Boys of Baraka

I watched the documentary Boys of Baraka last night. It reminded me of how there was a time when I was very sure I wanted to open an alternative school (I still might some day). It was going to be called an "E.P.R. School" which would stand for "Education, Practice, and Research" (and also my initials). So the Baraka school was a school in Kenya that took 20 at-risk boys from Baltimore, MD each year to go to Kenya for two years to complete middle school with the idea that it would help them graduate from high school. (75% of African American boys in Baltimore do not graduate from high school).

There were many aspects of the film that struck me, but one that is directly related to my research is the idea that context has such an impact on development. And further, if one is removed from his context, it might improve his development. In this case, innner city youth were taken to a rural area. The juxtaposition of the two locations was striking. In the beginning of the film the boys were in their natural environments-- the city. They were 12 years old, but looking and acting like men. They were flexing for the camera and talking about how tough they were. They were on the streets getting into fights and doing drugs with people much older than them. When they arrived in Africa, they looked like different kids. They were little boys, collecting bugs, chasing lizards, and playing like boys should. They were allowed to have a break and just relax a bit and be kids.

So I am thinking about rural vs. urban again. On the one hand, urban youth see opportunity, but may feel more constrained by their context and the multiple negative influences. On the other hand, rural youth may lack exposure to other opportunities, thus not even knowing what is available to them. Which is more hopeless? I might guess the urban. I would also guess that maybe this leads to anger at being aware of what is out there that you can't reach. This might then precipitate more violence. Meanwhile, rural youth are just as exposed to drugs and alcohol (maybe not as much violence), but there is less to distract them overall; fewer people, and less stimuli. So, do they feel more hopeless or depressed as a result?

I must say that my comparisons are simply a product of my brain tyring to understand these two contexts in order to make better recommendations for practice and change. I don't think it is at all important to try to determine who has it worse. I think it is obvious that the two contexts are just different, thus we need to know how they are different in order to help the different youth growing up in them.

Poor People

I am half way through a book called Poor People by William T. Vollmann. I can say that I definitely set out to hate this book. The review in the Globe was positive, but the quotes they used from the text made me itchy: "I am sometimes afraid of poor people. . .my fear of people whom I define as poor is part of what defines me as rich." Insightful, yes, but I anticipated the release of the book like a school boy waiting for a fight after school. I was pacing, fuming, and making arguments against his callous assertions. Even the title was like a play on words: people that are poor, but also the statement we so frequently make when we feel pity "poor people."

The premise of Vollmann's book is that he traveled the world (the third world) asking poor people why they are poor and what makes them poor. This is an intriguing research question I think. He also photographed the people and includes in them in his appendix. The book is a series of profiles of real people whom he talked with, followed by his commentary on their lives and what he "heard" in their responses. The book moves fast, so the reader is whisked from country to country, meeting a host of characters.

Now that I am half way through, I am beginning to warm up to his arrogance and sarcasm and taking it as irony and not as truth. This sits better with me, for I am a big fan or irony. He makes statements that I often make as I am puzzling about poverty, inequality, and classism. I am thinking he just has the nerve to write it down and get it published. I find myself reading this book like I watch the Cobert Report on Comedy Central; I am constantly amused, but afraid that out of ignorance someone might tune in and think that Stephen Cobert is for real. I would hope this book's readers will sense the irony right away and not allow this academic's words to support their potentially ignorant opinions.

My final comments about the book thus far are from a research perspective. I understand that the book is being marketed to a wide audience (I bought it at Barnes & Noble), but his style neglects some of the important characteristics of writing up qualitative research. Namely, he doesn't use quotation marks to indicate what a person has said. He also doesn't clearly delineate when the interpreters are interjecting their own comments about what the interviewee has just said. This style makes it very difficult to follow what is directly quoted and what is editorialized by his interpreters or himself.

More to come when I finish. . .

Red Sox Nation

I want put a shout out to my father in law (and anyone else who is as big a Red Sox Fan as I am). I am worried that my dissertation plans will have to take a back seat now that the Red Sox season has started. My time and attention will be devoted to the Sox. Go team go!

Learned Helplessness

The SRCD conference gave me a few more things to think about. Kathryn Grant had some very important points about stressors in the context of poverty and mitigating the outcomes. Her take home message was that kids living in poverty who have coping mechanisms that don't have a lot of positive benefits, may succumb to learned helplessness. Like the Seilgman's dogs who first tried to avoid the shocks, but eventually gave up and stopped trying, children living in poverty may do the same. In fact, when Grant looked at the kinds of support kids had there were a few different groups. One group said they "do nothing" to cope in the face of stress. Another said they were "self reliant" and used self initiated coping mechanisms. The third group relied on their friends for support, and the fourth group had a larger support network of family, friends, etc. Of course the group with the larger network fared better, but the interesting finding was that the "do nothing" group were better off than the "self reliant" group. It is as if, those who tried to handle everything themselves with their own skills would get discouraged more easily.

I think this sits nicely with social capital theory. Here is where it is important to develop those skills that children need to be resilient and hopeful. BUT, it is also important to develop support networks and resources for the children to rely on as well. An analogy that comes to mind in a clinical setting would be if a client was trying to quit smoking and the psychologist taught the client a new technique. The client goes home, armed with this new knowledge and a new skill, but everyone in the home environment is still smoking and in fact they give the client a hard time when he practices his technique in front of them. So, the whole intent backfires. If, however, the psychologist had told the client how to talk with the family and elicit their support in his cessation efforts, the technique may have been more successful.

So in terms of fostering resilience it is important to look at how in isolation the skills we are developing on an individual level may actually be detrimental in the impoverished environment. And also working to develop all aspects of the person, rather than just one dimension.