ obsession with schooling is a legacy of Confucianism is like saying that the Europe’s similar obsession with schooling is a legacy of Aristotle. Elliott Prasse-Freeman at The New Inquiry, perhaps provides this meta study, deconstructing his writing style and method:
“Broadly speaking, Kristof often employs clever journalistic and prose devices to weave personalized traumas into bite-sized morsels of digestible horror. By playing on his audience’s Orientalist, classist, and racist fantasies, Kristof fabricates legible narratives out of snapshots of distant worlds. He then crafts stunningly simplistic solutions to the seemingly irrevocable problems that plague those backwards places”.
Is the perception, that ‘poor people’ simply do not love each other as much as non-poor, held by Kristof and others? I have asked myself if I hold this hidden perception. I know it seems absurd, but I do not think it is too wildly suggestive. There are a plethora of stereotypes and perceptions of various groups of people that exist and perpetuate poor understandings and misunderstandings. But, it is perhaps hidden and even unconscious perceptions such as this that are the most harmful. What Kristof’s writings show is an indifference to account for human behaviour and decision making capabilities in the context of poverty, stress and difference.
About Brendan Rigby
Brendan is a professional educator, having worked as a teacher at both the primary and secondary levels in China and Australia. Although he pursued the dreams of Indiana Jones in Uzbekistan, he eventually completed an MA in Development Studies at the University of NSW. Brendan has interned with the Centre for Refugee Research and volunteered at ActionAid Australia, Football United & Wokai. After teaching, he became a Senior Researcher and Project Manager in Learning & Teaching at Macquarie University. Brendan currently works as an Education Officer with UNICEF in Tamale, Ghana.
- Web |
- More Posts (41)
{ 13 comments… read them below or add one }
I just finished John Steinbeck's "The Grapes of Wrath" yesterday when I stumbled upon this post again. Maybe Kristof should pull out his copy of this great American novel again.
Another "must read" to challenge people's ideas of who the poor are: Wilkinson-Maposa, S. & Fowler, A. (2009). The poor philanthropist I-IV: How and why the poor help each other. Cape Town: Southern Africa-United States Center for Leadership and Public Values. It contains a great toolkit for development practitioners to use to make sure we're building upon and unleashing "horizontal philanthropy" rather than ignoring or even damaging existing means of mutual support with our "interventions."
See: http://www.impactalliance.org/ev_en.php?ID=14913_…
I'm not sure Mr Christof is asserting that poor people love their families less than wealthy ones (though I haven't seen any of his other writings which may have more obvious intimations). He is, however, presenting a very simplistic view of the complexities of what it is like living in poverty. The whole piece reminds me of right-wing commentators like Andrew Bolt who think it's their god given responsibility to 'cut through' and 'tell it as it is'. It's a populist approach to journalism that doesn't really do much to advance the discussion around what is a pretty interesting issue.
I think you've really hit a huge point there where Kristof ignores any extraneous information to the 'issue' or the 'social ill' that he is covering and boils it down to a self righteous statement of fact that poor people just don't understand enough or know enough or care enough or love enough.
Yes, people, both rich and poor alike, spend money on things that might not seem smart and yes, not every person makes the best decision for their own health and wellbeing (or their kids), but why is it that it is simply the decision that he focuses on and not the larger picture where you must take into account individual freedom of choice and the psychology behind what motivates people, especially when they are faced with great challenge and hardship?
It is as though he is treating poor decision making as a luxury only the rich can afford. Well done on framing that same concept as love and I think that is a very valid point and not too far off the mark at all, based on my own reading of The Kristof.
In 1996 I lived in a village in Mozambique which suffered a measles epidemic. Certainly on the basis of the many heartbreaking funerals of small children that I saw in that time the unimaginable distress of a parent whose child has died is no less in poor countries than in rich ones. I didn't have children myself at that time, but now that I do I often remember those parents.
It's interesting – we don't ask rich people to give up cigarettes, alcohol and drugs… yet drug use among higher income populations is very high too. It might be a more interesting study to understand what circumstances cause children to skip school, or are sent to brothels, or why parents drink more than 'we' think they 'should' compared to their income levels. And just to be a bit provocative: aren't the NGOs falling into the same judgement pit when they run Behaviour Change Programmes (just the name makes me wince)? Aren't these programmes also based on the assumptions that it is the BEHAVIOUR of poor people that causes poverty?
Actually I was of the view that the government spends a fortune telling stupid rich people to cut down their drinking and quit smoking… I do think there's more irony when people with money and means make such stupid choices since they're also the ones with the education to understand the impact!
An illustrative quote from Rick Santorum in Dec. 2011, who is running for the Republican Presidential nomination:
(when told by reporters that 50,000 people die in the U.S every year because of lack of healthcare)
" I reject that number completely, that people die in America because of lack of health insurance. People die in America because people die in America…people make poor decisions with respect to their health and healthcare. And they don't go to the emergency room or they don't go to the doctor when they need to."
To which Stephen Colbert ironically replies: "Yes! If you are dying of cancer it is your own fault for not going to the doctor. And if you can't go to the doctor because you don't have insurance then its your own fault for not having a job. And if you don't have a job because you are dying of cancer then get yourself to a doctor! What is wrong with you?!"
Human, wether poor or rich make their decisions with reference to a particular context. Everyone try to make a best decision with reference to their context. We can not judge any one's decision with our own perspective and reach to the decision that poor do not love their children. I would like to qoute a real life experience. I was walking on the rough beach of Karachi, Pakistan, where I met a poor begger girl. She was a beautiful sparking girl, begging with her other sibblings. After some time, her father appeared and asked me if I want to buy that little girl. I looked at the barren face of her father and thought, how insensitive he is about his children.. I was thinking same that poor do not love their children. Than I considered asking why he want to sell his daughter, who is still a source of income for him being a begger. He replied that he knew that if I buy her, I shall at least keep her in a house and give her better food and clothing. He said "I know, she might face sexual harrassment, have to do domestic labour, but she shall have a roof to sleep under and meal to fill her stomach". With the money he will get on selling her, he can buy food for his other children.
Thank you for sharing your experience Humera. The story cuts right to the heart of it. I am sure many of us, when presented with such situations, and perhaps without even be aware of it, make quick judgements. It seems almost instinctual, until you ask 'why', like you did. "Everyone try to make a best decision with reference to their context"; that is it. Although, where does this relativism sit within the framework of universal human rights? That seems to be one of the most difficult questions to consider when particular contexts offer little hope or optimism
His attitude (as you report it – I haven't read his stuff) reminds me of the unfair characterisations of indigenous Australians during the intervention. What I find concerning is that people are so ready to accept such negative stereotypes of the other so unquestioningly. A simple narrative which exonerates the priveliged reader from any part in the injustice seems to be a pretty popular message. So much easier to make a sweeping comment about "what's wrong with them".
This is an interesting topic because I think a lot of action around poverty holds this assumption that poor people cannot make decisions, do not love each other enough, waste money on alcohol and cigarettes etc. I would also add that this perception is one of the bases of More than Good Intentions (http://www.amazon.com/More-Than-Good-Intentions-Economics/dp/052595189X). The authors talk about poor people making bad decisions (like we all do), so they look into different incentive systems on how to make them make better decisions. For example, they get farmers to buy fertilisers just after harvest (essentially half a year to a year too early) when they have a lot of cash, not just before sowing the seeds when they are low on cash. The evidence then shows that they buy the fertilisers at this time at a higher uptake and of course crops do better. Is this a clever insight into human psychology or condescending? I don't think it's clear it's either, but if it works, it works. I would rather see assumptions about poor people being based upon what we know about human psychology, which is applicable to all people – rich or poor, than stereotypes about a group of people that writers for the NYTimes are unlikely to have much in common with.
Very interesting. Personally I don't think it has anything to do with love but I do think that, at least in some cases insome communities, it's probably true that too much money goes towards smokes and drinks rather than something useful. But the way it's been put above is a ridiculous oversimplification. As pointed out the problems are far more complex and the suggestion that much would be different if it wasn't for "shortsighted private spending decisions by heads of households" is wildly unfair. While I think it's a part of the equation it by no means the only factor or even the greatest influence. All those things mentioned by Akhila above are far more significant influences on whether or not a child goes to school and their prospects in life. The attitude in the quoted passages are sad not only because they are shortsighted but also because they leave the public with an impression that poor people are the masters of their own misfortune. They basically beg the reader to wonder why they should empathise or be spurred into action when these poor people would be fine if they stopped wasting money on alcohol. Hardly a fair or accurate analysis of the situation!
Really, really great post. What he says about poverty being difficult to overcome because of self-destructive behaviors completely glosses over the challenges people face in poverty. Can you expect a child who barely has a meal or access to books, technology, etc to suddenly become a bright student and constantly study to rise above their means? I mean, sure, it happens, but it's very, very hard. Are you kidding me? Children skip school because they don't have nutritious meals, don't have parents with education to serve as an example of what to do/how to succeed in school, don't have money for books and supplies, have to WORK to support their families, and girls often skip because they get married or have a period without proper sanitary napkins. Also, the public school systems in many countries are not that good! In India for example, there is a huge disparity of education amongst what the rich and the poor receive. GOSH. He has got to be kidding on this one!!