Beyond Generalizations at the Working Centre

Yesterday, I had the opportunity to tour the Working Centre (http://www.theworkingcentre.org/). While there, I was able to listen to the experiences and opinions of several workers and volunteers of the organization. In one of my conversations, the following was said,“The rich only like to live near the rich not the poor that is why the average income is higher in Waterloo than Kitchener.” It should be recognized that a day has passed, and this statement could have fallen prey to my faulty memory. However, while it may not be verbatim, the essence is there. 

My difficulty with this statement is the massive generalizations being made - that the rich do not want to live near the poor. Treating these groups as having a unified set of beliefs is a slippery slope to a false polarization effect.  This effect is “the tendency to overestimate two things: the extent to which the views of others resemble the strongest or most stereotypical positions of those sorts, and the difference between one’s own view and the view of someone who disagrees (Kenyon 227).”  This creates an artificial sense of drastic differences between simplistic positions, where the real viewpoints may have similarities and nuances. 

The fact is that generalizations occur all around us. Society lumps together beliefs in political parties (Democrats and Republicans), sexes (men and women), faculties at universities (engineering, environment, and arts), and global status (developed countries and developing countries).  As we proceed to classify the beliefs countries and people into these groups, we harm the potential for effective cooperation and problem solving.

           

This can be seen in I, Rigoberta Menchú (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigoberta_Mench%C3%BA). Rigoberta creates a distinction between Ladinos and Indians. In the beginning, she held the view all ladinos were prejudice and cruel towards Indians. Because of this, she did not attempt to problem solve with Ladinos. Later in her book, she discovered not all Ladinos felt the same, and there were some who supported the Indian position. This is a case of this polarization. She felt all ladinos had the stereotypical hatred and cruelty towards Indians.

I think the Millennium Development Project has fallen prey to generalizations with the Millennium Development Goals. It has simplified the needs of developing countries instead of recognizing their complexity. It should be recognized that the needs of developing countries go beyond the Millennium Development Goals, and are not all the same.

We, as global society and a local community, have entrenched “the poor” and “the rich” as having a unified set of beliefs. I purport that to improve the quality of life for those who need it than we need to dissolve these generalizations and understand the diversity and density of these groups. We need to start understanding on a less superficial level.

           

I would argue if we continue to make generalizations than we make simplistic solutions like the following:

·         Developing countries need to improve maternal health, children in primary education, and sustainable partnerships.

·         The homeless need houses.

·         Environment students at the University of Waterloo need free camping equipment.

The consequence of the latter example is less harmful than the prior two. However, it illustrates that generalizing leads to what Group A thinks Group B needs. This is what the Working Centre avoids.

In the Working Centre’s café, there is a piano for anyone to play. A piano is not what immediately leaps to mind when one thinks of the needs of the poor. This shows the Working Centre’s attempts to understand the diversity of the poor. It has an open and malleable structure that allows it to adapt. This is evident in its evolution from being simply a job resource centre to its creation of recycle cycles, cinema club, sewing machine room, computer recycling, Queen Street café, and Worth a Second Look. It has not preordained what the poor need. It fills in gaps it sees that people require or desire and rests on understanding of divergence in the poor's needs and wants.

Is this type of open malleable structure possible for the United Nations Development Program? I am not sure. I do not know if it is practical or feasible on a global scale. Despite this, my principle is the same. We should stop doing what we think developing countries need, and stop generalizing. Developing countries have different resources, domestic issues, neighbors, assets, and faults. I think that if we, developed countries, truly wanted to aid developing countries, we need to avoid oversimplifications, and create a more extensive analysis and dialogue. This is not to say that we should not use labels or that there won’t be commonalities between countries. However if we avoid the lumping of beliefs of groups, we can start to understand and address the varying needs within in groups and create more effective solutions to complex needs and desires.

Cited Works:

Kenyon, Tim. Clear Thinking in a Blurry World. Thomson-Nelson, 2007. Print.