Abstract
Poverty is discussed here from pedagogical and therefore instructional perspectives. It is analyzed in novel ways, seeing charities as environments wherein adult learning occurs. Charities are shown as overlooked “adult learning institutions” that “instruct” the poor by conveying to them (indirectly through the type of aid offered and the conditions for obtaining aid) by using three ideologies of poverty: ontological, epistemological, and axiological. Ideology 1 presents poverty as an ontological (tangible) matter of limited (real or digital) resources—some of the tangibly poor have access to the Internet (to unlimited digital resources), being digitally nonpoor but tangibly poor. Ideology 2 portrays poverty as an epistemological (cognitive) issue of limited abilities—some poor people (with access to the Internet and therefore to unlimited, free-of-charge learning opportunities) have exploited these opportunities to gain skills. Ideology 3 paints poverty as an axiological (value-based) lack of valuing poverty—although some poor people have positive attitudes towards poverty, their access to the Internet (to the lifestyle of the wealthy) has made them reconsider their attitudes. Being influenced by these ideologies, the poor perceive poverty (a) as limited resources and therefore as external to them, thereby feeling disempowered; (b) as limited skills and thus as internal to them, therefore feeling empowered; or (c) as a positive value and accordingly take no action. Previous works discuss the potential of adult learning to break the cycle of poverty, whereas this article demonstrates that adult learning can encourage individuals to remain poor and value their status of being poor.
Keywords
“Adult learning can encourage individuals to remain poor and to value their existing social status of being poor.”
Introduction
“Society instructs,” Schiering and Honigsfeld (2002, p. 28) argued. Put differently, the various institutions of society (e.g., schools, universities, professional organizations, associations, mosques, churches, clubs, and charities) “instruct” their associates, by transmitting (often subliminally through the kind of offered services and through the set terms, conditions, and regulations for obtaining these services) certain ideologies to their associates (Freire, 1970). This article concentrates on one of these institutions—that is, charity organizations—and enquires into the ways in which these organizations convey (normally subconsciously via the type of offered aid and via the terms for gaining this aid) to the poor certain ideologies of poverty. In other words, the article examines how charities, during the course of supporting the poor, shape and direct the way in which the poor see their own poverty. This article is motivated by and strives to go beyond the critical thoughts of Giroux (1988) and Darder (2003), who see “instruction” as being an essentially political act of delivering particular ideologies from “the instructor” (here, charities) into “the instructed” (here, the poor). Hence, a strong point of this article is the examination of charities not as economic or civic organizations but rather as pedagogical organizations, which play an instructional role in society and therefore should be studied by pedagogists (cf. Alsawat, 2007). This article, intentionally, puts to sleep the mainstream, dominant, economic, and administrative approaches to the concept of poverty, while waking up and shedding light on the often under-considered instructional approaches to the understanding of poverty. In doing so, it further attempts to build up a theoretical and conceptual framework for this approach.
Method
We structure this article around two main research questions.
We conducted this research in 2018 in the context of Saudi Arabia, where there are more than 600 poverty-oriented charities. Out of these charities, 17 charities were subject to inquiry, examining their day-to-day activities and their documents and statistics. This is along with interviews with 35 charity workers, seven activists, five academics, two policy makers, 39 poor men, and 26 poor women. Having analyzed the collected data, we found charities to follow three ideologies in their dealings with the poor: ontological, epistemological, and axiological. These ideologies are defined in Table 1. In the sections where the findings are presented, an academic is represented as “A Interviewee,” an activist as “AC Interviewee,” a charity worker as “CW Interviewee,” a policy maker as “P Interviewee,” a poor man as “PM Interviewee,” and a poor woman as “PW Interviewee.”
A Description of the Ideologies that Charities Deliver to the Poor
The three ideologies of poverty (ontological, epistemological, and axiological) are illustrated in Figure 1.
An illustration of the ideologies that charities transfer to the poor.
Ontological Ideology
Instructional Challenges
Some charities—let us call them “ontologist charities”—convey (indirectly via the kind of offered aid and through the terms for getting the aid) to the poor their own ideology, wherein poverty is seen an ontological (tangible and physical) matter of limited (access to) resources. At times, poverty is seen as the characteristic of individuals having no sufficient access to resources, whereas at other times it is perceived as the characteristic of there being no sufficient resources. By way of illustration, one charity states (the ontological term) that “one is not eligible for any assistance from the charity if one’s income is below 3,000SAR [US$800].” Regarding ontological projects and campaigns, some charities have placed special large bins in various neighborhoods, where the nonpoor leave their unwanted used clothes, while the poor take whatever they want from these clothes. These charities have initiated a campaign titled “Turn Your Rubbish Bin Into a Reward,” encouraging the nonpoor to place their unwanted clothes in these bins. Another ontological project is that some charities hold collective dinners for the poor. They also encourage nonpoor people to give these charities any leftover food, which these charities then distribute to the poor. Moreover, they provide financial help for poor individuals to get married, either by giving them some cash or organizing a collective wedding wherein around 50 poor individuals get married at the same time. As ontologist charities understand poverty in the form of objects, their mission is to supply the poor with such resources as money, clothes, groceries, housing, and loans to open small businesses. There is a variety of traditional and cultural events and occasions that associate the poor with the need for materials and resources. Bearing this in mind, the poor are expected to perceive poverty as merely a lack of resources and therefore to “chase” (PM Interviewee) more and more resources. Given that poor people see poverty in the form of resources (and therefore as external to them), some of them have reported feeling disempowered and consequently having no power to address poverty considering that resources are out of their reach.
Technological Challenges
Some participants contend that, nowadays, poverty is, ontologically, not simply a matter of limited real resources but moreover a matter of limited digital resources. Some of the studied poor have had access to the Internet and thus to the unlimited “ecology of digital resources” (Luckin, 2008). Thus, these poor individuals, ontologically speaking, are not poor in the digital world (wherein they face no lack of digital resources) but remain poor in the physical domain (where they experience a lack of tangible resources). Such a conflicting situation has brought up various challenges. For example, the poor experience a unique situation, whereby they are, physically, poor (i.e., living a shortage of physical resources) and yet, virtually, nonpoor, that is, exposed to an excess of digital resources. Yet, some politicians and policy makers would not like the poor to be associated with the rich by any means, even in the digital world. For this reason, certain implicit attempts have been initiated to ensure that the poor remain deprived even digitally, for example, by preventing them from gaining access to the Internet. Such a political action has resulted in what has been termed the digital divide, an academic concept that explores why poor people are made poor even in the online sphere.
Epistemological Ideology
Instructional Challenges
We have discovered that some charities (“epistemologist charities”) transmit—implicitly through their charitable activities and through the conditions for obtaining charity—to the poor their way of seeing poverty as an epistemological (cognitive) matter of limited knowledge, be it abilities, skills, or mentalities. Hence, the mission of these charities is to provide the poor with cognitive development opportunities, for example, training sessions, professional workshops, and educational opportunities. To illustrate this, some charities have epistemological projects investing in the schooling of poor children, offering them the equipment necessary for their education. Moreover, some charities provide scholarships for children from poor families (to study either inside or outside the country) so that they can learn certain skills and abilities on which they can rely to have a better future for themselves and for their families. An epistemological project called “Productive Families” sponsors poor families by providing up to 50,000 SAR (US$13,000) for them to learn certain skills and abilities (e.g., cooking, hairdressing, and crafting skills) and then use them to start their own small home-based businesses. Being partly influenced by this epistemologist ideology, some of the poor have ended up perceiving poverty as a lack of skills and abilities and, consequently, sought to address this lack. As these poor people came to think of poverty as a cognitive limitation (and therefore as internal to them), some have felt empowered and had the power to address poverty—given that poverty, after all, lies within their control. From such a perspective, the poor are therefore the ones to be held “accountable” (A Interviewee) for their poverty and to be “blamed” (A Interviewee) for not escaping poverty.
Technological Challenges
We have found many poor individuals to have had mobile phones and access to the Internet. Some of them, however, have not exploited the Internet to gain skills, abilities, and “improved” mentalities, even though that the Internet offers users an “unlimited number” (CW Interviewee) of free-of-charge cognitive development opportunities. That said, other poor people, however, have benefited from the Internet for the improvement of their potential and therefore managed to escape poverty. For instance, although some poor people cannot afford to register for a course in a language school to learn English, they have, however, used the Internet (e.g., language websites and apps such as Duolingo and Memrise) to learn English and therefore access better jobs and escape poverty. This is in addition to learning IT skills (e.g., photography, graphic design, programming, and the use of Microsoft Office), which has reportedly helped them improve their income. Bearing such cases in mind, it could be, epistemologically, argued that, with the advance of the Internet, being poor has become “an option; not a force” (CW Interviewee). That is, even if one is forced into poverty through certain offline politics, one “can find a way online to go above these politics, escape poverty and stop being poor” (PM Interviewee). In other words, nowadays, the poor have, at least theoretically, “no excuse” (CW Interviewee) for remaining poor, considering the fact that the Internet provides everyone (including the poor) with the chance to gain the skills and abilities that are necessary for escaping poverty.
Axiological Ideology
Instructional Challenges
Some charities—that is, “axiologist charities”—pass on (subliminally via their charitable procedures and the terms and conditions for getting assistance) to their beneficiaries the mind-set whereby poverty is perceived as an axiological matter of how one values poverty—if one values poverty and has a positive attitude toward poverty, one will not feel poor. Some charities have sponsored and published leaflets promoting positive attitudes toward poverty. They have also launched campaigns for “reconciliation” (CW Interviewee) with poverty. These campaigns are offline and/or online through their websites. Furthermore, the charities have established their libraries where there are various pro-poverty books. Axiologist charities make the case that, as poverty is merely a value-based condition, there is, therefore, no such thing as “poverty” but rather “the poor” who have merely failed to rise above “an internal feeling of being poor” (CW Interviewee, emphasis added). They argue that no one is forced into poverty, considering that poverty is simply a feeling, meaning that if one does not feel poor, one is not poor and cannot be “pushed” (PW Interviewee) into feeling poor. They contend that, given that poverty is, essentially, an inner feeling, one has an option to “liberate” (AC Interviewee) oneself from this feeling. That is, poverty, in the terms set by axiologist charities, “first exists in one’s mind and then reflects on one’s life” (AC Interviewee). There is an assortment of key issues regarding such an axiologist philosophy:
Charities promoting poverty as a positive value: Axiologist charities accept as true that one is nonpoor if one has a positive attitude toward poverty, even if one lacks resources, abilities, skills, and mentalities. Hence, their mission is to offer the poor spiritual and psychological lectures and organize social and cultural events and activities that help the poor adjust their attitude toward poverty and encourage them to view poverty optimistically. They use various “strategies” (AC Interviewee) to make the poor feel good about themselves. For example, they, at times, ask poor individuals to compare themselves with those who are poorer than themselves, with the aim of making them feel satisfied with their current situation. They sometimes encourage the poor to regard poverty as reflecting “modesty” (CW Interviewee), a “peaceful mentality” (CW Interviewee), and happiness. They promote the belief that “one will not die before one obtains the amount of money that one is supposed to obtain during one’s lifetime” (PM Interviewee). They uphold the argument that “contentment is the true capital of the human.” They believe that the poor have been chosen by God to be poor either “because God wants to test their patience level” (CW Interviewee) or because “being poor in this life will make one eventually wealthy in the afterlife” (PM Interviewee). They advertise poverty as a “destiny” (PW Interviewee) and “fate” (PW Interviewee) that God has decided the poor must live with—and the poor “shall accept God’s decision, no matter what” (PW Interviewee). They tell the poor that “wealth takes one away from worship” (PM Interviewee). They inform the poor that, “if one convinces oneself that happiness is only in wealth, one will feel miserable for one’s entire life” (PM Interviewee). They further tell them that “the poor are closer to God and His satisfaction than the wealth” (PM Interviewee). They publicize the thought that “being poor is a reflection of a status wherein one is less attached to living and yet more involved with God—hence, being poor is a feature more suitable for a believer and is an honest expression of religious genuineness” (PM Interviewee). They also use religion to encourage the poor to embrace their axiological approach to poverty. Some interviewees argue that, in some countries, charities (especially public ones) can be, implicitly, directed by political agendas that seek to keep the citizens of those countries quiet about their poor financial status and not protest against the monetary discrimination against them. Hence, these political agendas may manipulate the mentality of the poor (through public charities) to convince them that poverty is a positive value. Owing to attempts by charities and political agents to promote poverty among the poor as a positive matter, the poor are expected to end up perceiving poverty optimistically and consequently not taking any personal or public action against it.
The poor seeing poverty as a matter of identity: Axiologist poor people treat poverty as a positive value to the extent that some of them have developed “their own poverty-oriented identity, ideology, culture, and heritage that they actively shelter” (CW Interviewee). Having established an “identity of being poor” (CW Interviewee, emphasis added), some axiologist poor people proactively engage in “identity politics” (Fraser, 2009), employing various strategies to defend their identity against the “identity of the non-poor” (AC Interviewee). They stand against the nonpoor, feeling “proud of being poor” (PM Interviewee). They are fanatical about their identity and add a sacred feature to this identity. They express a sense of “belonging” (P Interviewee) and “loyalty” (PW Interviewee) to their identity. They reiterate the common saying that “being poor is not shameful” and campaign for the concept of “asceticism”—a way of life characterized by abstinence from bodily, physical, and materialistic pleasures with the purpose of fulfilling spiritual objectives (Balarabi, 2014; Tawalbiyah, 2011). Once poverty becomes a culture and heritage, one will then be criticized if one tries to depart from one’s culture and to leave one’s heritage. Moreover, some poor people like to be poor because they want to punish themselves. This self-punishment takes place either because these poor people have pleasure in self-punishing or self-flagellating (Yasmin, 2016), or because “some systems of religious belief see virtue in suffering and assume restitution in later life” (Lerner, 1980, p. 21). The finding of Lerner (1980) is in line with such an axiologist attitude toward poverty, showing the poor to be “happy in their own way—carefree, happy-go-lucky, in touch with and able to enjoy the simple pleasures of life” (p. 20). One PM Interviewee commented on this finding: “It makes me wonder whether some people are brainwashed into thinking like that about their own [poor] situation. Or that it’s a psychological strategy to deal with the reality of being poor.” Poverty has become an identity perhaps because “it is what brings a group of people in common—there are other many parallels with things that bring people in common, for example, pain (i.e., comparing backpain or injuries in certain groups, as either a bonding, or badge of honour, or simply habituated behaviour)” (AC Interviewee).
The poor seeing the nonpoor in negative terms: Some of the axiologist poor state that their identity is superior to the identity of the nonpoor. They politically seek to promote “a negative public image of the non-poor” (AC Interviewee) and, moreover, publicize wealth as a “stigma” (CW Interviewee). They publicly argue that nonpoor individuals are “caught in the trap of capitalism” (A Interviewee) and consequently have been taken away from “the art and pleasure of enjoying simple lifestyles” (PM Interviewee). They promote the idea that many of the nonpoor would do anything (even if it is unethical, immoral, and unhumanitarian) to accumulate their capital. They believe that the poor are poor but happy and honest, whereas the wealthy are wealthy but miserable and dishonest. They doubt “the intelligence of the wealthy” (PM Interviewee)—intelligence that has turned them into “the slaves of the dinar and dirham” (a locally common phrase) who are extraordinarily worried about living. They believe that “money is worldly dirt” (PW Interviewee). They hold the belief that “God keeps one poor because He wants to prevent one from being rich and therefore immoral, sinful and exposed to divine punishment” (PW Interviewee). They hold the belief that wealthy individuals are “a main reason behind the world’s natural and non-natural disasters” (PW Interviewee) and “a reason for the divine punishment of human society” (PW Interviewee). They reason that wealthy cultures are “bad because of the tyranny of wealth” (PM Interviewee). One interviewee commented on this finding: “The capitalist, consumption-driven and pressured ‘ideal’ of western culture is littered with false emotional economies that I [am] not surprised that wealth is looked down upon.”
The nonpoor expressing a preference for poverty in a poverty-glorifying culture: In a culture wherein there is a promoted positive image of the poor, some wealthy people talk about wealth in a negative way. They declare themselves to be “ashamed” (AC Interviewee) of their association with money. They find themselves, culturally, obligated to conceal their richness, so as not to be discriminated against in a poverty-glorifying culture. Moreover, they, at times, pretend that they are poor, so as to gain the respected social and religious status granted to the poor. Such a finding tallies with the finding of Kay and Jost (2003), which suggests that the wealthy “take comfort in images of the poor as relatively content” (p. 824). Having asked 41 primary school–aged poor children if they would wish to be wealthy, the vast majority of them responded that they would not wish to be. Such an “innocent” and “spontaneous” response suggests that there appears to be a successfully promoted negative image of the wealthy, even among children.
Technological Challenges
Whereas the worldview and literature tend to present poverty in a negative way, some charities and nationals have rather perceived and promoted poverty as a positive value. That said, the country has witnessed a sudden transformation into an increasingly modern and capitalistic society, which has encouraged some nationals to rethink their positive attitudes toward poverty, progressively adopting the “waves of technology and wealth” (AC Interviewee). The introduction of the Internet to the country has exposed the poor to the lifestyle of the wealthy. The online domain has enabled many poor individuals to see, albeit virtually, how “cool” (PW Interviewee) it is to be nonpoor and how “exciting” (PM Interviewee) the daily social life of the wealthy is. Although some axiologist charities have long pushed the poor in one direction (i.e., to have a positive attitude toward poverty), digital technologies have “counter-pushed” (PW Interviewee) the poor in the opposite direction, to have a rather positive attitude toward wealth. As a result, some of the poor have shifted from the status of valuing poverty and disliking capitalism to the reactive status of “over-valuing wealth and feeling over-oppressed by their poverty” (PW Interviewee). Moreover, the Internet (including social media) has considerably raised the expectations, ambitions, aspirations, and living standards of many teenagers—who live above poverty lines and are, according to the economic definitions of poverty, nonpoor. Such a psychological increase has consequently made these teenagers feel “relatively poor” (PM Interviewee). This feeling of “relative poverty,” with the passing of time, has reportedly become an integral part of these teenagers’ character and mind-set.
Contributions to the Literature
The research has been conducted to serve the researchers and practitioners of adult learning, even though such research is habitually intended for the readers of poverty and development articles. It can be said that this article has contributed to the practice and research of adult learning in the ways outlined below.
Contribution 1: Charities as Adult Learning Environments
We have sought to analyze charity organizations in a novel way, examining them as environments wherein adult learning has an effect. We have shown that charities (and therefore social work organizations in general) are being overlooked as “adult learning institutions” that “instruct” the poor by conveying to them various ideologies in indirect ways through the type of aid offered and the conditions for obtaining aid. This can imply that social work organizations (here, charities) are very capable of helping with cultural accumulation and the reproduction of “ideological thinking” (Allman, 2007). In other words, ideological thinking is generated and promoted in societies through “the third sector,” a sector that is typically perceived to be an apolitical zone. Such a frame of analysis will help critical commentators on adult learning to comprehend the ideological and therefore political aspects of voluntary initiatives (here, aid projects offered by charities) where “adult mislearning” can take place. It will encourage critics to view adult learning through ideological and therefore political lenses (see Mojab & Carpenter, 2011). It will address the limitation in adult learning literature, which fails to investigate, and realize, the “ideolo-political” nature of adult learning that occurs in charity organizations.
Contribution 2: Adult Mislearning
Previous works (e.g., Bhola, 2006; Haggstrom, 1965; Preece, 2013; Veen & Preece, 2005) have discussed the potential and power of adult learning to break the cycle of poverty. Conversely, our article has demonstrated that adult learning can be found guilty of encouraging individuals to remain poor and to value their existing social status of being poor. The mainstream literature tends to refer to adult learning as inherently “noble” and necessarily positive, leading only to progress and development (here, poverty reduction). However, our article has problematized this simplistic literature by critically arguing for the potential of adult learning to promote regression, for example, poverty preservation. Adult learning, like any other cognitive tools, can be politicized by a network of both implicit and explicit actors to be destructive instead of constructive (cf. Oppenheimer, O’Neill, & Webster, 2008). This problematization will fill the gap in adult learning research, which is normally biased toward optimism and overlooks the possible negative and damaging role of adult learning.
Contribution 3: The Destructive Role of Adult Educators
The article has shown that some charity workers are “life miseducators,” who, perhaps owing to a lack of proper training, instruct charity beneficiaries to value poverty rather than to fight it. Adult learning activists should intervene here to reconceptualize and “re-ideologise” the adult learning that takes place in charities, thus “saving” charity beneficiaries. This intervention could include providing charity workers with the necessary training to qualify them as true “life educators.” Some charity workers may not even recognize themselves as life educators. Actually, some charity workers, as has been found in this research, do label themselves as “social researchers” but not as “life educators.” Charity workers are “incidental educators” (Alpert & Rogers-Warren, 1983), and likewise, charity beneficiaries are “incidental learners” (Marsick & Watkins, 2001) who should all therefore be exposed to deliberate, professional adult education programs. This approach to “incidental learning” and “incidental education” in charitable organizations will help to fill a gap in adult learning practice, showing that practitioners, activists, analysts, policy makers, and critics have not given sufficient attention to charities as settings for adult learning.
Concluding Remarks
This article has analyzed charity organizations as settings wherein adult learning occurs. It has shown charities as unnoticed “adult learning institutions” that “instruct” the poor by conveying to them (obliquely through the type of offered aid and via the terms and conditions for obtaining their offered aid) certain ideologies of poverty. It has elaborated on this point, showing charities to (subliminally through their charitable practices) influence and direct how their beneficiaries (i.e., the poor) perceive and address poverty. It has, then, explained that empirical research is conducted to examine the kinds of ideologies that charities carry to the poor. It has, after that, showcased three found ideologies: physicality-based, knowledge-based, and value-based. The conclusion of the article highlights the contributions that this research has made. First, it has shown that previous works have discussed the potential of adult learning to break the cycle of poverty, whereas our article has demonstrated that adult learning can encourage individuals to remain poor and to value their existing social status of being poor. It has shown some charity workers to be “life miseducators” who teach charity beneficiaries to value poverty.
Footnotes
Conflict of Interest
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The author acknowledges the Deanship of Scientific Research at King Faisal University for the financial support.
Author Biographies
Abdulrahman Essa Al Lily, DPhil, is an Amazon bestselling author, Oxford graduate, and associate professor. He has worked as a consultant for Wikimedia Foundation (aka Wikipedia, USA), AlphaSights Ltd. (Dubai), Oxford Strategic Consulting (UK), and others. He has published with the largest academic publishers globally, including Elsevier, Springer, Taylor & Francis, Wiley, Sage, and Oxford University Press.
Ahmed Ali Alhazmi, PhD, is an assistant professor at Jazan University. His research interests lie at the intersection of education, sociology, and anthropology, with a focus on the Arab context. He has worked with well-known publishers (Springer, Taylor & Francis, and Wiley) and written in different languages for impact-factor journals. He has co-coined “the theory of multiple stupidities.”