Like many development organizations, SST does not discriminate based on race, religion or caste. Unlike many service organizations, SST also does not discriminate on the basis of income. In other words, their programs are not focused singularly on providing services to low-income individuals. In fact, they take it one step further by actively encouraging the participation of middle and high-income families in SST’s initiatives. This may seem odd, especially from a social work perspective in the United States. With limited benefits and oppression on the mind, it becomes too easy for those of us concerned about social justice to fall into the same pattern of demonizing the wealthy, the straight, the white. This tirade is tired. If we social workers are all about inclusion then who are we to say that someone can’t participate because they have too much? Finger-pointing is a waste of time. I’ve learned from SST’s strategies that it is far more interesting to think about how to frame development in a way that gets the rich onboard (and encourages them to share the wealth). Which makes a lot of sense when you realize that that SST is not trying to save an individual, but develop a community.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record singing its rural song, it is also worth noting that inclusion is an especially important concept in small community building. In a city as large and as stratified as New York it may be possible to focus on providing services to specific populations, but in a community where the richest member and the poorest may live on the same street, the consequences of picking and choosing is much higher. The way an outside organization frames participation in an isolated location can make the difference in the level of buy-in they get from stakeholders. Small communities are built (and destroyed) on human relationships and SST is smart to forge partnerships instead of driving wedges. By actively working to include all members they are building a network that can sustain a village long after SST has left.
We were able to see one example of this concept in action during this past week. We visited a farmer who, throughout his lifetime, had increased his farmland from six to fifty acres of arable land. This land has made him a wealthy man, but his income has soared off the charts, in part, because SST has worked with him to install drip irrigation systems in his banana fields, and secure government schemes for rice intensification. In turn and unprompted, he gives an annual monetary award to the students with the highest marks in the local government school, donates an annual sum to an old age home in the village, and paid to install a potable water source in an impoverished neighborhood. Clearly he doesn’t need the money or the help, but what SST has done is allowed this farmer to participate in the process, which doesn’t take anything away from anyone else. In fact, it gives more. Participation breeds ownership. Ownership breeds pride and pride in community motivates people to make it stronger. Inclusion at its finest. Capacity building at it’s best.
CUSSW in Tamil Nadu 2013 