Poverty and the One-Third World
by Guest Contributor Tagland, originally published at Tanglad
I am an immigrant woman of the Two-Thirds World, who is living with the One-Third World.
I first came across Esteva and Prakash’s concept of the One Third/Two Thirds World via Chandra Mohanty’s Feminism Without Borders. The concepts recognize the transnational nature of capital, and how policies instituted by people in the One-Third World (middle and upper classes in the North and elites in the South) destabilize the lives of those in the Two-Thirds World, comprised by majority of the world’s population.
And most of the time, those of us in the One-Third World remain unaware of how our actions, well-meaning or otherwise, generate and perpetuate poverty and hardship.
For example, many of us in the One-Third World rarely reflect on our patterns of consumption, on how overconsumption contributes to substandard working conditions in Export Processing Zones around the world. If you’ve ever bought clothes from Nike, the Gap, or purchased products from Walmart and Target, for example, please take a minute to consider why your purchases seem so “affordable.” Ditto with that $2 bottle of wine from Trader Joe’s.
If you want to help those in poverty, take some more time to consider the consequences of top-down assistance programs that are instituted without any input or consultation from the communities themselves. This includes turning a critical eye on programs that present capacity-building and microcredit as solutions to poverty, rather than stopgap measures to systemic problems that are exacerbated by globalization. This means actually listening to the people in communities when they say that they need healthcare and education programs instead of yet another start-up handicraft business.
On a more macro level, Gayatri Spivak challenges us to work on developing a transnational consciousness. She addresses feminists specifically, but the message holds for anyone committed to social justice,
Feminists with a transnational consciousness would also be aware that the very civil structure here that they seek to shore up for gender justice can continue to participate in providing alibis for the operation of the major and definitive transnational activity, the financialization of the globe, and thus the suppression of the possibility of decolonization—the establishment and consolidation of a civil society there, the only means for an efficient and continuing calculus of gender justice everywhere.(Spivak, A Critique of Postcolonial Reason, emphasis hers)
Because no, it’s not enough that you feel good about giving a few dollars in microloans to those poor needy people or that you buy Fair Trade coffee. The very reason for this year’s Blog Action Day is that poverty continues, despite programs already in place, despite the well-meaning actions of otherwise good people.
Those of us privileged to live our lives as part of the One-Third World are in a position to develop our transnational consciousness, to reflect on how our patterns of overconsumption, our ways of doing business, the different ways that we seek to fulfill our wants and desires, affect other lives. On how our tacit support for neoliberalism and economic structures built on inequality has engendered poverty in the Two-Thirds World.
On how to act, to be allies to transnational movements working on poverty and social justice.
Many of us are in the One-Third World. But by being critical of our choices, by striving to develop our transnational consciousness, we can live in solidarity with those in the Two-Thirds World.
It’s a platform, on which we can begin to address poverty in profound and truly life-changing ways.
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of
theboxman wrote:
Glad to see this posted here. Thanks again for articulating some very critical points so succinctly.
Posted 17 Dec 2008 at 7:30 am ¶
Jess wrote:
While I agree with the premise of the piece, I’d have wanted to see a few more examples of what people in the developed world are supposed to do.
As I see it the problem is that it’s easy to talk about consumption patterns but not so easy to come up with a solution. You can’t tell people they ought to live in a hut and consume only rice for food. I realize that isn’t entirely what Tagland is getting at, but it’s the position you can end up in pretty easily when you don’t offer up a method of changing things.
We’re all part of the system and frankly, our individual choices aren’t going to matter much. Even if nobody ever bought a Nike sneaker again, that would have little effect because the global market system is a lot more resilient and flexible than that.
I’m all for developing consciousness, but I keep feeling like some of that is just a word to make us all feel better. (I try to avoid the word as much as possible myself).
So let me offer a few action items that might, long or short term, accomplish something:
– Organize, organize, and do it in the workplace. I’d say it’s time to think about the connection between unions here and unions overseas. The AFL and CIO have both made baby steps in this direction. But more needs to happen. And that will have to come from people on the front lines of labor here in the US.
This is especially important when discussing issues of race and class and gender, by the way. The UMW has had major issues with black workers, and that hurt their ability to link up across borders, for instance. And race and sex have been used as wedges since day one.
I know it’s the fashion to deride unions as old-fashioned and sclerotic. Sometimes that’s true. But I haven’t seen anyone come up with a structure that offers workers — especially vulnerable workers — any comparable kind of bargaining power. And honestly, some of the derision to organized labor I see comes from a kind of weird divide between progressive people — many of those I meet who can discuss race or other social issues in a very sophisticated way know zero about labor. It’s like a huge blank spot.
There’s a reason they still make cars in Germany and Japan. And it ain’t the generosity of BMW or Toyota. Keeping the manufacturing jobs at home puts less pressure on the developing world to “race to the bottom.” And that in turn relieves some of the pressure on vulnerable women.
– Call your congresscritter and tell them to scrap NAFTA. Congresspeople do respond to this kind of stuff. Amending NAFTA to exclude Mexico would go a long way. (Including Canada is not such a big deal, as that country is on more equivalent footing). I put it in those terms because the debate always gets framed around free trade — if the opposition to NAFTA said “we’re happy to have free trade — with the EU and the Canadians and Japan” then that shifts the terms somewhat.
– Ditto with CAFTA. Let’s kill that idea forever.
– Environmental issues are important in this regard. Let’s imagine for a moment we demanded that every electronic device be made with 90% recycled material. That’s the same percentage as a car. That would have a profound effect on the developing nations where the vital materials to make this stuff come from. (There’s also added pressure because there is a real possibility that the latest computing device in 2100 will be 50 years old, as the supplies of tantalum run out). Same with renewable energy — imagine if all that human capital in Nigeria was used for something other than securing access to oil and fighting for a piece of the action. If oil demand drops then a lot of these problems are less serious right off the bat because it weakens the hand of local elites. It’s no accident that reform in many of oil-producing countries coincided with low prices. (Think of Nigeria — reform started happening in the 90s — when oil was at an all-time low, the (first) Iraq war price spike notwithstanding).
– Demand the military aid to Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel, and a host of other nations be curtailed or stopped. I don’t think I need to outline how that could help local women.
If all this sounds too “traditional politics” for some folks, well, that’s how stuff gets done sometimes, you know?
Posted 17 Dec 2008 at 8:55 am ¶
theboxman wrote:
> Amending NAFTA to exclude Mexico would go a long way. (Including Canada is not such a big deal, as that country is on more equivalent footing)
I doubt many Canadian “progressives” (as much as I dislike the term, it is an existing self-identification) would agree with you on that.
Posted 17 Dec 2008 at 10:44 am ¶
thinkingdifference wrote:
i agree with the spirit of the post, but i’m also left to wonder about any macro solutions. many of the solutions proposed by Jess simply do not work (for instance, how exactly are we to demand that electronics are made out of 90% recycled materials? and just because I’m middle class, it doesn’t mean I can afford to pay $1,000 more on an environmental friendly device… ok, exaggerating to make my point).
back to the post, i think it’s a bit dangerous to take some academic theories and apply them ad-literam. when theorists talk about the ‘middle class’, they try to make an argument. when we talk about how ‘we the middle class’ do this or that, i think we miss the point: there is no ‘we’. the concept of ‘class’ is highly problematic because it hides away the homogenization it operates. it has power only as a macro perspective, as an argument, but it is not a reality. academics have long remarked that concepts such as ‘ethnicity’, ‘race’, ‘class’ are analytical categories – and as such they may bring forward powerful arguments (such as class oppression). but they are not ‘natural categories’ in the sense of existing as such in the social world.
Posted 17 Dec 2008 at 11:35 am ¶
macon d wrote:
What a succinct and timely message, thank you Tanglad.
Although Jess offers some great suggestions for specific actions, I think that a call or reminder for raised consciousness can be worthwhile on its own, because it can prompt better ways of living in lives that are often very different from each other. People don’t always have to have everything spoonfed to them.
BTW, maybe the opening image could’ve been an upsidedown map?
Posted 17 Dec 2008 at 11:39 am ¶
theboxman wrote:
In the spirit of Jess’s comment, with its overall useful suggestions, although this is specific to the US and doesn’t really apply to other countries in the global north, but I certainly wouldn’t mind seeing the emergence of a movement calling for the elimination of all overseas US military bases, by which much of the systemic violence taking place around the world is enforced.
Posted 17 Dec 2008 at 1:46 pm ¶
Jess wrote:
@Thinkingdifference –
Actually, regulations requiring that various products be made of certain things (or more often NOT made of certain things) is a time-tested method. For instance, your (post 1970) floor hasn’t got asbestos in it because people demanded that industry stop using the material. And it’s actually relatively easy to recyclables in manufacturing. If you drive a car, you are driving a 90+% recycled item. (What do you think happens to all those junked cars? The metal is too valuable to just chuck).
Saying, “OK, when you throw out your phone or computer, it goes to a facility contracted to extract the toxic stuff, and then that is sent back to manufacturers, who are required to buy X% of their raw material from such facilities” would go a long way.
There are many ways to structure it — but the point is that you get nothing if you don’t ask.
@macon d –
I haven’t got too huge a beef with raising consciousness per se. But it drives me crazy when I sit through a women’s studies class, for example. I want to get up and scream “Phallocentric language processes have jack sh*t to do with getting paid more frickin’ money so women can feed their kids!” You know what I mean?
Posted 17 Dec 2008 at 2:51 pm ¶
Paz wrote:
Thanks Tagland and Thanks Jess for the suggestions.
I’d like to echo Jess’ plea for discussing more solutions. I know that the system I am a part of is contributing to the poverty and suffering of many, and it seems like the more I educate myself about global poverty the more frustrating and hopeless the world seems.
I resolved this year for Christmas to only get presents from small businesses run by women of color, and I also try to buy fair trade when I can, but I know that that other than a toll on my wallet, it’s a relatively comfortable and easy step for me to take. I feel like I’m sending out money into the non-profit stratosphere, hoping that somehow it will help lift people out of poverty.
BTW: That upside down map is awesome! How ironic though that the examples shown were conceived by Australians, of the One Third World.
Posted 17 Dec 2008 at 3:15 pm ¶
Rchoud wrote:
Hi,
First I’d like to thank Tanglad for this very thought provoking piece on global poverty. And the way I see it I think it’s very important for us as Americans to realize that the world is no longer bipolar (like it was during the Cold War) and is becoming less unipolar (like it was immediately post-Cold War). Certain nations are being called “rising powers” (Brazil, Russia, India, China) and for a reason which include economic and military factors. Since the world is becoming multipolar it’s assumed that fierce competition for the world’s remaining natural, human, and agricultural resources (which are predominantly left in developing nations) will become more prevalent, but it doesn’t have to be that way. Instead of using one’s immense military might to secure resources in the developing world from one’s competitors (which is what the purpose of the Iraq invasion is shaping up to be like) one could compete more effectively with others by churning out a more educated workforce in one’s own nation. Educational improvement is what people in the One Third World could demand for more vehemently from their politicians.
Not using one’s military and economic might also means not supporting dictators in developing lands. These dictators (which include false democracies) know that if America or other Western countries didn’t support them and their cronies (by selling them military technology and providing “ecomomic aid” ) they would quickly lose power. So it’s important to stay out of developing nation politics.
Labor organization is one thing I agree with Jess on. If stronger unions existed in America then so many jobs both in the manufacturing and service sector wouldn’t have been outsourced (which is hurting us right now during this recession). Global unions would also be tremendously useful in that sense. If companies realized that workers abroad are demanding just as many benefits and pay increases as workers here they would think twice about outsourcing.
A change in lifestyle here would also help. Living a more eco friendly and healthy lifestyle would help everyone a great deal in that food and fuel prices wouldn’t skyrocket like they did in the recent past. That includes demanding that suburban sprawl be stopped or decreased, alternative fuel sources be made attractive, technologies using alternative fuel sources be made more affordable for everyone, and wasting of food be frowned upon. Also with regards to food and agriculture I don’t think farmers in the West should be subsidized any longer and be allowed to dump their exports onto developing nations so that developing farmers should get a chance to compete more effectively in the domestic and global markets.
Posted 17 Dec 2008 at 11:45 pm ¶
Rchoud wrote:
Oh one more thing I forgot is that staying out of developing nation politics also includes staying out of how they improve their economies. They should be allowed to industrialize and use some protectionist measures against big multinational conglomerates from the One Thirld World. That way their economies don’t just revolve around being exporters of natural resources and agriculture only. They don’t become cheap sources of human labor for American/European companies. And they don’t rely solely on tourism as a source of income. Likewise they should be allowed to protect their domestic companies from foreign competition for the attention of local consumers. They should also be allowed to spend their money on providing decent social services. By industrializing and governing on their own, developing economies will no longer be at the mercy of the World Bank/IMF for loans that are secured only through privatization (which means letting foreign companies in) and through not spending much on social services (improving one’s infrastructure, education and health care).
Posted 17 Dec 2008 at 11:55 pm ¶
tanglad wrote:
I’m appreciating the great macro- and more specific suggestions for action, and I think that we can work them both. Especially those of us here in the one-third world. Jess’ mention of Nike reminds me of a workers’ strike at a Philippine export processing zone years ago, when a subcontractor withheld workers’ pay. To support the strikers, Clean Clothes Campaign organized a campaign where buyers complained to Reebok, which in turn contacted the subcontractor (to avoid bad publicity and a boycott), and that’s how the workers got their pay. So this is a specific form of coalition action that we here can take.
I also like the suggestions of working towards reforming military aid, and theboxman’s elimination of US bases. It may not occur to someone in the US who wants to address poverty in other countries to look beyond obvious solutions (microcredit). But working to eliminate US bases would be a vital part of this struggle, and it’s something we can do here. There are underlying structures to poverty, and a lot of times, I think those of us here can be in better positions to draw the connections, to work towards more long-term solutions that address our role in contributing to poverty in the first place.
Posted 18 Dec 2008 at 3:12 am ¶
The Cruel Secretary wrote:
@Tanglad–as always, a great piece–great writing on a topic that needs to stay in our One-Third World minds, esp, with the holiday season.
I feel like I’m about to bring up a sore (maybe silent?) subject, but I bring it up because I want to hear others’ opinions: the affordability of eco-friendliness. This is what I mean: I agree that we in the One-Third World do need to make conscious consumer choices (for example) because of its effect on the Two-Thirds World. Then I look at the prices at, say, a Trader Joe’s or Whole Foods or even a famers’ market (only only the price of the food and other products themselves, but the expense of people being able to get to such places–there are parts of the US (where I live) that don’t have such food places). And I can see how some folks who have limited budgets become financially discouraged from trying to do the right thing. It’s not that they don’t want to or are ignorant about the eco-friendly options and need to be educated about them–they simply can’t afford it.
So, eco-friendliness becomes construed as a class privilege, not a basic human and environmental need. And to tell those on limited jobs to “get better ones” or “save up so you can afford the eco-friendly products and help the rest of the world” comes off as patronizing. So, what are some suggestions to encourage those in the 1/3 World who want to help but are dealing with the hard realities of a budget?
Posted 18 Dec 2008 at 11:56 am ¶
Jess wrote:
Cruel Secretary —
See my comment about labor unions. It may sound like they aren’t related. But they are — and some unions are beginning to figure this out.
Demanding higher incomes is just part of it. If people make more money they can make those good choices. And the more money people have, the more power people have because you have a cushion and yor boss is that much less able to coerce you. That’s why some orthodox economists can’t stand unions.
I’d say worry less about buying from Whole Foods or Trader Joe’s. Worry more about the systemic stuff. That is, bother your congress person. It won’t get an immediate result but it helps.
You don’t need to buy organic to encourage less use of packaged food, either. I cook a lot, both me and my wife were working, and even if you aren’t buying Whole Foods organic-local-hippy farmer stuff it still helps a bit. There is no reason to buy pre-made stuff a lot of the time.
Ask your congressperson to stop subsidies to big farms and increase aid to small ones. There’s a reason rural economies in Europe still function and it isn’t just because they sell stuff elsewhere.
Rchoud has some good stuff in his comment, noting the relation between resource use and demand. In that sense, the budget-conscious can try to walk more places (where possible) and support, support your local transit and public sector unions.
Tell your mayor you want buses to run on time is you live where there is no subway. Or go to the zoning board meeting and ask why there are no bus or bike lanes in your town. Have you eve been to one of those? They are pretty contentious. And they are also responsive because at that level your vote matters. If you get up in front of everyone and publicly state what you want, it goes a long way.
Does that help?
Posted 18 Dec 2008 at 1:19 pm ¶
Adrianna wrote:
Individualism is very prevalent here in Haiti . I thinks it’s the one of the main reason for our problem. The democracy is not a good fit for us. Micro credit program here a joke. Big bank run them and you have to already have working business to get the loan. They also don’t have supporting centers to make sure to help your business strive
The problem I believe is in our education system. It doesn’t foster innovation. That’s is why those who can afford college here all become doctors,lawyers or nurses. Any other professions are a bust.
Hieffer is great! so are COops I use to work for Cornell Cooperative extension and we did community base projects. We went to Hieffer for the grant ,cause that what they do.
In maybe develop our own green economy
Posted 18 Dec 2008 at 3:16 pm ¶
The Cruel Secretary wrote:
@Jess–
Thanks for sharing your viewpoint. My response to it is this (and forgive me if it sounds brusque or comes off as snarky or like I’m picking on you): while we’re waiting for the unions to regain their rightful strength (and I don’t say that lightly or bitterly–my middle-class upbringing is partly due to my stepfather being a Teamster, so I have an incredible amount of gratitude for them), while folks are writing letters (or even signing petitions) to their representatives at all levels and going to town hall meetings (which I am all for and have attended a few in my lifetime), and the price of public transit, which *is* great for the environment but is also becoming even more expensive for those working with a limited budget….
….those same folks still need to get food that’s not going to break their budgets. So, if they’re at the store and there are, say, unpackaged tomatoes for 50 cents and packaged tomatoes costing 3 for $1, a person on a limited budget, in order to stretch zie’s food money, is more than likely going to go for the packaged tomatoes because they’re cheaper, though zie may very well know the environmental and human-rights reasons why the buying the unpackaged tomatoes is the right thing to do.
As for cooking? I think that’s great, Jess. But some people do work 2-3 jobs and don’t have another person to bring in another income…and they face the kinds of decisions about food buying that I mentioned above.
So, though I understand what you’re saying about dealing with the systemic and making decisions and actions to deal with the systemic, like unionizing and legislative appeals and so on…there are the daily realities that some folks still need to deal with while dealing with the systemic, like stretching one’s food budget with the considerations I mentioned.
Again, I appreciate what you offered, Jess. But, my question still stands: So, what are some suggestions to encourage those in the 1/3 World who want to help but are dealing with the hard realities of a budget?
Posted 18 Dec 2008 at 3:33 pm ¶
Jess wrote:
Cruel Secretary–
Hm. Maybe I wasn’t clear. What I was trying to say was that the kind of political activity I was speaking of is a far greater help than all the buying of trader joe’s you could mangage. And for those on a budget: buy what you can afford. Don’t worry about whether your choice is creating a problem, because you don’t have a choice in that to begin with.. You see what I mean?
So buy the pre-packed tomatoes if that’s all you can afford. That isn’t the problem, the system we live in is.
You see what I mean? That’s why I said it would matter not at all if nobody ever bought a Nike again.
Posted 18 Dec 2008 at 11:24 pm ¶
Rchoud wrote:
@ Cruel Secretary
Like Jess I also believe that all these problems related to global poverty and inability to live a more eco-friendly lifestyle here are systemic in nature.
And you were right to point out that right now living a more eco-friendly lifestyle is easiest for people with higher disposable incomes, thus making it a lifestyle seen as the privilege of white liberal anti-globalization folks. I think right now especially with the global economic crisis it’s hard for almost everyone to live that sort of lifestyle. Once the economy is back to normal I think the most we can do as individuals is raise awareness among members of the middle-. lower-middle, working-, and under employed classes about how we should form coalitions (like globalized labor unions) with members of the same classes in other developed and under developed nations. It can be great way for us as Americans to become more aware of global issues affecting everyone. We should make people realize the power of coming together to hold the elite establishments (political, big business, military, media) in all countries accoutable for their actions, which more often than not are selfish in nature and only benefit the elites of almost every country.
As for individual consumers in the West we should learn a lesson from this current financial crisis and learn to live within our means so that we don’t fall into debt yet again and we don’t wind up purchasing too many useless material things from exploitative businesses like Walmarts just because we found a great deal! Even if we don’t have the luxury of buying eco friendly products doesn’t mean we should indulge in buying whatever we find on sale even if we do not necessarily need it. Like how sometimes parents spoil their kids by buying too many ultimately useless toy products that they found on sale at Target or whatever. Ok I hope this helps. Thanks for asking a great well thought out question!
Posted 19 Dec 2008 at 5:18 am ¶
Rchoud wrote:
One other thing, Rchoud happens to be a girl
Posted 19 Dec 2008 at 8:16 am ¶
Jess wrote:
One more thing also — public transit is a great way to not only be eco-friendlier, as is bike riding, but it is cheaper as well.
In New York City I pay ~$80 to ride for a month on the subway and bus. Car insurance would cost $100 per month. Plus gas and maintenance, it adds up.
In a city like, say, Boston, where the system isn’t as good, you can own one car for a family (rather than 2) and save $2,000 per year in gas, insurance, and maintenance. The transit cost is about $2 per ride, so even if you never bought a discount card and spent $80 a month to get to work it’s still cheaper than driving. The cost structure changes if you live further out, but not a whole lot.
In Rochester, NY, the bus routes aren’t great, but the ride is $1.oo. Again, cheaper than driving, if less convenient.
Of course, think of this: let’s say ridership in your city increases substantially. Then imagine showing up to the local transit authority meeting with, say, 100 of your closest friends
You all say “Hey, we’d like the occasional extra route added, and here’s how much money it would generate.” They love to hear that kind of stuff.
(I’m assuming you are in a city that has no subway and crappy bus service).
Now, if you can ride a bike to work for a substantial part of the year and it is 10 miles or less, then you really start saving money. I pick 10 miles because any person in reasonable shape can do that in about an hour. When I was a teenager I rode 3 miles or so to school, and it wasn’t too bad. Took about a 1/2 hour or so with the hills.
A bicycle isn’t for everyone, of course, but it’s just one way to do things. There are others.
One thing I think a lot of people forget, too– I was raised where I had to help out with dinner and the like as I got older. Assuming your kids are old enough, there’s no reason they can’t do that kind of stuff. My dad used to leave instructions so stuff would be mostly ready when he got home to cook. That enables use of real foods as opposed to processed foods sometimes, even if both adults are working (both my parents did). To me, a 10-year old with no house chores is baffling.
Posted 19 Dec 2008 at 4:31 pm ¶
tanglad wrote:
Hi the Cruel Secretary,
I’ve been pondering your question for the past few days, it’s a gret reminder to me that global south conditions can exist in the US as well. For starters, I don’t think it’s fair to expect the same level of activism from a family struggling to make ends meet as from individuals who have resources (time, money, etc) but refuse to go beyond buying the fair trade coffee.
I’m still thinking abt this actually, it may be a blog post later on. Right now, my thoughts echo the March 2008 issue of Colorlines on the “green economy,” especially Robby Rodriguez’s article
http://www.colorlines.com/article.php?ID=280
The task is to broaden questions of environmentalism “beyond rivers and birds” or beyond organic or packaged tomatoes. Same thing with consumerism. It’s creating our space in these conversations, so that the issues of justice don’t get lost in green-building or anti-consumerist or anti-globalization movements. I think raising questions of class and other forms of privilege is a vital task, and addressing these will help us strengthen our coalitions.
Thanks really for the question. It’s still bugging me (in an “it’s making me think” kind of way) and I’ll probably get a post out of this.
Posted 24 Dec 2008 at 3:41 am ¶