I am certainly not the first to move between the global North and global South and notice the discrepancy in the amount of stuff that is generally around.

By stuff I am referring to items, goods, things, materials, etc. The difference applies to my own situation – three weeks ago I lived in my own fully stocked apartment; now I live out of a suitcase – but also more broadly. I draw attention to the discrepancy in stuff for reasons beyond a fondness for living more simply. Indeed, I would not mention this if it were unrelated to my PhD research on disability in Bulozi.

In talking about their lives as persons with disabilities, the participants in my study spoke frequently and emphatically about their lack of stuff. During our interviews and meetings, the participants referenced all sorts of specific things that they lacked: food to eat, hair dryers, rice to sell, houses that did not leak in the rain, and on and on. They also spoke about money, and how they would be able to acquire the things that they lacked if they had more money.

Like the specific accounts of the participants, it was a specific situation that got me thinking about this topic in the first place. In my case, the specific situation was an issue with towels.

When packing up my apartment in Toronto, I knew I had more stuff than I could actually move. I even triaged the items for the Salvation Army to fit into the two trips that I had time to make. Among the items that I left for my property manager to deal with (topped with a foregiveness-seeking J note) were my excess towels. Two weeks later I found myself in Mongu, sweating and dirty and wishing that I had more towels.

If this blog post goes over like a thousand conversations that I have already had with North Americans, some readers have already visited the linen closet and started a used-towel collection. To those of you who have just returned after filling a reusable shopping bag with my name on it, thank you, but please return your towels to their place. Don’t worry, your intentions are good. And these good intentions are possibly a useful starting point to a conversation that I am trying to have with more people.

If you are with me, this issue of stuff is worth discussing. Furthermore, I propose 1) that the issue is really about the distribution of stuff and 2) that the way people understand the issue is closely tied to what they think should be done about it.

In the discussions that I have had with North Americans, the issue/solution is one of acquisition; specifically, that the people who are lacking items are not able to acquire them. Related to the participants with disabilities in my PhD research, North Americans guess correctly that the participants lack money to buy stuff. In talking to me, North Americans have proposed a wide variety of reasons/solutions for the lack of money. Despite the varied opinions related to money, there is general support for direct donations of stuff for people who are currently without.

The participants in my research spoke about this issue/solution in terms that at first seem similar to the North Americans, but I think are fundamentally different. The participants spoke of this as an issue of connectedness; as a problem that could be solved if they were connected to people who could help them by providing them with things – or money to buy things.

Through both of these perspectives, the problem is that some people are doing without and the solution is that those who have a lot can give to those who are lacking. Sounds similar, right? At that level of detail it does sound similar, but when I talk to North Americans about the perspectives of the participants, they are surprised to hear that the participants do not talk about this giving as voluntary; instead, it is a moral obligation of people who are rich & non-disabled to distribute their excess things (including money) to “those of us who are suffering.” When I talk to North Americans about this, they often reply that the research participants are demonstrating dependency or “learned helplessness,” and that an expectation to be given is “unsustainable.”

I would like to pause here a moment. Why? Because as a collaborative researcher, it is a fundamental principle for me to respect the perspective of the research participants and use this as a foundation for our collaboration. At the same time, I am a North American. Even though I try to detach myself from the North American perspectives that I highlighted above, these are the perspectives in which I have been raised. And actually, I should be more specific about the perspectives to which I refer. What I have referred to as “North American” might be more accurately identified as “middle class North American.”

I suspect that I will return to this similarity-difference in perspectives in future posts; at very least because it will probably be a part of my upcoming interaction with research participants.

In the meantime, I would like to talk more about towels.

I know, a discussion about towels seems to be odd and inconsequential, but I propose to you that this mundane anecdote can be useful to help us think through the distribution of stuff.

Common to the perspectives of “North Americans” and research participants with disabilities here in Western Zambia, is the idea that the problem is that some people are lacking stuff.

My situation with towels is a bit different: the frustration is not only that I am lacking here, but instead the juxtaposition of lack with excess. “Three weeks ago me” had too many towels; “today me” has too few. Accordingly, the problem has two faces, one of which is in Mongu, Zambia; the other of which was in Toronto, Canada.

In seeing the problem with two faces, the problem is inherently different; it is no longer just “in Africa,” or just with disabled people, or just with poor people. This framing incorporates the question “why is it that in Toronto I had so much crap that I did not know what to do with it?” I will call this framing of the problem inequality.

During my two months here, I will undoubtedly talk with the (now former) research participants about their lack of stuff and about their connectedness to people who can help them. The solutions we discuss will likely include considerations of acquisition, which might in-turn try to attract North Americans with good intentions.

If the discussions unfold the way that I think they will, discussions of inequality as a problem will not emerge frequently or spontaneously. With this foresight in mind, my question for myself and for you, my dear readers, is the following: when do we get to talk about inequality?

3 thoughts on ““Stuff”

  1. medwoman says:

    Great post! It really gets you thinking! Have we in the “West”, although there are many Countries giving aid to those less fortunate, brain washed those who have less, into thinking that this is the way it should be? The rich give to the poor.
    Or is this intrinsic to their culture? If a man walks through your village and he is hungry, you feed him. If he needs a bed to sleep in, you provide it.
    In the olden days, maybe even today in the rural villages, you would be looked down upon if you did not help some one less fortunate.
    Or have the people in cities, in poorer nations, become accustomed to ask and ye shall receive?
    There are so many ngo’s and groups helping in impoverished countries now, I am sure the word has spread. They will help you. It doesn’t hurt to ask. I know I would!
    You have a huge quest ahead of you and I for one would love to make it mandatory that we stop making “stuff” and send all the “stuff” we don’t use to those who need it.


    • @ShaunCleaver says:

      Thank you so much Joanne!
      You’ve brought up many of the things that I have been thinking about too. It has been ongoing for me to align my own activities (personal and professional) with these reflections. My engagement in this research project has caused me to pause and re-assess a bit; on the one hand with respect to the needs/wants/desires expressed by the participants; on the other hand with respect to a global economy based on “growth” (i.e., ever increasing levels of consumption). I suspect that we will have some good discussions on this moving forward!

      Liked by 1 person

      • @ShaunCleaver says:

        Thank you for those kind words Liz!

        I like that you used a metaphor to capture the experience holistically. In some ways, the “baby’s first steps” fits. I have particularly been thinking that with respect to my Silozi fluency the last few days: I’m now at that level where I’m good enough to have expectations and self-aware enough to know I’m not meeting them. For that aspect of my life, I might be like the 7-month old who is happy to cruise along on benches, but wary of the failure of taking unsupported steps!

        The challenges that drew me to this post feel more like standing in a maze; there are a lot of “this or that” options.

        Do I *trust* the presentation of my collaborators with disabilities to *mistrust* the government officials?

        When thinking about income-generating activities, do I privilege the optimism of the groups, or the pessimism of the past experiences? Where is optimistic realism in this array?

        I am sufficiently self-aware to know that I my thought patterns tend to segmentalize and produce binary choices – I get great benefit from collaborating with people who see things as a holistic image. But my segments and binaries make order…which I love! Except that they leave me wondering, “am I missing something?”

        And THAT feels like something a little different than a baby taking first steps.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s