Little Solutions
The Center for Migrant Youth,
a halfway-house for young (15-21) street people who have just migrated
from the rural areas, marks its tenth year today. It isn't a large operation.
It serves no more than 20 persons at any given time. This is such a minuscule
fraction of the homeless young people roaming the streets of the metropolitan
area that one wonders whether a project like this is worth doing at all.
This question does not occur
to Father Ruben Villote, who runs the center, and the small group of individuals
who support it. They do not see themselves as ``solving'' the social problem
posed by thousands of homeless young people in the city. Rather, they are
doing what they can, within the limits of their resources, for the street
youth that they can reach.
The attitude of Father Villote
and his colleagues (and, for that matter, people who run or support similar
small projects) stands in sharp contrast to the commonsensical notion that
great problems demand grand solutions -- the notion that makes us expect
the government to take massive and speedy action on the wide-reaching problems
of our time. Whether it is the short-term problem of getting the lahar-threatened
people of Central Luzon out of harm's way or the long-term challenge of
giving our children an education appropriate for the 21st century, we expect
the government to provide the vision, the expertise, the effort and the
funding.
The demand that the government
must act on problems that affect the entire social system is certainly
legitimate. Unfortunately, however, the demand for massive government intervention
generally is accompanied by the attitude that the individual can do nothing
about these problems.
Worse, this sense of helplessness
too often is transmuted into a denial of responsibility: If we, as individuals,
cannot make a significant impact on a social problem, we should not be
expected to waste our time and our resources trying to do so.
By its very nature, any
massive attack on a social problem must pursue the greatest good for the
greatest number -- and in this process, it must invariably ignore many
people who are equally in need. These unfilled needs do not bother those
of us who have accepted the notion that great problems demand grand solutions.
We take the bureaucratic attitude that occasional injustices are a necessary
evil, which we can do little about.
The ethical ideal of seeking
the greatest good for the greatest number is unassailable. Yet, this ethical
stance is by and large irrelevant to the commitment of Father Villote and
his colleagues at the center, who will do whatever they can for the migrant
youth that they can reach.
The impact of such small
projects may not be great, but imagine how great an impact there would
be on our social problems if everyone did the little that he could for
the persons he is in a position to help. It is almost as if Father Villote
and his colleagues are following the categorical imperative -- that a person
must act in the way that he wishes every other person in the world must
act.
And yet, Father Villote
and his colleagues are not very much more generous than most of us. After
all, most of us will give freely of the little that we have -- to relatives,
friends, neighbors and other persons who have some claim on our generosity.
The difference between us and Father Villote and persons like him is that
they do not ask whether the needy person has a claim on their generosity;
for them, a person's need is sufficient claim.
It is their attitude that
we should cultivate during this time of crisis. The grand solutions demanded
by great problems must be complemented by the little solutions to which
the Father Villotes of this world are devoting their efforts.