So I've been reading this book called How to Change the World: Social Entrepreneurs and the Power of New Ideas by David Bornstein and I'm finding myself perpetually vacillating between "That's amazing!" and "Wait a minute..." Let me explain.
Bornstein, an extremely thorough journalist, decides that he'll travel around the world and profile "social entrepreneurs" connected to the Ashoka Foundation, starting with the founder of Ashoka himself, Bill Drayton. I first heard about this idea of "social entrepreneurship" a few years ago at an NYU conference, and my interest was immediately piqued. At that time I was feeling especially depressed about the state of the world and my capacity to do anything about it.
Here's the definition, in part, provided on Ashoka's site:
Social entrepreneurs are individuals with innovative solutions to society's most pressing social problems. They are ambitious and persistent, tackling major social issues and offering new ideas for wide-scale change.Rather than leaving societal needs to the government or business sectors, social entrepreneurs find what is not working and solve the problem by changing the system, spreading the solution, and persuading entire societies to take new leaps.
So on to the confusion. Sometimes I see these entrepreneurial projects as mind-blowingly amazing. They often abandon the old charity model (third world poor need wealthy western help) and instead embrace the idea that those in community know what their community needs and how to get it--they just need help getting the resources in the right places at the right times. For example, I just read a profile of Jeroo Billimoria, the founder of Childline, a 24-hour helpline and emergency response system for children in trouble--completely run by children! Totally frickin' amazing. Jeroo basically had the wisdom to fund and formalize what street children in India were already doing--sharing resources and looking out for one another.
This works for me entirely, but other profiles seem to operate on the idea that poor people just need to be turned into "a market" and then they will uplift themselves. It's a little like the boot strap ideology with a patronizing altruistic twist. We can't just give malaria nets away; we have to sell them so that people will be incentivized to take them seriously.
So the way to "save the world" is to import more capitalism? What about a systemic analysis of our economies and the ways in which they fail so many people? Is this a little like importing democracy? We've seen how wise that turned out to be.
Maybe I'm overreacting. Will someone help me out here?
*Hey, thanks to all of those that confirmed in the reader's survey that they liked this feature!
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Not Oprah's Book Club: How to Change the World.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/8444
Weekly Feministing Newsletter
Feministing RSS Feed
You're right to be infuriated with this hegemonic philanthropy. By importing more "capitalism" one simply commodifies charity itself; a lot of poor countries can't "imagine" late-capitalism at this point, the same way our highly systematic, post-industrial system would have failed with feudal cultures ages ago. But it's not just this:
"we have to sell them so that people will be incentivized to take them seriously."
I'll play situationist this time: "we have to sell them so that people will be incentivized to join our market - because it's the best and most efficient, and, dare I say, most secure."
Yours is a critique well worth making. I personally don't like the hijacking of essentially progressive projects and ideas through the use of "free market" (free to starve) terms.
Another, more how-to and analytical, book of interest on the subject of running projects of this type is "Forces for Good" by Leslie Crutchfield and Heather McLeod Grant.
well, in their defense, these are all rich people who are heavily invested in capitalism. it will take a lot for them to recognize that the very system that lifts them up is at the root of many of the problems in the communities they are seeking to "help." that's a lot to swallow...
are there people profiled in the book who understand how harmful the sort of corporate capitalism that made them rich is to the overwhelming majority of people on the planet? sounds like there are two really keen books here for us fortunate ones. thanks, courtney and cecilieaux.
You'll have to forgive me if I'm not as concerned with your critique. The notion of social entrepreneurship is wrapped up in the idea that sustained charity hasn't really worked at scale, though charity is important and has had some victories in modern times. The idea is that if you can create a marriage of social consciousness and profit, the positive effects will be more self-sustaining.
If you're one of the types who rejects or heavily critiques capitalism (however modified) as the appropriate way to structure the global economy, then social entrepreneurs aren't going to do much for you. The idea is to make capitalism work, not to overturn or reject it.
Coming from a place where generational poverty is the rule, I witnessed that perpetually giving people things results mainly in teaching the population that the only way they can see an improvement in their lives is through the charity of others. This leads to increased frustration, hopelessness, racism, and sexism within those communities.
I currently live in a more prosperous geographic area where several charities and church organizations constantly bombard the poor people where I came from with things and acts, without knowing how much damage they are causing. I hate it. I hate the charitable folks that are causing my people to continually live in poverty, all the while patting themselves on the backs for their humanitarian efforts and kind hearts.
I wish organizations would charge something nominal for the materials they bring into the neighborhoods. Then, perhaps, lives could be improved without stripping families of their dignity.
I have to agree with Matt here. The traditional aid-based development model has been a complete failure. It has fostered dependency and caused economic and social disruption in developing countries, and it has enabled truly staggering official corruption. Social entrepreneurship gives poor people (especially women) a sense of ownership on their own terms -- and frankly ownership (capitalism) is a system we all have to live with and make work for us.
BTW, the concept you call "We can't just give malaria nets away; we have to sell them so that people will be incentivized to take them seriously" is called social marketing. Its effectiveness at, for example, encouraging condom use in populations at high risk for HIV has been proven out through many sound studies.
Hey! I'm reading this book right now, too! I appreciate your thoughts. I'll think about your questions as I work my way through. I do agree, some of the profiles are amazing. At the very least, it is inspiring to see that good can be done through many avenues.
I wouldn't say aid-based type activism, or should I say charity, is a total failure. But what you are talking about Courtney, is definitely preferable. Its like this: charity is like treatment for cancer, it can extend someones life a little longer, or even help them survive. But investment in cancer research and for a cure is like the more reforming, analysis type change you are speaking of.
Or its like "Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime." (or however it goes)
I love analogies if you can't tell.
aid-based activism is a failure. it sets up dependence. however, there is a broad area between helping individuals to set up sustainable economic models in their communities so they can support themselves and selling them mosquito nets.
If you like Mr Bornstein's book, you may enjoy the video interview with him where he talks about the experience of writing this book:
http://www.socialedge.org/blogs/global-x/archive/2007/06/12/david-bornstein
Please also check out blogs with excerpts from related books on Social Edge, the online community for social entrepreneurs, at www.socialedge.org:
“Make The Impossible Possible” by Bill Strickland
http://www.socialedge.org/blogs/bill-strickland
"The Tactics of Hope: How Social Entrepreneurs Are Changing Our World" by Wilford Welch and David Hopkins
http://www.socialedge.org/blogs/the-tactics-of-hope
"The Power of Unreasonable People" by John Elkington and Pamela Hartigan
and just for kicks, you might be interested in the holiday gift guide for entrepreneurs from last year... which lists these and other books and gifts: http://www.socialedge.org/discussions/social-entrepreneurship/gift-guide-for-social-entrepreneurs/
If you like Mr Bornstein's book, you may enjoy the video interview with him where he talks about the experience of writing this book:
http://www.socialedge.org/blogs/global-x/archive/2007/06/12/david-bornstein
Please also check out blogs with excerpts from related books on Social Edge, the online community for social entrepreneurs, at www.socialedge.org:
“Make The Impossible Possible” by Bill Strickland
http://www.socialedge.org/blogs/bill-strickland
"The Tactics of Hope: How Social Entrepreneurs Are Changing Our World" by Wilford Welch and David Hopkins
http://www.socialedge.org/blogs/the-tactics-of-hope
"The Power of Unreasonable People" by John Elkington and Pamela Hartigan
and just for kicks, you might be interested in the holiday gift guide for entrepreneurs from last year... which lists these and other books and gifts: http://www.socialedge.org/discussions/social-entrepreneurship/gift-guide-for-social-entrepreneurs/