[lit-ideas] Re: What is the cumulative suffering of mankind?
- From: "Phil Enns" <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 08:56:45 +0700
Robert Paul wrote:
"Suppose though that Lewis were somehow right, and that there's no
more suffering in the world when millions suffer than when one does.
Yet rather than worry about the ontological status of suffering,
shouldn't we be concerned with the number of creatures suffering,
which is something that is quantifiable? It strikes me as simply a
dodge to try to avoid the problem of pain by invoking the tired
formula, 'My pains are my pains; nobody else can have them.'"
I can't speak for what Lewis meant, but I know from experience that
the response to large-scale suffering often loses sight of the fact
that it is individuals who suffer. In particular, when faced with
large-scale suffering, the response is often one of seeing the
suffering as cumulative and therefore requiring a solution that
addresses the cumulative effect. Aid will therefore be structured
according to how much aid and the logistics of delivering aid, with
the emphasis on responding to the scope and scale of the suffering.
What is lost in this response, however, is the individual.
In evaluations done after large-scale humanitarian projects, a
constant theme is how these projects fail to recognize the
particularities of the conditions on the ground and therefore fail to
adequately respond to the particular nature of the suffering. For
example, here in Indonesia, a tsunami devastated Aceh. The
humanitarian aid response was overwhelming, most often in
spectacularly inappropriate ways. Aceh is a deeply conservative
Muslim region with a strong independence movement. Often the food aid
coming in was not halal, the clothes being sent for women were
inappropriate, and many agencies quickly ran afoul with either the
national government or local independence movements over politically
charged activities. The aid numbers were staggering, hundreds of
millions of dollars, the amount of goods delivered overwhelmed the
transportation system, but often the result was spectacular failure.
In evaluations that are now coming in over the tsunami response, the
theme of failing to recognize the particularities of the conditions on
the ground is a common refrain.
As a WWII Soviet tank general noted, at a certain point quantity has a
qualitative effect. And as Robert pointed out, we should be concerned
about the number of people suffering. However, in the end, it is
individuals who are doing the suffering and if we are concerned with
responding to that suffering, we ought to consider that individual
element. The danger with numbers lies in thinking that with
large-scale suffering there is a special kind of suffering, a greater
suffering, that differs from what is experienced by individuals.
Again, I don't know what Lewis specifically meant, but I would also
say that when an individual has reached the maximum of suffering that
can be endured, whatever that might mean, nothing is added to the
level of suffering by noting that millions of others share that
condition. The most effective response to a disaster may be
large-scale humanitarian relief efforts, but the most effective
response to suffering is dealing with people one at a time.
Sincerely,
Phil Enns
Yogyakarta, Indonesia
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts: