The last meeting of the Circle held at American Academy of Arts and Science, 136 Irving Street, Cambridge, MA 02136, was devoted to the subject: “Enriching the Process of Socialization.” The rich discussion covered many issues including spiritual dimensions, ethical dilemmas, the current impact of the various intermediary institutions, and the critical infant/ mother relationship and opportunities for the rich and the poor.

This meeting will build on the past discussion and extend to new ground in our search to bring more attention to the need to enrich the public policy discourse on social progress with ideas and values drawn from the great philosophies, cultures, religions and other rational but not necessarily scientific sources of knowledge on which wisdom is based.

The letter sent to you on the 13th of April suggested that the subject of discussion for this gathering be focused on ethics and poverty reduction. The rational for this choice was three fold.

• First, as noted above, the Triglav circle was created in the aftermath of the Social Summit, held in Copenhagen in 1995, in which governments expressed their determination “to address more effectively the material and spiritual needs of individuals their families and the communities in which they live.” The Summit also proclaimed that the “elimination of poverty” was an “ethical imperative.”
• Second, after the Summit, the international community, as represented by the international organizations including the UNDP and the World Bank, has decided to make the reduction and “elimination of poverty,” the most important objective of international cooperation and therefore the center of the relations between developed and developing countries. The United Nations Millennium Declaration reflects this decision.
• Third, the United Nations University is interested in the ethical framework[s] that sustain efforts to reduce poverty and a research project submitted a few weeks ago, if accepted, may involve the Triglav Circle. The letter of 13 April, of course, referred to the present international situation and asked if this situation was “an expression of a pathological form of poverty of the spirit that is recurrent in human history.”

With this background, and given the vocation of the circle, this meeting offers an opportunity for the expression of a wide range of views on poverty and on the reasons that people and institutions try to reduce or eliminate it. Two themes, and a few questions under each are suggested below to help organize these reflections.

Theme I—Defining poverty and its opposite
International institutions refer to poverty as a condition of people in developing countries—-also as a condition of these countries, themselves, often labeled “poor countries”—, define it in relation to the availability of a certain level of income—see the famous “one billion people with less than a dollar a day” of the World Bank—, and identify its reduction with the progress of a country along a number of indicators, including income per capita, level of infant mortality, enrollment ratios, prevalence of slums, and, number of telephones, televisions, and internet access. Governments operate along the same logical lines. They identify poor regions and communities, poor urban areas, pockets of poverty, and poor and vulnerable groups.

Among possible questions to address:
Why do international organizations never refer to poverty in developed countries? Is it simply a question of numbers and magnitudes? Is it to keep the distinction between developed and developing countries? Or is it because the recognition of poverty in otherwise affluent countries would put in question the prevalent model of development?

How do individuals themselves perceive their poverty or the poverty of their fellow citizens? What is the part of the material elements, such as those recognized by international organizations and development, and the part of such non material dimensions as control over one’s life, the meaning or purpose of one’s life, social recognition, and hopes for one’s children?

To what extent are those non material or human spirit dimensions of poverty as experienced by individuals, determined or related to those aspects which are now recognized by international institutions and governments?

How does human dignity fit into the picture? Is it a tool to be used to get out of poverty, to accept poverty, or to be given to the person with poverty reduction?

Is the implicit opposite of poverty disseminated by international organizations, which is the condition of the average middle class family of a developed country, a legitimate, viable, and mobilizing alternative?

Is material wealth the opposite of poverty, or is harmony with the self the true opposite of poverty?

What are the definitions and conceptions attached to poverty in non-western cultures, e.g. China and Egypt, and in Latin America?

Are there other elements to be considered?

Theme 2—Elements of an Ethical Framework for approaching the issue of poverty
Current efforts of international organizations and governments to reduce or eliminate poverty in the developing world are based on a certain number of explicit and implicit values. The “ethical imperative” mentioned at the Social Summit has never been defined but some elements are often mentioned. Solidarity is one of these elements, but the practical consequences of “solidarity” among and within countries are left largely unexplored. Solidarity tends to be associated with private initiatives—the traditional charity—and with the role of non-governmental organizations. The relation between reduction of poverty and the questions of stability and peace is sometimes mentioned, more so, since the events of 9/11. Without much evidence, it is said that the poor country and poor groups are fertile grounds for unrest and terrorism. This is a modern version of the 19th century identification of “working classes” with “dangerous classes.” It shows that fear is one of the motives for trying to “help” poor people and poor countries. There are also arguments of “waste” of talents and energy that would be useful for economic growth and development and that are now unused because of poverty.

The need for social integration and cohesion is sometimes mentioned as a justification for bringing people at a level above poverty. Very noticeable since the last decade, is the fact that the reduction or elimination of poverty is presented in international documents and by governments themselves as requiring no particular sacrifice on the part of the countries or social groups who happen to be wealthy. Redistributive measures are no longer on the agenda. On the other hand, the numerous private organizations which at the international and national levels are advocating the reduction of poverty and are actually expressing solidarity with the poor seem to be operating on the basis of traditional values, such as charity, compassion, sympathy and the belief in social justice.

Among possible questions to consider are the following?
There is no evidence that the recent focus of IO’s on the reduction of poverty has yielded any real positive results. Are the approaches based on erroneous concepts and assumptions?

What elements for an ethical framework can be drawn from traditional philosophies and religions to approach issues of poverty and wealth today?

To what extent is poverty related to materialism? Philosophically, culturally, and politically?

Is “reduction and elimination of poverty” the right approach, individually and collectively? In the same manner that a person should try to attain his/her full potential rather than obtain a “minimum level of income,” should a developing country and the developing world as a whole be struggling for poverty reduction or for wealth creation in its material and non material manifestations?

What elements in the present approach should be rejected in the future? Imposition of outside cultural values? The singular paradigm of a developed society?

Should the ethical framework address all people and not single out the poor in developing countries?

How can one reduce material poverty and enhance the good characteristics found in many the poor societies, notably spontaneity of creativity, untutored artistic expression, hospitality, happiness? And, at the same time avoid the contagion of the pitfalls of over development?