Saturday, March 12, 2011
Forces for Good Chapter Three Perspectives from a Leftist Social Worker
As I read Chapter Three, Make Markets Work, I tried to think openmindedly about collaberation with such businesses and McDonals, Wal Mart, and Fannie Mae. I remained, however, unconvinced that effective change can be accomplished without it being little more than green washing. I recognize that real statistical environental improvements have been made. However, I continue to wonder, at what cost? While those statistical numbers are vitally needed in terms of reductions is environmental pollution, they also come at the same time as reductions in local economies and the continuation of sweatshops, animal cruelty, obesity, and a lack of worker rights. I do not think that one improvement can be traded for the other. The collapse of Fannie Mae I think shows the risks of market based solutions rather than government public policy solutions. As a social worker I am obligated to advocate for public policy changes. The description of how America's Second Harvest, toward the end of the chapter, does not advocate for changes in welfare policy stuck out for me especially. I think that it is advocacy for such vital changes that brings real change. It is the difference between charity and entitlement. I believe as a social worker, and I interpretate our code of ethics to say, that human beings have a RIGHT to the basic life necessities, rather than them being given as charity. That is not a compromise that I would be willing to make as a social worker.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Unfortunately, society adopts changes slower than many of us would like. The dense interaction of competing interests stymies us and frustrates progress. However, it is important that at least some change “in the right direction” emerges, even if we must temporarily concede immediate satisfaction. Advancement is a process, in which stakeholders and situations (hopefully) eventually ripen [dare I write “mature”], accepting needed progress. Coercing relevant actors and institutions to adapt faster than they allow may result in setbacks and further chaos. As it goes, change begets greater change.
ReplyDeleteThough some for-profits may collaborate with nonprofits to enhance marketability and give the façade of social responsibility, this activity nonetheless motivates greater awareness of issues. Direct engagement/participation in a variety of arenas (ex. the policy process as well as the market) galvanizes more interest and forthcoming action, changing norms and behaviors (such as the modern domestic and international concern for the environment as compared to that of the past). The process builds and continues. Trying to accomplish too much at once may amount to counterproductive consequences, defeating efforts. Working with the “enemy” is necessary, and genuinely viewing the enemy as partner is equally important. I also struggle with this, though we must each individually advance, much like our society.
Also, consider reading my post (immediately above) for more of the same ramblings and some excitingly relevant PBS transmissions.
Ariel,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your perspective, but I agree with Andrew in that at times it is necessary to partner with what may appear to be the "bad guy" for the greater good.
This all seems so very situational to me, though. There are concessions that might be much easier to make than others. To this end, I think we'd be doing a disservice to ourselves and to our clients if we entirely throw out the idea of collaborating with for-profit businesses simply because they are for-profit. Extremes usually don't sit well with me- it seems like the best answer is usually somewhere in the middle, even if the tightrope is not the most comfortable place to be hanging out.