"In every community there are certain individuals (the "Positive Deviants") whose special practices/ strategies/ behaviors enable them to find better solutions to prevalent community problems than their neighbors who have access to the same resources. Positive deviance is a culturally appropriate development approach that is tailored to the specific community in which it is used."
Hi there guys!
For those of you that this matters to my intactivist retirement is not entirely complete and suffers from occasional lapses but overall it is on my mind far less than when I was active and I am fitter, happier, more productive and all that good stuff.
But lately I have had something on my mind in relation to this issue and in fact it has been there for a while. At times I considered makinga thread but never really got around to it but I figured that I might as well get around to it now or else I would never bother, so here goes:
I read an article a year or to ago in The Times about a technique that your "Cultural imperialists" tend to use when they are trying to improve conditions in developing countries. Its origins are from Vietnam where a man named Jerry Sternin found that although the vast majority of the population had children which were suffering from severe malnutrition those who mixed the rice they fed them with shrimp, bugs and other small pieces of wildlife they caught from the wetlands surrounding their villages gave their young ones a substantial dose of much-needed protein and their death rates were tiny by comparison.
Only, as I recall, the majority of the population had some sort of problem with doing this, presumably considering it dirty or dishonourable or something. Or perhaps they just shared my ethics and were vegetarian? Alright, unlikely, but regardless, something clearly needed to be done and some bright spark struck upon a simple concept that could help these ruralites out:
Emulation.
They effectively just told them that this small group within them were doing the right thing and convinced them that they needed to start mixing in rice with life and that this would save their children. It proved remarkably effective: exact statitstics elude me but they found that through this tactic the rate of child malnutrition could be caused to plummet.
An interesting finding, effectively they banished cultural mores by showing instances of people benefitting from within the culture itself and one with wide-ranging implications. It was soon shown that it could work just as well for everything from girl trafficking to education. And, in case you were wondering:
http://www.positivedeviance.org/projects/egypfgc/
Good for the goose, good for the gander, surely?
Or this, at least, was my first thought. But the more I considered it the more it became clear that in America things have probably gone beyond that stage, given that the rate is only 7% off equal. In certain states, though, it could be valid but really it is just wise to emphasise how tiny that nationally rate is and only bring in States when we are talking California.
But its implications seemed greater, please spare me a spot of amateur anthropological, social psychological speculation:
The all too common take route is that "This is an atrocity", "This is a travesty", "The rate is far too high!" All sentiments which I agree with entirely, of course, but not something which I reckon should be emphasised now. The shock tactics phase had its time and that has now passed. The true horror should still be shown but should not be entirely focused upon because no matter how foul a practice if people feel culturally obliged they will go along with it.
Just read that link above if you do not believe me.
So as long as people feel obliged to behave in a certain was by their society it is considerably likely that a high proportion of them will, no matter how repugnant a deed they must order or commit.
Indeed it is possible that talking about how terrible American society is to let this happen could do more harm than good: rather than making people simply emphasise and stop it can result in it being engrained, associated and linked. In America boys get circumcised. If that is the message they receive then, doubtless, the urge to conform will strike many. They will fear for their son's place as an abberration and consider the default strange.
The alternative is clear: instead of protesting about the horror of the continuation of this barbarity {leave that for here} simply stress the recent decline. Talk about how more and more are abandoning the custom and how it is likely by this stage the decline has reached the stage where numbers are even, or even balanced towards the intact. Say again and again that this is dying out, that the fall of the rates is considerable and that the future is foreskin.
The very fact that matters have come far to far for the use of positive deviancy tells you all you need to know, really. The plunge in the rate over the past decade and a half has been so pronounced that the death of this habit within fifty years or so is shifting from likely to near inevitable.
So say so!
People will be far happier being part of a mass trend against this grisly practice that considering themselves rebels against a conspiracy of foul, ammoral doctors that has overtaken almost the entirity of America. Indeed you could easily go global and stress that on a worldwide scale they will be part of a massive majority.
I should stress that I am an intact male who knows exactly what the circumcised are missing and thus find the circumcision of healthy, unconsenting parties utterly abhorrent regardless of their age.
But to focus upon the circumcision rate in the relentlessly negative and outraged fashion in venues other than this one is a method that runs the risk of worsening the conditions by increasing the perception of this as a universally practiced rite. This most certainly is no longer true and this fact should be being shouted from the roof-tops. The plunge should appear in almost every post you make on debates, to stress and emphasise the decline of this foul desecration of bodily integrity.
It is horrific, it does continue but is inflicted upon less and less by the day. It is obscene but we have the pleasure of watching it dying ahead of us.
That it remains with us {and by that I mean mankind} at all is a true pity but the decrease grows more and more pronounced, most recently so much so that even the mainstream media are picking up upon it. We must have hope and must stress the successes as much as the work yet to be done. Remind those contemplating it that this is borderline archaic, an antiquated and old school practice that is being abadoned by droves and diminishes in prevalance each and every year. Let woe not overwhelm, remember that the condition we are in now would have been near impossible to even hope for a mere twenty years ago.
Imagine how much ground the next two decades could bring!
Hi there guys!
For those of you that this matters to my intactivist retirement is not entirely complete and suffers from occasional lapses but overall it is on my mind far less than when I was active and I am fitter, happier, more productive and all that good stuff.
But lately I have had something on my mind in relation to this issue and in fact it has been there for a while. At times I considered makinga thread but never really got around to it but I figured that I might as well get around to it now or else I would never bother, so here goes:
I read an article a year or to ago in The Times about a technique that your "Cultural imperialists" tend to use when they are trying to improve conditions in developing countries. Its origins are from Vietnam where a man named Jerry Sternin found that although the vast majority of the population had children which were suffering from severe malnutrition those who mixed the rice they fed them with shrimp, bugs and other small pieces of wildlife they caught from the wetlands surrounding their villages gave their young ones a substantial dose of much-needed protein and their death rates were tiny by comparison.
Only, as I recall, the majority of the population had some sort of problem with doing this, presumably considering it dirty or dishonourable or something. Or perhaps they just shared my ethics and were vegetarian? Alright, unlikely, but regardless, something clearly needed to be done and some bright spark struck upon a simple concept that could help these ruralites out:
Emulation.
They effectively just told them that this small group within them were doing the right thing and convinced them that they needed to start mixing in rice with life and that this would save their children. It proved remarkably effective: exact statitstics elude me but they found that through this tactic the rate of child malnutrition could be caused to plummet.
An interesting finding, effectively they banished cultural mores by showing instances of people benefitting from within the culture itself and one with wide-ranging implications. It was soon shown that it could work just as well for everything from girl trafficking to education. And, in case you were wondering:
http://www.positivedeviance.org/projects/egypfgc/
Good for the goose, good for the gander, surely?
Or this, at least, was my first thought. But the more I considered it the more it became clear that in America things have probably gone beyond that stage, given that the rate is only 7% off equal. In certain states, though, it could be valid but really it is just wise to emphasise how tiny that nationally rate is and only bring in States when we are talking California.
But its implications seemed greater, please spare me a spot of amateur anthropological, social psychological speculation:
The all too common take route is that "This is an atrocity", "This is a travesty", "The rate is far too high!" All sentiments which I agree with entirely, of course, but not something which I reckon should be emphasised now. The shock tactics phase had its time and that has now passed. The true horror should still be shown but should not be entirely focused upon because no matter how foul a practice if people feel culturally obliged they will go along with it.
Just read that link above if you do not believe me.
So as long as people feel obliged to behave in a certain was by their society it is considerably likely that a high proportion of them will, no matter how repugnant a deed they must order or commit.
Indeed it is possible that talking about how terrible American society is to let this happen could do more harm than good: rather than making people simply emphasise and stop it can result in it being engrained, associated and linked. In America boys get circumcised. If that is the message they receive then, doubtless, the urge to conform will strike many. They will fear for their son's place as an abberration and consider the default strange.
The alternative is clear: instead of protesting about the horror of the continuation of this barbarity {leave that for here} simply stress the recent decline. Talk about how more and more are abandoning the custom and how it is likely by this stage the decline has reached the stage where numbers are even, or even balanced towards the intact. Say again and again that this is dying out, that the fall of the rates is considerable and that the future is foreskin.
The very fact that matters have come far to far for the use of positive deviancy tells you all you need to know, really. The plunge in the rate over the past decade and a half has been so pronounced that the death of this habit within fifty years or so is shifting from likely to near inevitable.
So say so!
People will be far happier being part of a mass trend against this grisly practice that considering themselves rebels against a conspiracy of foul, ammoral doctors that has overtaken almost the entirity of America. Indeed you could easily go global and stress that on a worldwide scale they will be part of a massive majority.
I should stress that I am an intact male who knows exactly what the circumcised are missing and thus find the circumcision of healthy, unconsenting parties utterly abhorrent regardless of their age.
But to focus upon the circumcision rate in the relentlessly negative and outraged fashion in venues other than this one is a method that runs the risk of worsening the conditions by increasing the perception of this as a universally practiced rite. This most certainly is no longer true and this fact should be being shouted from the roof-tops. The plunge should appear in almost every post you make on debates, to stress and emphasise the decline of this foul desecration of bodily integrity.
It is horrific, it does continue but is inflicted upon less and less by the day. It is obscene but we have the pleasure of watching it dying ahead of us.
That it remains with us {and by that I mean mankind} at all is a true pity but the decrease grows more and more pronounced, most recently so much so that even the mainstream media are picking up upon it. We must have hope and must stress the successes as much as the work yet to be done. Remind those contemplating it that this is borderline archaic, an antiquated and old school practice that is being abadoned by droves and diminishes in prevalance each and every year. Let woe not overwhelm, remember that the condition we are in now would have been near impossible to even hope for a mere twenty years ago.
Imagine how much ground the next two decades could bring!
