18 September 92

                                                                        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.