What is this, Horseville? ‘Cause I’m surrounded by naysayers!
The above line is not necessarily reflective of the way I feel (in fact, the response to our website so far, from those who’ve actually said anything at all, has been overwhelmingly positive); it’s just a quote from the T.V. show 30 Rock which I personally find hilarious.
What this post is about is the question that I think is on a lot of people’s minds when they visit Namibian Dreams, even if many of them aren’t saying it. The question, which I will hereby attempt to address as best I can, is this:
Why spend so much money on plane tickets for two girls? Wouldn’t the money be better spent addressing more pressing needs, for example by providing vaccinations or drilling a well?
Let me first say that this question is based on two assumptions, one of which is objectively incorrect, and the other of which I subjectively disagree with. The first assumption is that children all over Africa are suffering from disease and starvation — the stuff we all see in magazine and television ads for programs such as World Vision — and that it is therefore ridiculous to fund an expensive international flight for two children when such suffering exists. My response to this objection is first to point out that many people’s notion of “Africa” is unrealistically narrow — understandably so, since their only exposure to conditions in Africa are through these magazine and television ads, but unrealistically narrow nonetheless.
People often think of Africa as a singular place of ubiquitous hardship and misery. While there is significant suffering in many places all over the continent — areas such as Zimbabwe, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, or Sudan are obvious examples — Namibia, by comparison, is pretty well off. To be sure, there are those in the country who could benefit from the provision of basic needs which are not being met; but then, there are plenty of international non-profit organizations already dedicated to meeting these needs, organizations which are large and efficiently run and are capable of using money for this purpose far more effectively than we could with Namibian Dreams as just two people.
In Namibia, your average child is fed, is clothed, and has a roof over her head at night. Her parents may be deceased; she may have to walk several kilometers from her home to fetch drinkable water; she may eat nothing but mahangu (millet) for every meal; but she is not “suffering” in the way that most Americans would expect. In the lives of many Namibian children, the tragedy is not a lack of material needs; it is a lack of emotional and intellectual needs. This brings me to the second assumption inherent in the above question.
In 1943, a psychologist named Abraham Maslow published a paper called “A Theory of Human Motivation” in which he outlined a concept known as the Hierarchy of Needs (I credit Kathryn for introducing me to this concept). This hierarchy can be visualized as a pyramid with five levels, each level dependent on the satisfaction of the criteria set in the level directly below it. In this pyramidal hierarchy, the bottom level is the set of humans’ Physiological needs: breathable air, food, water, sleep, etc. Without these absolutely fundamental needs met, Maslow argued, a person is not even cognizant of the needs in the level above: the Safety needs, including security of body, resources, health, and so on. Intuitively, this makes sense: if you are suffocating because there is no air for you to breathe, then you are probably not thinking about the security of your resources. If you are dying from thirst, you would likely willingly put your body in immediate physical danger in order to gain access to water, because you are not thinking about your need for physical safety — you’re thinking about your need to drink.
The reason I bring this up is that I believe too many people, when thinking about Africa, only bother contemplating these bottom two levels. We think that the people of Africa must have their Physiological and Safety needs met, and that is all that matters. This is the second assumption in the question: even if we don’t come out and say it, what it essentially amounts to is that Africans don’t have needs beyond these basic few. After that, anything else they’re able to get for themselves is great, but it’s not a need; it’s a luxury.
“Well,” you may be wondering, “then what are these other supposed needs?”
Above Safety, there is the need for Love and Belonging: friendship, family, and intimacy. Next, there is the need for Esteem: confidence, self-esteem, and the respect of others. And at the very top of the pyramid there is the need for Self-Actualization: morality, creativity, problem solving, and so forth.
Of course, Maslow’s theory is just that: a theory. No one can prove that this theoretical Hierarchy of Needs actually exists in some tangible, biological form. However, even if you dismiss the upper levels of this imagined pyramid as not being actual needs, ask yourself this: are they important? Do love, self-esteem, and creativity matter? Very few of us would answer no, they do not matter. Most of us, whether we truly believe these things to be actual needs or not, would agree at least that yes, these things are important. These things matter.
Perhaps the best way to explain our goal is by drawing a comparison between Namibia and a place most of us are far more familiar with: the United States. In this country, as in all developed countries, there is suffering. It may not be as widespread as in other parts of the world, but there are homeless, sick, and impoverished people in just about every major town and city within our borders. And yet we have projects devoted to a host of issues aside from addressing the seemingly more urgent problem of caring for these needy citizens: projects to develop music and art programs in inner city schools; projects to provide scholarships for gifted children in low-income households; projects to create international student exchange programs between foreign and American schools.
What good are these projects? Why do they exist? The answer, quite simply, is that there is more to life than simply being fed and being healthy. In other words there is more to life than mere survival. It would be one thing if organizations such as Unicef and World Vision did not exist and no one was stepping up to the plate to offer humanitarian aid to the Zimbabwes and the D.R.C.s of the world; if that were the case, then the most fundamental needs of those people these organizations seek to aid would be neglected, and attempting to do something about their higher needs would be misguided and futile. But these organizations do exist, and if you want your money to go towards meeting fundamental human needs, you should be making donations to them.
In Namibia, most citizens are at least lucky enough to have their basic Physiological and Safety needs met. Namibian Dreams is about just what the name implies: encouraging bright young Namibians to have dreams, and enabling them to realize those dreams. Namibian Dreams, as Kathryn and I have envisioned it, aims for Maslow’s higher needs.
I guess the last point I want to make is this: while I won’t pass any judgments, I do find it terribly sad to think that someone might visit our website, think to himself, “Hmph! They are only buying plane tickets, instead of feeding starving children? Forget this!” and then go on with his life. If that’s how you feel, make a donation to an organization that actually feeds starving children. Like I said, these organizations are out there; and they have the resources, organization, and manpower to get the job done. For Kathryn and me to start a new non-profit with the goal of sending food or medical supplies to Africa would be absurdly redundant; all of the money we’d have to spend on overhead and start-up costs just to get going could have gone through an established organization like Unicef directly to people in need. With Namibian Dreams, we are asking for the support of people who can relate, who can feel some connection, to our desire to meet the higher needs of Namibian children.
In conclusion, I ask you to consider the following question. In the case of your own children (if you don’t have children, imagine how you will feel about them if one day you do), would you be satisfied knowing simply that their basic needs are met, knowing nothing about the opportunities they will have in their lifetimes, or about their dreams for the future? Or, once ensuring they at least enjoy the basic necessities of life, would you do everything in your power to make sure they have all the opportunities this world has to offer, that they know what they are capable of, that they are not resigned to a life of narrow possibilities and circumstances beyond their control?
In the U.S., as in the rest of the developed world, it is important to all parents that their children “dream big.” Why should we not want the same for the children of Africa?
