Part 2, Week/Lesson 5 – Constructive Program 1

There are couple of areas I feel are good places of focus for constructive programming. I do not think that our issues are necessarily the results of a few people in government making harmful choices occasionally but more the results of many of us, me included, making less than ideal choices daily and continually. Two areas that come to mind are shopping and eating.

As Gandhi, and experience, point out no evil system can exist without people’s cooperation. It is tough to illustrate much sympathy for the poor and help them when we rely on them for our products. Almost everywhere that we look, from our clothing to our furniture, we can see that they were produced overseas and most likely under harmful working conditions. The Walmarts and want-to-be Walmarts of the world cannot exist without our cooperation. Such companies are after profits, this is what motivates them, and they can only continue to make such profits if we continue to support their business practices. And this we do in droves. How hard it is to find a t-shirt or article of clothing produced in the United States or Fair Trade unless we are trying. Products made by cheap labor saturate the whole market. The only way our market can be saturated with such products in our economy is if we say this is ok and continually buy them. So instead of just fighting against trade agreements that ensure these conditions exists I think any organization that pushes people away from buying items obtained from the poor in bad working conditions is one that is constructive in that if enough people do it it will truly change our economy.

As a result I think organizations in my area such as Chicago Fair Trade, an organization that works to advance the fair trade movement in Chicago, is one that is constructive. Even shops that exist nationally such as Ten Thousand Villages can be constructive in a way by working to getting fair trade items more prevalent and trying to shift people away from shopping and participating in some of the more negative shopping situations out there. Also, I think another important avenue are websites like Etsy, which allow people to set up virtual shops for their homemade products. I think Etsy is a pretty important tool in shifting the way we do business. Being able to buy a product handmade from your neighbor as opposed to someone in a sweatshop is a considerable ability and I think if we move towards such purchasing it can truly revolutionize our economy.

However how we shop, I think while extremely important, I believe could also be complemented by what we contribute as well. This is where I am having issues. While I do think a move to shopping through Etsy and when buying internationally purchasing fair trade items can make a significant difference I think the other part of the equation is being able to produce something as well for the community. So, I think finding a way where one can contribute to the local economy, such as having some role in the making of a product, is something that can be important as well. I think Etsy and organizations such as Chicago Fair Trade, and Ten Thousand villages etc, if they incorporate a direct way in which an interested individual could become more directly involved in the making of goods as well, besides just supporting them financially, I think this combination of contributing through not only dollars but labor could be a tool for real changes.

The food system is another one that relies on the support of millions of people in this country to be what it is. I think it is lacking, to say it nicely, and changes among consumers and producers could help change the system. Our community, like many others, has a farmers market, which I think is a great opportunity for farmers and consumers to have an impact in shifting the food system of the community. I would consider this as constructive programming. Also, I personally think that any organization that promotes vegetarian eating is one that would also fall under constructive programming. I think it will be hard, if not impossible, to create a culture of non-violence in human relations while there is a culture of violence against the most defenseless creatures there are in this country. I think a change in the perception towards how we relate to food is essential in order to make lasting changes. I believe Gandhi once said that you could tell the greatness of a nation by how they treat their animals. If that is the case the United States has considerable work to do and this is an area that a shift in I believe would make a considerable societal change. In my neighborhood there is a vegetarian restaurant that opened recently. I did not find a vegetarian society that was dedicated only to work in my neighborhood, Oak Park, but I believe there were some in the general area that would include this area.

This is very interesting, because I definitely thought of fair trade and food as options!

I was looking for an example and realized I did not have to look too far. I work for an organization called National Network for Oral Health Access. It is a membership organization of dental providers working in what we call the “safety-net systems.” Those providers work in underserved communities in the U.S., where people often lack health insurance and access to health care services. The organization was started as a peer support group of Dental Directors working in community health centers. I believe that the community health center movement is a constructive programme.

According to the National Association of Community Health Centers, this model of care was created in order to transform this country’s healthcare system:

America’s Health Centers owe their existence to a remarkable turn of events in U.S. history, and to a few determined community health and civil rights activists working in low-income communities during the 1960s. Millions of Americans, living in inner-city neighborhoods and rural areas throughout the country suffered from deep poverty and a desperate need for health care. Among those determined to seek change was H. Jack Geiger, then a young doctor and civil rights activist. Geiger had studied in South Africa and witnessed how a pioneering community health model had wrought astonishing improvements in public health. (http://www.nachc.com/press-kit.cfm)

I call it a constructive programme as the movement meets many of the criteria:

• Concrete – Though not perfect, it is a specific model of healthcare delivery that addresses shortcomings of the current system of care, which is reactive and emergency-based.
• Constructive – Again, it actually provides the care rather than merely criticizing the old system.
• Nonconfrontational – It is one of the federally funded programs that have strong bipartisan support because of its effectiveness.
• Participation – Anyone can seek care from community health centers (as long as there is availability!).
• Proactive – It provides a model of care that works, and proactively prevents diseases.
• Building the community – They are community-owned clinics, meaning that majority of the governing board has to be actual patients. The centers not only provide healthcare services but also employment opportunities to the community.

The movement addresses many aspects of the old story and promotes a new story:
• Community health centers provide care to patients regardless of their income or insurance status.
• Their care is based on the communities’ needs, and their goal is to improve the overall population’s health, not just the individual health.
• Their care is culturally sensitive, often employing people from the communities and translators/bilingual staff.
• They provide innovative care, where in many cases medical and dental providers communicate, because mouth is part of the boy.
• They focus on quality, not quantity of care.

How can this initiative benefit from the application of nonviolence? I think one current limitation of the health center movement is that it has placed itself as a “safety-net” system, meaning that it is a place the poor and underseved would fall on, because the mainstream system of care cannot catch them. As a result, it is not very well-known by the American public, and by those who know about it, it is often considered a care system for the poor.

On the contrary, it has the potential to transform the mainstream system. Access to quality health care should be a basic human right, no matter what your income status. Every person deserves an integrated system of care, where he or she is treated as a whole person, not a collection of different body parts. This country needs a more cost-effective system of care delivery.

Trying to establish something like the community health center model as a mainstream type of care will likely meet oppositions, especially from individuals and entities that are profiting from the current insurance-driven model. Opposition will also come from health care providers who like practicing in business-driven practice settings.

One of the real “enemies” I see is the way of thinking that healthcare is a money-making scheme. Application of nonviolence will be necessary in tackling the very issue.