To the Countryside

7 May 2015 - Thursday

Tonight is my first night out in the 'campo'. I traveled out with my supervisor (ish) Lani, talking about Colombia and home and her decision to spend at least four years of her life with SembrandoPaz here. She loves the work, as well as the people, and really feels she has purpose here that she doesn't have back in the states. Well, I know some returned missionaries who feel the same way, so I don't blame her at all. She will probably come out a better person for it, though it's not an easy road.

After a long bus ride (with a good deal of waiting interspersed – that is normal in developing countries, I think) we arrived in the city in which Lani serves as a liaison. It is a small-ish town of Afro-Colombians, not 10 minutes from the Caribbean coast and still humid like Sincelejo. We got here just in time for a meeting with some government representatives about making a plan for "collective reparations," which is a common theme in these communities. They include community structures but also community councils, better teachers for the schools, and such intangible benefits. It is closely related to SembrandoPaz's work, trying to move beyond cash payments or physical construction into the world of communities and ideas. Hard work, but important.

A typical street in Lani's community.

As Lani and I were discussing this theme on the way here, I started to ponder these poor rural communities (Latin and African in particular) that are often seen as more communal but have something very uncooperative about their actual communities. Why is that? It struck me that they are definitely better at fulfilling direct obligations incurred by family or relationships – kids take care of parents, government officials give cousins jobs, parents sacrifice everything for kids (crossing the border). Howver, interestingly, they don't have the same abstract sense of justice many Western societies have inherited, the kind that considers all people equal before the law. I think that is still kind of silly to many of them – my grandmother is not just like every other old lady, and I should stand by her even if she does something contrary to societal law. In a fascinating way, I think this even affects their view of themselves – I am not just some other guy, I am me, the only one who watch out for me in the end. I shouldn't see myself in some removed, dispassionate flight.

All these things are probably true, but there seems to be a lack of objectivity in these societies which could balance that subjectivity. (It may be the opposite in Western societies, but that's another discussion.) It's Kant's categorical imperative coming back to haunt me, despite my belief that the imperative is alone insufficient to guide human action: act as if you could wish everyone to act in the same way in a similar situation (roughly). Should everyone try to make personal trips on company money? Should everyone sell their vote for a few dollars? Should everyone beat up the neighbor who insults a loved one? Clearly reason is not enough to make a healthy society, but I think these communities could use some rational, universalizable standards of behavior.

While sitting in the meeting today, as well as yesterday's, I also began to ponder the importance of the lawyers. It's a bit silly, I realize, but I was struck by how often laws and articles of the Constitution came up. Humankind put so much stock in their hastily written, imperfect laws, and if people can be convinced something is required (and enforced) by law, they are much more likely to do it. That even includes many villagers, though the subjective perspective mentioned above probably makes that instinct less powerful. So in defending the rights of the poor and oppressed, if a lawyer can make a great case for a true moral principle by appealing to an existing law, the rest of society is very likely to go along even if it is not pleased. Additionally, if a lawyer can help the poor and oppressed fight for their rights through existing laws, the rich and powerful are more likely to listen. While that doesn't quite make me want to be a lawyer, it does make me re-think the value of a JD.

At the workshop on collective reparation.

One final thought on today's workshop. The facilitator, a nice guy with a European complexion, has clearly spent some time with these poor communities. He is determined to help them make proposals for collective reparation and is frustrated by the apparent lack of progress or effort in the community. But I think he overlooks the simple fact that every comment in the meetings focuses not on reparations or laws or definitions – they focus on relationships and trust (or the lack thereof). These people aren't concerned about collective land rights when they don't have a functioning council to govern the land, aren't concerned about making community-wide proposals when they can't even get the whole community to meet together. It seems that getting them to meet about and agree on smaller things might be better. Certainly it will also be important to educate the children, not just for a few years but constantly, in great schools, until they begin to balance the subjective outlook with (a reasonable quantity of) objectivity. But that's a work of generations, and we can't afford for these communities to fall into more violence and mistrust while waiting for the next few generations to take over. So how do we help communities racked by mistrust and self- or family-focus to function now, long enough for education to help?

Hard questions abound here.