Working for a non-profit social-ills conscious organization has given me cause to wonder and talk about how one really ought to go about addressing social problems, and how I or anyone else can really help or make a meaningful impact on the world.
In the past I have felt as though there were basically two different approaches to trying to make a positive difference in the world: a one individual at a time grass roots approach that preaches first bettering yourself, then reaching out to your family, then those closest to you, then your community, etc. This approach puts us in the trenches of real lives and issues with the full complexity of individual situations and people. The parable of the starfish illustrates this method of making a difference: an onlooker pointed out to an unnamed good doer that his work of throwing beached starfish back into the ocean was completely futile because he could never hope to save any significant number of them, not to mention all of the thousands of starfish on the beach. The un-phased good doer held up a starfish and said “yes, I know, but to this one it matters”
An alternative approach to making an impact involves a perhaps more traditional top down leadership model in which an individual seeks positions of influence to inform, involve, and engage their fellow men and women. This model seeks to change the societal structure by altering policy and regulations. In our starfish example, this top down good does would spend his or her time recruiting and organizing labor crews of people to go to the beach to throw star fish back into the water. This model seems to dictate that the individual sets out to change the world, or at least to take an issue head on.
I have often wondered about the merits of these two models. Until recently I foolishly viewed them as mutually exclusive. I was surprised in one of my first Teach for America trainings that TFA believes that in order to have an impact, both models must be used… the individual in the trenches cannot see broadly enough or influence enough potential collaborators to root out entire social problems, nor can the academic or politician in an ivory tower understand issues sufficiently to grasp their full complexity without spending time in the trenches combating whatever the issue might be. At TFA the social ill we are fighting against is educational inequity, and we propose a two phased battle… first the one fought by individual teachers in classrooms, then leading to phase two that plays out in school board meetings, state and national political chambers, other wide reaching institutional avenues.
Thus to truly “make a difference” or play a role in solving most issues I feel that it is important to be involved individually at a ground level, and then just as important is the drive to influence others to collaborate and effect broad systemic change. Further lingering questions that may earn a post of their own are: In a world full of problems that range from genocide to teen pregnancy, and from illiteracy to racial, sexual, or religious discrimination what issues ought I as an individual to focus on? Is it right to focus on one or a few pet issues? How does one really find the root cause of social problems and avoid merely treating the symptoms or the consequences?
In the past I have felt as though there were basically two different approaches to trying to make a positive difference in the world: a one individual at a time grass roots approach that preaches first bettering yourself, then reaching out to your family, then those closest to you, then your community, etc. This approach puts us in the trenches of real lives and issues with the full complexity of individual situations and people. The parable of the starfish illustrates this method of making a difference: an onlooker pointed out to an unnamed good doer that his work of throwing beached starfish back into the ocean was completely futile because he could never hope to save any significant number of them, not to mention all of the thousands of starfish on the beach. The un-phased good doer held up a starfish and said “yes, I know, but to this one it matters”
An alternative approach to making an impact involves a perhaps more traditional top down leadership model in which an individual seeks positions of influence to inform, involve, and engage their fellow men and women. This model seeks to change the societal structure by altering policy and regulations. In our starfish example, this top down good does would spend his or her time recruiting and organizing labor crews of people to go to the beach to throw star fish back into the water. This model seems to dictate that the individual sets out to change the world, or at least to take an issue head on.
I have often wondered about the merits of these two models. Until recently I foolishly viewed them as mutually exclusive. I was surprised in one of my first Teach for America trainings that TFA believes that in order to have an impact, both models must be used… the individual in the trenches cannot see broadly enough or influence enough potential collaborators to root out entire social problems, nor can the academic or politician in an ivory tower understand issues sufficiently to grasp their full complexity without spending time in the trenches combating whatever the issue might be. At TFA the social ill we are fighting against is educational inequity, and we propose a two phased battle… first the one fought by individual teachers in classrooms, then leading to phase two that plays out in school board meetings, state and national political chambers, other wide reaching institutional avenues.
Thus to truly “make a difference” or play a role in solving most issues I feel that it is important to be involved individually at a ground level, and then just as important is the drive to influence others to collaborate and effect broad systemic change. Further lingering questions that may earn a post of their own are: In a world full of problems that range from genocide to teen pregnancy, and from illiteracy to racial, sexual, or religious discrimination what issues ought I as an individual to focus on? Is it right to focus on one or a few pet issues? How does one really find the root cause of social problems and avoid merely treating the symptoms or the consequences?
1 comment:
there is no question that we need both models, but some people are talented in addressing only one of these models (I am usually better at working with individuals).
I also think that you have the capability to do well both on an individual basis and in a leadership position... and i think you've already made a difference.
(you'll have to let me know how the pillows are in your new aptmt)
Post a Comment