The Development Sector Needs Development: Poverty Porn

        

          A friend of mine.

This week, I've been seeing a lot of discussion on the web about "poverty porn."  For anyone who's not familiar, this term refers to pictures of impoverished places/people being used in fundraising campaigns, as well as the idea that the worse-off the individuals look in the picture, the greater the financial response.  It seems to be an unfortunate truth that these types of poverty-stricken photos are the types of non-profit publicity that really "sell."  Although it's reassuring to know that when people see someone suffering they generally want to help out (i.e. make a donation), these pictures almost always undermine the mission of the program and create a falsified reality about poverty and how it can be eradicated. 

Many times, and for two reasons that I can think of, this "poverty porn" depicts children.  One, because regardless of economic or social status, children always seems to find a way to soften peoples' hearts.  Two, because children like to play in the dirt.  They like to explore their surroundings and get messy, often at the expense of their clothing.  I think this can be said of almost all children in all countries.  In the case of the developing world, these uninhibited children make for a prime photo opportunity when an organization is trying to catch a people at their worst and really show their "need."  I often wonder what people think when they see these pictures.  That these children are so poor that they must spend their days rolling around in the dust?  I have been living in the U.S. for almost half a year now, and I have seen a number of messy children.  Children covered in mud.  Children covered in paint.  Children covered in ice cream.  I don't think messy children can in anyway be correlated to poverty.  In the example of my dear, young friend above, we see messy children everywhere are capable of cleaning up nicely.  However, the images of these children before they have had their nightly bath still seem to be an integral part of fundraising in our current non-profit sector.

All humor aside, the true danger of these pictures is that they often make very capable people out to be helpless individuals.  They foster a cultural perception of poverty that is synonymous with co-dependence, powerlessness, and hopelessness.  When instead, we need to be fostering independence, facilitating empowerment, and building hope.  These photos are superficial.  We need to be rooted.  And, unfortunately, much of what I've just said about these photos can also be said about the development sector as a whole.  These photos are not just a means to raise money for an eventual end.  These photos define a culture in the development sector that is donor-oriented instead of solution-oriented.  I am willing to go as far as to say they are the antithesis of development.  And the blame for this does not lie solely on the organization or their fundraising team.  Donors are equally, if not more, to blame.  When we are raising or donating money for development work, we shouldn't be thinking about how we can feed a person today, clothe them this week, or send them to school this year.  We should be thinking about how we can create lasting partnerships and sustainable endeavors that will rectify a wrong that currently exists in our world and initiate economic equality for everyone.  Development is not emotional.  It is logical and strategic. 

Agriculture Culture

My yam farm.

I have said it before, and I will certainly say it again: agriculture is key in the development of Ghana (and I believe in many other countries of a similar economic demographic).  It's a skill that so many of us possess; one that we have inherited from our mothers and fathers.  It's a job that requires no application and a business that demands as little or as much start-up capital as one can afford.  This is not to say it's an easy job.  However, it is a very accessible job-- one that can efficiently bring economic equality to individuals and families throughout all of our regions.  For exactly this reason, my non-profit organization (Clash International) has chosen agriculture as it's first focus in Ghana.  We believe empowering individuals to achieve their own financial stability is the gateway necessary for these individuals to, in turn, develop  their own societies in a manner that is most suitable to their needs.  We've chosen agriculture, because it's something so many Ghanians (roughly 65%) already do in some capacity.  There are also a few specific (and resolvable) reasons that they are not already as effective as they could be.  These reasons are the cornerstones of our program.  Today I want to talk about the few that fall under the umbrella of "agriculture culture."
In Ghana, each people group has their own traditional farming practices.  For some people, this means they only farm one kind of crop (i.e. only yams, cassava, maize, etc.).  For others, this means they only farm using the seeds that have been passed down to them by their parents and grandparents.  On top of this, cultural traditions often gendered crops; meaning only women were "supposed to" farm groundnuts, or only men were "supposed to" farm yams.  Perhaps each of these tenants made sense in their historical context; however, today they simply stifle the efficacy of farmers and their farms.  They limit the quantity, quality, and diversity of our produce, as well as the revenue that is associated with each of these things.
There is also a level of mob mentality that goes on in Ghana's agricultural sphere, particularly in the more rural communities.  There is very much a sense of "We plant at this time," "We harvest at this time," and "We sell at this time."  In some communities, this schedule is maintained to an extent by the political hierarchy; however, it is primarily imposed by the people (and their form of peer pressure) themselves.  You can imagine the effect this has on the market, as well as the value of their individual crops.  There is little concept of an individual carving out his or her own edge on the market. I have seen countless yams harvested all at once only to spoil weeks later in the house, because the supply was simply far beyond the demand.  Weeks after that, the price of yams leaps, but there are no more yams.  They are all gone by this point-- sold at a much lower price or spoiled.
When it comes to animal rearing, there seems to be a culturally-enforced, hands-off approach.  While I can't really trace the origin of this style, I believe it to be fostered by the fact that many identify as a farmer first and an animal caretaker second.  People are rarely willing to invest any time into the care of their animals.  They seldom care or fence them.  They simply allow them to roam and graze freely (with everyone else' animals into homes, roads, public toilets, and refuse dumps) and then sell them when the time arises.  This almost gives the allusion of "free money."  They sell the animal and earn a profit without really doing any work-- no cleaning, building, or food preparation.  However, it's truly a missed financial opportunity, where a slightly more specific effort could yield a much greater profit.
This is by no means an extensive list of the agricultural practices that are truly hindering our farmers; however, it does touch on many of the larger points and many of the areas we try to emphasize at Clash.  And while I believe that it is important to maintain our culture and identity as Ghanaians and as our various people groups, I also believe culture to be dynamic.  While our identity need not change, our practices may evolve and adapt to our circumstances in the name of efficiency and growth.