What Is Contextualizing Transformation?
Description
Vocal Characteristics
Language
EnglishVoice Age
Middle Aged (35-54)Accents
North American (General)Transcript
Note: Transcripts are generated using speech recognition software and may contain errors.
In the quest to move the gauges of transformation towards positive terrains. One must first revisit what qualifies as positive and how those signs are initially assigned. It is so humanistic to believe that our depiction of positive is as clear as the directions on a navigational map are yet what we deem as positive may be in practice misplaced, merely palliative or utterly negative. It follows that our perception of good or bad in turn follows the belief systems we identify with and subscribe to moreover the values we assign happen to be time sensitive. In other words, our values are subject to be revised based on altered or newfound interactions and perceptions. For instance, to donors who associate with conservative schools of thought, unleashing the power of free enterprise and clamping the hand of government is seen as the best way to lend a hand to people yearning for a way out of poverty. Thus, skinnier social service programs and leaner federal agencies are seen as highways for positive transformation. Subscribers to this lane of thinking contend that unpadded welfare seats incentivize people to job out of poverty. They even cite the humble beginnings of some successful entrepreneurs as examples of the viability of such pathways as for donors who associate more with socialistic schools of thought, those contend that positive transformation implies addressing systematic social injustices and circumstantial health, wealth and educational barriers that come with certain neighborhoods and zip codes. They contend that these systematic inequities today sentence many to a life. They have little chance of escaping. These advocates argue that among other factors, broken social and service infrastructure cannot be changed by the selective charity of big donors. Critics of the philanthropy of the wealthy contend that given their tax evasion tactics and emphasis on immediate and image returns. Such charity may fancy donating art collections and naming museums after them over investing in alleviating pain that they do not feel or worst may have caused. Indirectly. Interestingly, people's belief systems may switch lanes or swap positions with time. But most importantly, saying that neither statement is categorically right or wrong is not an apologetic cliche aimed at pampering the feelings of either group. In fact, it should be apparent by now that sounding politically correct is the least of my concerns. Indeed. And from a transformative point of view, what agents believe or do should only matter ins so far that they offer the underserved communities a fair transformative chance. After all, positive transformation is not a perception issue. Rather it is a method that requires immense bias, parsing, contextualization and proper representation. Positive transformation does not follow moments of epiphany. Neither can it be charted in elite boardrooms or fancy fundraising ballrooms. Hence any positive socioeconomic and environmental transformation must inspect respect and reflect surveyed needs not what intermediaries and benefactors presume those needs to be more on. This will be discussed in the representative pillar in the forthcoming 3rd series.