The Paradox of Poverty

The other night, my host brother BJ was scanning through a social studies book to find ideas to make a lesson plan about how to write persuasive essays. We were lying on the hard concrete floor of our little house with 15 people scattered around on the ground. A flickering light powered by our gas generator hung from a limp extension cord in the corner of the room. The leftovers from our dinner of rice and canned fish were being tossed out to the hungry dogs. My host mother was squatted in a tin roof shack as she scrubbed buckets of laundry by hand.

BJ looked up from his book, and casually asked me, “ John, there is no poverty in Chuuk, right?”

I hesitated for a moment and then started to mumble, “ummm….well, I don’t know about that”

My host sister Marben added her two cents quickly and said, “No, some people are just lazy”

I carefully treaded along a line of disrespect and tried to explain the point more clearly to the both of them, “It depends on how you define poverty, but I think there is definitely poverty in Chuuk. The difference between here and other places like Africa is that people in Chuuk aren’t suffering or miserable because of their poverty. They aren’t starving to death and aren’t homeless. The tight knit culture prevents that. But I still think that there is poverty. If you eat nothing but plain rice for most of your meals, that’s poverty. If you have no money for clothes or shoes, that’s poverty. If you don’t have enough money to send your kids to school, that’s poverty. If you have an income of zero dollars, that’s poverty”

The conversation trailed off and ended without much response from either of them. They both seemed dazed a little taken aback about what I of said. They weren’t offended by my comments, but I think they were just surprised to reanalyze their lives.

This was an illuminating talk for me and for them. In the same swift swing of things, it made me wonder if these people actually weren’t in poverty, and made them wonder if they actually were in poverty. It is all a matter of perspective.

If an outsider came to visit Chuuk, they would most likely immediately say that Chuuk is in poverty. The evidence would be smacking them in the face. Roads are virtually non-existent. Electricity is only available at the state center (and very unreliable). Every building either seems half finished or falling to pieces. The school system is in disarray. The local people are scared of their own hospital. On the surface, they lack all the necessities of a 1^st world country: infrastructure, health care, education and entertainment.

But if you look deeper into the people’s lives, an interesting paradox of poverty emerges. While Chuuk most certainly lacks the basic elements of an affluent society, it ironically also lacks the basic elements of a poverty stricken society. Nobody is starving to death. Nobody is homeless. Beggars are extremely rare. There is no political unrest. People don’t seem to be suffering.

I believe that there are 3 main reasons why Chuuk looks destitute, but is able to hover slightly above the standard poverty line. The first and most important reason is the extreme collectivist attitude of the people. Their communal connections and strong family relationships make it impossible for people to starve or be homeless. A family or friend will always provide a roof and a meal to a member of the community.

The second reason is the abundance of natural resources. A jungle teeming with plants and an ocean full of tasty little creatures can provide meals for a family that has no money to buy food. It also rains more than enough to provide fresh water for all household. That is why Marben said that the only poor people are lazy. In her view, if they got up off their asses and did some work then they could easily get enough fish and breadfruit to feed their families.

The final reason is the ridiculous amount of American money funneled into the FSM through the compact agreement. Millions of dollars are randomly thrown at these islands to keep them as military allies, and that money seeps down to the masses.

This incongruity with the basic units of poverty has made me reevaluate my view of Chuuk and of the world. It has made me realize that poverty is a relative term. Poverty in America means that you wear hand-me-down clothes and eat a lot of mac-n-cheese. Poverty in sub-Saharan Africa means that you are starving in a shantytown slum. Poverty in Chuuk means you simply live off the land. All of these can and should be considered poverty. And we should strive to alleviate the problems associated with extremely poor conditions. However, there is a differentiated scale that we should use to measure it.

The feelings of inadequacy compared to your neighbors and the inability to provide opportunities for your children will assuredly cause suffering for anyone. The presence of suffering is universal across poverty stricken areas, but again it varies depending on the circumstances. Feeling poor in America because you wear dirty shoes and use food stamps is a form of suffering. Feeling poor in Chuuk because you cant buy coca-cola or cigarettes is a form of suffering. But feeling poor in Africa because your baby just died of malnourishment is a whole different level of suffering.

Chuuk, and the many Pacific islands, are straddling this precarious line on the edge of poverty. In many respects, they are poor and underdeveloped societies. But in other ways, they are buoyed up from total poverty by a series of safety nets. Progress is often frustratingly slow in these remote specks of land, but maybe that’s a good thing. Progress could lead to a better life, or it could counteract those unique protective shields of community and environment and drive these people into true poverty.