Today for civic engagement we
visited communities that Parker students would not usually come upon. We spoke
to community advocacy leaders about what they were trying to fix within their
community, and they lectured us about getting involved with our alderman and
state senator. To culminate the conversation about the incredibly impressive
lengths community organizations are taking to turn the area around (which
appear to be really effective and well thought out, and generally awesome), we
took a tour of a couple blocks of the neighborhood, where we were shown the
bungalow housing that the community was proud of, and the gorgeous 1933 St.
Sabina church. But, surrounding these highlights, were signs of a
not-so-idyllic neighborhood, strange graffiti, abandoned stores, boarded up
buildings etc. that weren’t really mentioned.
Partway through the tour, we had a
rather strange man point out that the neighborhood was all black, to unclear
purpose. He claimed to be Smoky Robinson, and said some things about the
neighborhood that our guide was quick to hush. The strange man followed us for
the duration of the tour, nodding, and talking repeatedly about masonry. I
doubt he meant any harm, but he did serve to further point out that as a group
of white, well-off, schoolchildren, we may not be in the best position to
appreciate the complexity of the issues his neighborhood faces. I felt like an
unwanted presence, stealing the dignity of the inhabitants of Auburn Gresham by
coming and intellectualizing their struggles and successes like they were
something to be studied instead of actual human beings “so I can better
understand the Chicago area”. While I agree that we definitely need to
understand the Chicago area better, I don’t think its fair to treat a
neighborhood like an exhibit. If I was an inhabitant of Auburn Gresham, I
wouldn’t want children worlds away from me to believe that they understand my
plights, and pity me, especially because I might be perfectly happy there, and
it would be rude to deem my life less full and happy and worthy of pity because
I wasn’t rich. We were not invited.
So I did some research. Starting by
searching “cultural tourism”, google gave me Indian tour companies. My next
idea was “poverty tourism”, and immediately I found countless articles and
papers debating whether going to Africa and talking to a rural village, or
driving through the slums of India for the purpose of self-betterment was
morally acceptable. I found an excellent but lengthy report from BU School of
Law. Generally, I found that poverty tourism is viewed as acceptable if the community
is benefitting from it. Our tourism of Auburn Gresham was purely for our
benefit, making it morally debatable.
Here’s
an excerpt that gives a brief idea about the larger debate:
Poverty
tourists are drawn to a variety of places, from squatter settlements in India
to garbage dumps in Mexico and to urban centers in the United States. Some philosophers,
journalists, and writers condemn all such tours as harmful cases of voyeurism.
Others disagree, insisting that some tours are not harmful at all, and actually
generate important human interactions, including education and economic
assistance. These mutually beneficial cases are invoked as counterexamples that
deflate critics' claims that all cases of poverty tourism are impermissible.
The counterexamples also include 'Pareto superior' cases where the tourists
gain but the residents are made no worse off.
And here’s the link
to the full paper:
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMaddie, I appreciate this thoughtful blog post. You're wrestling with important questions here. It’s important to know about – and challenge – poverty tourism, as well as to consider who benefits and how from crossing neighborhood borders. Does this mean it’s better not learn in the communities like Auburn Gresham where important community organizing is taking place? How can students from the Lincoln Park neighborhood spend time learning about Auburn Gresham to better understand their city -- without it feeling like "an exhibit"?
ReplyDeleteYour reflection raises an interesting and significant point: how does the removal of ignorance interact with the dignity of those that one is ignorant towards? I definitely remember the man walking along with our group through Auburn Gresham, and the tension was palpable; a certain dignity is lost when one's home is turned into, as you put it, an exhibit. The question I would then ask is, "Which takes priority, decreased ignorance or preservation of dignity?" There are clearly many, many nuances to this question that are contingent upon all sorts of circumstances, but broadly, each case-specific answer comes down to the individually subjective experience of the person whose home/neighborhood is being observed. My default inclination is to stab my hand in the air and assert that an objective, longterm cost/benefit evaluation of the effects on both parties is required to fairly answer that question; however, this takes on an uncomfortably condescending tone in that inherent to that method of analysis is the belief that the results of a (theoretically) logical analysis supersede the will of an individual to preserve his/her dignity. It's a tough one.
ReplyDeleteI would just like to say that there are ample ways to learn about a community and be less ignorant that do not involve walking a massive group of wealthy children around a community taking pictures. We absolutely could have just listened to speakers and driven through the neighborhood. There has to be a give and take. We only took from Auburn Gresham. Admittedly, with good intention, though that does not change the negative impact on the members of the community who could have seen us touring.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI went on this poverty tour as well. First off, to label the trip as a "poverty tour" was spot on. I praise you for being so honest about your feelings from the trip, I wasn't in my blog post. Your reflection was very thought-provoking, and it was interesting to explore the tour from an ethical and a moral standpoint. Great idea in researching the term "poverty tourism", I could think of so many different cultures and societies in which the term is explored (such as Africa, which you mentioned). I was disappointed with how artificial our tour guide was in showing us the town, like you said, he was careful not to point out or discuss any of the obvious negatives (broken-down shops). Thank you for writing such an intriguing reflection!
ReplyDelete