Lunch-time edition:
I sometimes ponder the connection between the micro and macro levels.
That's a broad statement, but true. What's the connection, for example, between your economic activity as on a small scale (microeconomics) and economic activity on a large scale (macroeconomics). Or between physics at a size smaller than Planck's constant, versus Newtonian physics at the level we see every day? The macro, after all, is made up of the micro (again...tiny grains of sand that add up to one big sand dune).
And I think of that, sometimes, as applied to changing the world. You can try to change in broad brushstrokes. Focus on getting mosquito nets, for example, to reduce the impact of malaria in Africa. Or focus on a more micro level, like volunteering as a mentor with Big Brothers Big Sisters.
Why choose one over the other? I can't help thinking that a mentorship program like BBBS is more...in depth. When I think of how people change, its normally because of long term and daily interactions. There's no silver bullet, no shortcuts. True change comes from the type of involvement you have with your family and friends. I believe that's one of the underlying reasons why research repeatedly shows that economic segregation is bad. Bad for rich, bad for poor...bad in part because there are few role models of success for the poor when all they know is other poor people. And there's a lack of understanding on the part of the rich, when their only experience with poverty is to come sweeping in with charity.
Having that level of interaction, that type of involvement, is slow. Time consuming. You can only help one person or one family at a time, because who has the energy (or capability) to have that kind of relationship with hundreds? Big Brothers Big Sisters is a great program, yet they struggle to find enough mentors.
Funny enough, it's also some of the most rewarding experiences available. Being a Big Sister is a bit like being an aunt, or other caring relative. All those studies on happiness discuss the importance of having a caring connection with the people around us. Family. Friends. Mentors and mentees. This is what makes life worth living...and yet so many people are too busy to support it, and would rather just give a donation.
I do see the appeal of working on a large scale. It can seem more satisfying, in that you can help so many more people all at once. But there are dangers to that, as well. It can be more impersonal. De-humanizing. I think some of the criticisms about foreign aid are, in part, because it's so bureaucratic. Disempowering. You don't get the sense that they care about you, as an individual. Or that they are giving you a choice, a say in your own life. It can come across as patronizing, an "I know better than you what will fix you (and boy, do you need fixing.)"
In my own life, I've travelled so much that I feel more connected to the macro (i.e. national politics, world events) than I do to my own personal micro (i.e. the events affecting the town I live in. Or even my state.) Yet all those national events - like our upcoming presidential election - are made up of any number of micro events. The local political structure that tries to get out the vote. The local politics and history that determine our voting districts. I'm more likely to know the presidential candidates than the candidates running for my state representative, or mayor.
But I digress. The point I was getting at is that in-depth, micro activities (if they have enough support) can lead to some truly amazing macro changes. And that maybe, just maybe, it's better to focus on growing and nurturing those small changes instead of trying to make a sweeping big change.
Stay tuned for part II.
I sometimes ponder the connection between the micro and macro levels.
That's a broad statement, but true. What's the connection, for example, between your economic activity as on a small scale (microeconomics) and economic activity on a large scale (macroeconomics). Or between physics at a size smaller than Planck's constant, versus Newtonian physics at the level we see every day? The macro, after all, is made up of the micro (again...tiny grains of sand that add up to one big sand dune).
And I think of that, sometimes, as applied to changing the world. You can try to change in broad brushstrokes. Focus on getting mosquito nets, for example, to reduce the impact of malaria in Africa. Or focus on a more micro level, like volunteering as a mentor with Big Brothers Big Sisters.
Why choose one over the other? I can't help thinking that a mentorship program like BBBS is more...in depth. When I think of how people change, its normally because of long term and daily interactions. There's no silver bullet, no shortcuts. True change comes from the type of involvement you have with your family and friends. I believe that's one of the underlying reasons why research repeatedly shows that economic segregation is bad. Bad for rich, bad for poor...bad in part because there are few role models of success for the poor when all they know is other poor people. And there's a lack of understanding on the part of the rich, when their only experience with poverty is to come sweeping in with charity.
Having that level of interaction, that type of involvement, is slow. Time consuming. You can only help one person or one family at a time, because who has the energy (or capability) to have that kind of relationship with hundreds? Big Brothers Big Sisters is a great program, yet they struggle to find enough mentors.
Funny enough, it's also some of the most rewarding experiences available. Being a Big Sister is a bit like being an aunt, or other caring relative. All those studies on happiness discuss the importance of having a caring connection with the people around us. Family. Friends. Mentors and mentees. This is what makes life worth living...and yet so many people are too busy to support it, and would rather just give a donation.
I do see the appeal of working on a large scale. It can seem more satisfying, in that you can help so many more people all at once. But there are dangers to that, as well. It can be more impersonal. De-humanizing. I think some of the criticisms about foreign aid are, in part, because it's so bureaucratic. Disempowering. You don't get the sense that they care about you, as an individual. Or that they are giving you a choice, a say in your own life. It can come across as patronizing, an "I know better than you what will fix you (and boy, do you need fixing.)"
In my own life, I've travelled so much that I feel more connected to the macro (i.e. national politics, world events) than I do to my own personal micro (i.e. the events affecting the town I live in. Or even my state.) Yet all those national events - like our upcoming presidential election - are made up of any number of micro events. The local political structure that tries to get out the vote. The local politics and history that determine our voting districts. I'm more likely to know the presidential candidates than the candidates running for my state representative, or mayor.
But I digress. The point I was getting at is that in-depth, micro activities (if they have enough support) can lead to some truly amazing macro changes. And that maybe, just maybe, it's better to focus on growing and nurturing those small changes instead of trying to make a sweeping big change.
Stay tuned for part II.
No comments:
Post a Comment