How is our ethos formed?
How is ideology formed?
Liberals and radicals – a typology
How relevant is our work?
Are we politically naif?
Are we afraid of speaking-up in political terms?
Nutritionists in the third world
A new direction? – Some possible conclusions
An attempt to know who we are
References
Nutrition in the community, Edited by D.S. McLaren, Chapter 7, 1983, John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
CLAUDIO SCHUFTAN
schuftan@gmail.com
What drives us to continue doing our daily work? Why did we choose nutrition and not another field? Is it the appeal to work in an area of high relevance to present-day problems, either local or global? Are we aware of the political implications of our daily activities both as professionals and as concerned citizens (two inseparable spheres of action)? Can we evade the responsibilities that these implications bring with them? These are the questions we will set out to explore here with the intention to sensitize the reader about the controversial but vital issues one is bound to face in such an inquiry. In what applies to our profession. people and institutions seem to embark on the battle against malnutrition compelled by quite different motivations..
1 The amoral approach. Although we can safely assume that most of our colleagues feel attracted to nutrition because of its relevance to people, societies and/or the world, the concern of some of them stops just there. After becoming involved in nutrition as a career they often think that is (and will be) their contribution to society as concerned human beings, as if nutrition per se, or doing one’s job efficiently in a technical sense, were a magic tool of change and development. Because of its narrow scope, this approach has little to offer to the resolution of malnutrition in the world.
2 The moral imperative. This motivational drive is primarily based, in the West, on the Judeo-Christian ethics that call for compassion, charity, virtue, and righteousness. This imperative of moral responsibility is at the forefront of many voluntary agencies working in nutrition.
In this category, we can find at least two types of individuals or institutions:
(a) Those who object to the capitalist system’s injustices and feel that their duly is to do something about malnutrition which they perceive only as one of the injustices, assuming that others will attack the system on other fronts.
(b) Those who, embracing the capitalist system as desirable but ‘out of control’, cannot morally tolerate the extreme poverty and malnutrition the system generates and feel compelled to do something about malnutrition in order to mend this important shortcoming of the system. These individuals among us have made these issues a matter of personal conscience, but lack a visible social rationalization.
This sense of responsibility as a motivation, found in many scientists, does not seem to be sufficient to see needed changes occur. It may salve the conscience of the person who devotes his/her time and effort to do ‘something’ to solve malnutrition, however, it seems to have little effect on the real problems of the poor and malnourished. This is why these groups so often go on repeating classical slogans and pushing traditional nutrition interventions that solve nothing much in the long run. In short, these positions lack political perspective. A genuine concern for the poor, even as part of an ‘holistic approach’ does not seem to be enough, if it is not channelled in a political and ideological way. The concept of being socially responsible is nothing but a euphemism for what really should be political responsibility. Or, stated otherwise, do we really have a choice not to take political sides? A political commitment is important precisely because governments function as political entities (Winikoff, 1978). Moral causes have usually – not always – made progress only when powerful interests saw their advance as having ‘something in it’ for them (Green, 1980-1). In such cases, moral imperatives were used politically.
The attitudes of moralists very often come from a religious imperative; if this religious imperative pushes them to act politically, they lend to be more on the right track. But, if it pushes them to act ‘religiously’, by turning the other check, they are most probably doomed to fail in affecting malnutrition in the long run.
3 The political (ideological) imperative, Emotional commitments are loose and romantic; ideological commitment is militant. People or institutions that embrace the latter strongly feel that the capitalist system is wrong, that it generates and maintains malnutrition and they set out to right its injustices, either by reforming it deeply or by trying to replace it with a more humane system, more responsive to the basic human needs.
People who take this position also depart from a moral imperative, but they have gone one (or two) step(s) further. So. at the root of the ideological problem there is a moral problem (Winikoff, 1978). Are these individuals among us, who take such a position, on a much more realistic track? It is clear that they look more into the ultimate determinants of malnutrition which are to be found in poverty, powerlessness and in the different parameters of social injustice. Therefore, they would seem to he on the right track, or at least asking; the right questions that should lead to the right answers.
Of course, one could also conceive a political imperative from the right, ultraconservative, pro-capitalist, but this tendency is rare among our peers.
We will return to consider these basically different groups of co-workers more closely later, but will now look at how these attitudes are formed.
How is our ethos formed?
Social values and duties are implanted into us early in life by our families and later also by our education and our social environment. All of the above values and duties are, therefore, largely determined by our social class extraction. Some of the moral issues so acquired have universal validity; for many of us these are within the Judeo-Christian-Islamic ethics; these general principles are not necessarily class-bound and are mostly expressed in a ‘non-ideological’ way, although some of them most definitely are both class-bound and ideologically expressed.
How is ideology formed?
Ideological values and duties are imprinted by the family, the educational system and by the social environment as well. Therefore, most of the time, ideology tends to be pro status quo (almost by definition, since the survival of that ideology would be otherwise at stake). Moderateness has a clear connection to the prevailing ideology. Ideology is definitely not so universally shared and is definitely more closely bound to our social class extraction.
Nutrition workers are, additionally, influenced by the experiences they have had in the different political systems in which they have operated. Their coming from their own cultural and ideological bias is, therefore, unavoidable. People in our profession (or any other) often tend to think of themselves as apolitical, and there simply is no such thing; despite the fact that the spectrum of choices is a continuum. In the final analysis, one either condescends to the system or one objects to it – totally or partially. Any of these are political stances.
Objection to the system is always the result of a conscious, voluntary effort to break with all or some aspects of the prevailing ideology; it is usually during adolescence that we begin questioning some of the values of society. Going along with the prevailing ideology is less frequently a conscious, voluntary step; it is more often an unconscious vis-a-tergo attitude.
Ideology has several meanings, according to Webster’s Dictionary. As a ‘content of thinking’ and as an ‘intellectual pattern’ it reflects the involuntary elements of ideology which we all, of any extraction, have and probably keep for life; it is part of our indelible (class) heritage. It is ideology that channels our social behaviour in predictable directions. On the other hand, ideology as an ‘integrated politico-social programme’ is the result of a voluntary internalization of the values of a given society, be it real or ideal.
Liberals and radicals – a typology
In the Western world, objectors to the capitalist system have often been divided into two main groups. pejoratively named ‘liberals’ and ‘radicals’.
Liberals are basically objectors who appear publicly neutral but are morally anti-establishment. Although liberals are considered opposition forces, they often only accommodate capitalist logic; they think that changes within the system are called for. Probably because of this fact, numerous internal ideological inconsistencies can be found in their reasoning. They believe the world to be profoundly other than it should be, and have faith in the power of human reason to change it. Basically, they are scientific optimists and their ‘theory and aims’ for a new order are often vague and inconsistent.
There are also those liberals who feel impotent to change the system, although they disagree with it; therefore, they have subsequently learned to play the game within the system. They tend to work in the capitalist bureaucracy (national or international), in academia (a preferred spot) or in think-tank institutes or centres and are often very skilled at using their organizations to further their interests. They often even sit in many of the establishment’s decision-making bodies, in or outside the government structure.
Liberals, more often than not, go along with the ‘content of thinking’ of their class of origin, which is mostly middle-class, or sometimes lower-class – ‘who have made it’ and act like good petit bourgeois. They are outspoken in public, although often eminently declarative and formal; they openly denounce the evils of poverty and malnutrition and are, nevertheless, often involved in token nutrition interventions; or, they keep inventing new ‘more comprehensive’ or ‘multidisciplinary’ or ‘multisectoral’ approaches to old problems as if these would change the major contradictions and the distribution of power within the system that is causing the problems to begin with. Liberals, for sure, coined the concept of ‘nutrition planning’ so widely abused by some of us as the most rational panacea to solve hunger and malnutrition in the world, only to find out that little has changed for the poor majorities in the places where it has been used; if anything at all, gaps have tended to widen.
Liberals are often manipulated and used by ruling elites and their pressure groups and they are perceived as no real threat to the system of conservative politicians; they are, therefore, left alone to protest as much as they want following the logic that dissidents are to be incorporated or tolerated so long as so doing reduces levels of conflict and increases the system’s macro-efficiency (Green. 1980-1).
What transpires from all the above, about liberals, is that they still embrace a bourgeois ideology in terms of a politico-social programme. Therefore, this liberal political imperative lacks a really different political perspective too. It ultimately also lacks the political clout to change the system and, consequently, affect malnutrition.
Radicals or ‘leftists’ are probably more affected than liberals by the use of this pejorative labelling. People tend to think of them broadly as revolutionaries or temperamental activists ready to destroy the free enterprise system. Most of the time, this simplistic, stereotyped view is not accurate in our milieu.
This group among our peers is generally characterized by a commitment to pursue the hard questions whose answers will lead them to the final and most important determinants or poverty and malnutrition. It is not infrequent that some of these colleagues or ours have adopted a Marxist ideology, at least as an analytical tool. They definitely question the principles of social justice of the capitalist system and of bourgeois ideology; they strive for what they think is a better, more rational politico-social programme; they aim at generating social commitment in science. Because of the fact that they use an ideological frame in these efforts, there tends to be more internal consistency and more comprehensiveness in their strategies to approach and solve the problems of malnutrition.
Radicals tend to be action-oriented, often very verbal and are constantly trying to point out contradictions in the system leading to malnutrition. They spend a lot of time denouncing the inequalities and injustices they see and, within their ideological framework, they make an effort to propose possible solutions to solve the major contradictions; they use every opportunity they have to share these concerns with their peers, sometimes with decision-makers and, if possible, with members of the community that are suffering the problems themselves. They often work for the same bureaucracies as liberals do and academia is also one of their preferred refuges. They tend to be sceptical about traditional top-to-bottom nutrition intervention programmes, although, like the liberals, they often participate in some of them, but more often as a vehicle for organizing the beneficiaries at the base to let them embark on solving their own problems, and to help them gain some additional power to do so. They feel an urge to contribute to the liberation of the masses from social oppression and exploitation. This is not simply a belief or attitude of radical nutrition workers, but also an inner compulsion in their battle against malnutrition.
It needs to be added, here, that the replacement of the capitalist system has not necessarily been the original aim of all radicals in our profession. They only pursue those changes that they honestly believe have a real potential for solving malnutrition. If the changes called for, that would remove the root causes of poverty and malnutrition, would be accepted and implemented by the prevailing system, the system itself would not necessarily become the target of radicals. But since in most cases the needed changes cut deep into the basic structure of capitalist societies, they are in conflict with the capitalist system and its basic principle – profit maximization.
Radicals prefer to bypass working with traditional government bureaucracies (i.e. ministries) and plan working as much as possible, as said, at the grass roots, organizing the people around their problems, malnutrition; being only one of them, An important intervention for radicals, at that level, has to do with the task of creating awareness and conscientizing the people about their problems in an ideological context through organization. It is expected that people will channel their felt needs towards activities of self help in the case of problems that can be solved locally, or towards an organized fight for outside; inputs, be they governmental or not, in the case that such help is necessary.
Both liberals and radicals, not infrequently transcend the domains of pure or applied nutrition, digging sometimes deeply into the underlying politico-economic issues. Nevertheless, the conclusions drawn, the actions proposed and seen through and the channels utilized by the two groups are frequently different in kind. This should come as no surprise, since even ‘objective’ analysis and diagnosis techniques are ideologically biased. One pretty much sees what one wants to see. Even thinking about malnutrition in economic terms does not automatically assure commitment to something significant being done about it.
A number of nutritionists fall into in-between categories, between liberals and radicals. After all, each of us arranges his/her universe and his/her role in it as well as he/she can. People in this limbo are either in a slow transition to either category, or are permanently in-between. The latter, for sure, have a heavier burden to carry, since one can presume they have to confront more everyday contradictions within themselves.
How relevant is our work?
A lot of ‘semantic diplomacy’ bridges ideological differences in our everyday contact with colleagues. If we are really interested in solving the problems of malnutrition, we should not neglect out intraprofessional responsibility of pooling together the genuine and honest predisposition to action of nutritionists ethically and politically motivated because of the potential role of each of them as a change agent. The latter has to begin through a process of critical analysis of our own and our peers’ professional affairs and goals with their inherent contradictions. This very process should, hopefully, show each one of us to what extent and how our overall activities in the field of nutrition can be channelled to achieve a real, final impact in ameliorating malnutrition anywhere, in a reasonable time frame. Basically, we should be searching for a new ethos, a political ethos in our professional lives. Here, again, is an appeal for us to give a new sense and meaning to what we do, an appeal for us to step down from our ivory towers: and that is no easy task, individually and much less as a group. Individual rationalities do not always lead to collective rationality. This is primarily an ideological challenge that calls for political conscientization, a process which is only sporadically occurring within our group right now.
Are scientists and/or nutritionists in a position to make this transition by themselves? Are they willing to, or interested in doing so at all? Is it worth expending any effort to achieve such a goal? Is an effort necessary actively to promote conscientization activities or encounters towards this end? Should position papers in this area be encouraged more vigorously in scientific meetings? These are the kinds of questions that come to mind at this point and for which answers are not really always too clear.
Of course, there will be those who will argue: ‘Why don’t you just forget about those dilettante, bourgeois scientists (nutritionists included) and focus your effort more on helping to change the people, the blue collar workers, the peasants, or the unemployed directly, since they will ultimately be the ones called upon to bring about lasting social changes anyway? The answer to this question can be ambivalent too, neither of both activities being probably exclusive; it is mostly a question of what amount of effort to devote to each of them. Alternative answers to the same question are certainly the basis for a vital set of internal contradictions that a good number of liberal and radical intellectuals carry with them and somehow manage to block.
In the long run. there will have to be moral changes on the part of those of us who enjoy the luxuries of affluence. The question is, will these lead to ideological changes in some? (Winikoff, 1978). We have already passed the era when we asked basic nutritionists to become more applied researchers; now we are asking them to become more socially conscious and more committed as real change-agents, leaving behind a lot of epidemiological preciosity or snobbery. ‘Depoliticized science is not science in the real service of man’ (Franz Fannon).
Are we politically naif?
Many moralists think that politics is ‘dirty’ or not a ‘virtuous’ activity. That is probably why they insist on what many of us consider quixotic actions against the injustices of the prevalent social system – which they also, more often than not, condemn – without realizing that in the end they are being instrumental to its maintenance. They assume decision-makers are rational, righteous and pious and will bend in front of hard scientific evidence or react to outrageous injustice. Long before we contact them, politicians probably know from intuition what we are trying to quantify for them; nevertheless, corrective measures have not been taken. Moralists firmly believe that moral principles can be imposed by their universal and humanistic weight; they speak to the hearts often evoking sorrow but what we need is to shout to the consciences to evoke anger.
Liberals, on the other hand, pay a lot of lip-service to needed changes. They may even applaud radicals’ interventions in public meetings or the media, or even endorse and sign left-wing petitions or declarations. But they lack, perhaps as much as the moralists, the political education or the thrust that is needed to work out ways to, in our case. overcome malnutrition in capitalist societies. They probably have a more open attitude toward politics, but not always the basic understanding or skills to operate more decisively, or behave more politically, in the fight against hunger and malnutrition, which is eminently a political and not a technical struggle. Technology is hardly the adequate point of departure to achieve the deep structural changes needed to end hunger and malnutrition; the right political approach, rather, is the better point of departure. Nutritionists are rarely trained as social scientists and therefore use social theory implicitly rather than explicitly (Bantje. 1978).
Liberals will often shy-away from Marxist ideology – mainly because of the stigmas this carries in our western societies – except perhaps for its more ‘romantic’ and ‘egalitarian’ principles which remain, nevertheless, vague to most of them. They will shy-away even from Marxism’s scientific elements of interpretation of social phenomena, not believing that the same scientific method their minds are tuned-in to is the one being applied to the social sciences. Therefore, more often than not. they have not even chanced to study the principles of historical and dialectic materialism, although the possibility always exists to reject its interpretations, assertions or theories if they do not conform to the readers’ patterns of rationality or weltanschauung. The latter passive attitude is probably a remnant of the liberal scientist’s (anti-communist) bourgeois up bringing. His class-ideology – mostly its involuntary elements – haunts him. It indeed takes an initial very conscious and decisive step to bridge any ideological gap. It needs to be added, here, that the average applied scientist probably does not spend much time in purposefully studying the basic theoretic elements of the bourgeois ideology or capitalist political economy in order better to understand how the system he lives in works. Radicals, will probably more often go through this exercise the better to adjust their strategies and tactics.
Would all the above, then, mean that radical scientists or nutritionists have a higher level of social consciousness than their non radical peers? It would seem that the answer is yes, and it has certainly cost them an additional effort. Once a certain level of consciousness is attained (is there a threshold?…) an action oriented attitude usually follows. At that point there is a convergence of ideology and action which makes the difference between taking an observer’s versus a protagonist’s role. Knowing about injustices does not move us; becoming conscious about them generates a creative anger that calls for involvement in corrective actions. The latter can only happen within the framework of an ideology consciously acquired.
Political forces one fights with political actions, not with morals, nor with technological fixes. This does not mean that strong ethical principles cannot be used as a political weapon, but it is here where we fail, mainly for ideological reasons. It is because of ideological and political naivity that scientists who have occasionally jumped into the political arena in the Western world (with all their good intentions) have so often failed.
Are we afraid of speaking-up in political terms?
Many of us feel our positions in academia, government or international or private organizations might be jeopardized if we ‘come out of the closet’ with more radical positions. We take a ‘survivor’s’ attitude. One can often hear one of us saying: ‘Now look, let’s be realistic! I agree with you: I know the system is wrong and perpetuating malnutrition. But we cannot change the system from where we stand, so tell me, what can we do in the meantime to help the malnourished who continue to die everyday….?’ The result of such a position, as can be expected, is more palliative interventions that do not affect hunger and malnutrition greatly.
The truth is that there are certain actions that can be advocated in any system, that will have a more lasting effect and truly lead to combating malnutrition. (For example, Schuftan, 1979.) We seldom see agencies or concerned nutritionists primarily pushing those actions, because they are mostly, really non-nutritional, at least at the onset. If we could at least begin giving priority to, or speaking-up for, some of these interventions (i.e., employment generation and income redistribution measures) we would be contributing more to solving the feeding problems of the deprived sectors of the populations than by devising sometimes sophisticated nutrition interventions of the more traditional type with which we are familiar.
We have to stop thinking we cannot contribute anything (or much) to the selection and implementation of non-nutritional interventions because they are outside our immediate field of expertise. This is where our lack of political education shows perhaps clearest; we fail to recognize where the biggest contradictions lie and get caught trying to solve those that are secondary. It may be the honest recognition of our political inexperience or inadequacy that makes us not speak-up; but how long can we keep up this attitude?
If we are to behave scientifically, we have to be honest, and, therefore, critical. Next, we have to categorize or prioritize the situations or conditions we criticize, and proceed then to denounce them, publicly if necessary. That is how we should see the logical sequence of our scientific obligations in the field. We scientists are ready champions in denouncing transgressions in the exact sciences, but we are not half so active, and much less effective, in denouncing transgressions in the social sciences. In the latter battle, too often we compromise; and that is morally wrong.
Nutritionists in the third world
What do internationally funded nutrition programmes in the Third World really contribute? How responsible are the nutritionists working in those projects for their failure or success? Who do they see benefiting from these programmes? How do they see the programmes’ impact in the long run? Since most of these questions can be answered by these workers quite accurately given the experience they have accumulated, these colleagues of ours have a very special or additional responsibility, mostly because we have seen so much money being wasted in worthless programmes that seldom reach the really needy.
A good number of these programmes only scratch the surface of the local problems, and, therefore, contribute to the status quo in those countries. Let’s be aware, though, that most Third World countries’ governments would not accept foreign aid programmes at all if it were otherwise.
Every donor brings its own view of development with it and its development programmes will reflect that ideology. The influx of outside, often foreign experts designing the projects, leads to a mystification of the planning process and a reinforcement of people’s feelings of inadequacy about their own capabilities (Moore-Lappé and Beccar-Varela, 1980).
Professionals working in these projects should take part of the blame (or credit) for failures (or successes). In other words, how aggressive have they been (or are they) to fight for changes in direction if programmes are not bringing about the anticipated results? Here, a new role of ours becomes more evident. That is, the role of the nutritionist as a denouncer of non-realistic programmatic goals, objectives or methods of achieving them, especially because, as was said earlier. there still are some interventions that will partly contribute to improving malnutrition in a given population even within the constraints of the prevailing system. It is true that these nutritionists, in many cases, did not participate in the programme’s design, but it should never be too late to change directions. Therefore, for these Third World workers everything said about speaking-up in political term, is doubly important, be they ethically or ideologically motivated.
A new direction? – Some possible conclusions
‘Yes, but what can I do?’
For those among us, accustomed to solving problems and putting them aside, grasping a problem as intractable as world hunger guarantees frustration.
The flaw in our thinking lies in failing to realize that the solution to the malnutrition problem is not in nature, but in ourselves, in our approach to the fundamental social relationships among men (Omo Fadaka, 1979). Malnutrition should not be attacked because to do so brings mankind utility, but because such a task is morally necessary (Emmanuel Kant). What we need to fight for is equity not utility.
It seems that a full devotion to science is not enough; we need to use science to follow our conscience. We need to begin to think about ourselves as political human beings working as technicians. Experts seldom become politicians, but they can and should become activists in their fields. An important requirement for this is to seek knowledge about the real world and not only about the world we would like to see (Sigurdson, 1978). It is precisely a misunderstanding of reality (or a partial understanding) that often reinforces the amoral position of some of our colleagues. The social reality is not like a laboratory; many variables in it are unknown and unforeseen and when we look at them we often do it the wrong way, searching for the statistical ‘whats’ instead of analysing the human ‘whys’ (Critchfield, 1979).
Nutrition seems to be as good (or bad) an entry point as any other – employment. education, energy, natural resources, ecology, etc. – to get involved in questions of equity in our societies, if it is used as an ideology laden concept or tool. Since the constraints in equity are structural in nature, criticizing them from any (…) should lead us invariably to the core of social structural problems. Nutrition can lead to global considerations if not made a ‘single-issue’ goal. There are too many substitutes for in-depth political action in ‘single-issue politics’ that lead nowhere. The worst is that many people do not see this difference and a lot of political motivation and sometimes talent in scientists or lay people is lost because of a pseudo-ideological approach to global issues. Single-issue politics suffers from a lack of global vision of society.
What is really needed, is more dedication to work directly with the poor so they can tackle the causes of their poverty and malnutrition themselves. This calls for us to go, as much as possible, back to field work and out of our offices or labs. It seems to be that only there we can get the strengths needed for a change in direction and perspective in our daily work. Knowledge and scientific power created in our institutions away from the people are returning to the people and affecting them. The gap between those of us, who have social power over thinking – a very important form of ‘capital’ – and those who have not, has reached dimensions no less formidable than the gap in access to economic assets (Rahman, 1979). ‘Knowledge is a responsibility’ (Bronowski).
We need to be prepared to learn from the people and from their perceptions of the problems. We should establish links with local mass movements. We should participate in their conscientization. The choice is, essentially, between leading the masses toward social changes with an external consciousness and raising mass consciousness and their capability to make the changes for themselves.
Strictly speaking, nutritionists can go to the field as researchers or in charge of interventions. But in reality, researchers should always participate and intervene as well, even at the cost of altering some of the parameters they are interested in studying. They should enter into a dialogue with the group studied which should direct the research towards the problems that are relevant to the group.
In any event, the desirable standard role of the nutritionist in the field would be one of a monitor that does not allow programmatic interventions to proceed unchanged if they are culturally or politically neutral or biased against the interests of the beneficiaries (decision victims).
This brings us back to our original question: What can I do? A number of possible directions have been explored. Ideas appear in print well before they start to produce real changes. All that is said here just stresses the fact that the battle against malnutrition can be won, if we play our roles to their last consequences.
An attempt to know who we are
Little is found in the literature regarding the attitudinal position that people working in the area of nutrition take, regarding nutrition planning and policy. Due to this missing knowledge it was tried, through a survey, to generate a profile of our colleagues working in the general area of applied nutrition and nutrition planning. as one approach to a better understanding of the nature of the profession (Schuftan and Bertrand. 1981).
Understanding who these individuals are and where they come from seemed desirable, especially if one attempts to classify their opinions in the context of competing or complementary ideologies.
In January 1979, a survey was developed, composed of four sections made up of 60 questions related to attitudes of the respondents towards nutrition policy, plus four optional questions about social class, political classification and professional behaviour and one open question on the respondents’ perceived major impediments to combating malnutrition in the world. Most of those 60 questions were adapted from Moore-Lappé and Collins (1978) and related to what they call the Ten Myths on World Hunger. In general, the areas covered by the survey related to the following important topics: international aid, world malnutrition, green revolution, private industry (mainly food), food imports and exports, solutions to malnutrition, agriculture and malnutrition, malnutrition and poverty, malnutrition and technology, development planning, food production. food self-reliance, and the politics of malnutrition. The survey was then translated into Spanish and French and mailed to 728 professionals in 87 countries. 250 surveys coming from 55 countries were finally received (a little over one-third).
Sex distribution: Male: 73%, Female: 27%.
Age distribution: <29 yrs: 9%, 30-39 yrs: 38%, 40-49 yrs: 25%. 50-59 yrs: 20%, >60 yrs: 9%.
Educational backgrounds (degrees): Baccalaureate: 8%, Masters: 23%, Ph.D.: 43%, M.D.: 25%.
Work institutions: Government: 25%, International organizations: 17%, Private organizations: 11%, Universities: 37%, Voluntary agencies: 9%.
Main Activity: Clinical nutrition or laboratory: 12%. Agriculture/Community work: 46%, Economics/Social sciences: 24%, Nutrition planning: 8%. Others: 9%.
(Most time spent in: Teaching: 25%, Research: 41%, Extension work: 19%, Others: 13%.)
Agree/disagree questions were:
1. Malnutrition can be solved independently from poverty.
2. Political structural changes will most often be necessary to solve the problems of malnutrition.
3. A socialist political orientation is necessary to successfully combat malnutrition.
4. The ‘western’ style of planning development is most of the time pro status quo.
5. Traditional nutrition interventions, if applied in depth and widely, can solve most nutritional problems of the population.
6. Hunger in the world will be overcome by concentrating most of our efforts on producing more food.
7. It is desirable for an underdeveloped country to concentrate in exporting crops in which it has a ‘natural advantage’. It can then use the earnings to import food and industrial goods.
8. To help solve the problems of hunger in the world the Rich countries need to increase their overall foreign aid.
9. Almost every country in the world has the resources necessary for in people to free themselves from hunger.
10. Hunger is only made worse when approached as a technical problem.
11. Political and economic inequalities are in essence, the greatest stumbling blocks to development.
12. Agriculture must become, first and foremost, a way for people to produce the food they need and secondarily a possible source of foreign exchange.
13. In the long run, escape from hunger comes not through the redistribution of food but only through the redistribution of control over food-producing resources.
14. The ‘population explosion’ on our planet is closely linked to poverty and maintains malnutrition; only by solving the latter two will we be able to achieve a universal demographic transition.
15. More research is needed to provide the data necessary for solving the problems of malnutrition in the world.
16. The ‘green revolution’ has ‘bought the world time’
17. The ‘green revolution’ has strengthened the world’s food security.
18. Mostly ignorance of small farmers is to blame for low food production in the third world.
19. Income from agricultural exports helps the hungry.
20. Underdeveloped countries need American corporate know-how to improve food availability.
21. Agricultural modernization is the most important component to be emphasized in rural development.
22, A new seed is like any other technological development; its contribution to social progress depends primarily on who develops it and who controls it.
23. Increasing food production is mainly a scientific and technological problem.
24. Small farms have proven to be more productive per acre than larger farms in most pans of the world.
25. Labour-saving mechanization is good for the society at large only when it means saving workers from unnecessary arduous labour.
26. The fixation on export agriculture continues because while harmful to most, it is highly profitable for a few.
27. Basic food self-reliance is the sine-qua-non of food security.
28. Agribusiness firms go abroad, not to help feed the hungry, but to take advantage of the lower costs of producing ‘luxury’ crops that are then sold to the already well-fed around the world.
29. When we consider the problem of world hunger, we should always keep in mind that traditional diets are most often adequate – WHEN people can get enough of it.
30. More than half of American ‘aid’ is not given in the form of grants, but loaned with low interest.
31. International obligations push countries down the path of heavy reliance on export agriculture.
32. Poverty can be eliminated by increased production and by better management – both done best by private enterprise.
33. The creation of a new class of small scale entrepreneurial farmers will not eradicate hunger in the world.
34. In the third world, increased overall production without structural reordering is worse than stagnation, it only further entrenches the powerful and weakens the poor.
35. History suggests that the reallocation of control over the production of goods cannot succeed if it is approached as a gradual reform.
36. In countries with great inequalities, appeals for national sacrifice are correctly perceived by the poor as a way for the elite to extract yet more wealth through the extra exertion requested of the masses.
37. Agricultural exports should come only after the people first meet their own food needs.
38. In most underdeveloped countries agriculture continues to contribute much more to the national income than it receives in investment.
39. Most workers in underdeveloped countries produce more than they consume. Thus, the surplus to be converted into capital exists; the real question is who controls the accumulated foods and the means to produce more.
40. In a Food First economy people would mobilize the potential capital of their labour power and of underutilized land; the early stages would rely on the mobilization of the unemployed labour force for improving the productivity of the land.
41. People will feed themselves. If they are not doing so, one can quite assuredly predict that mighty obstacles are in the way.
42. The traditional approaches of nutritionists – nutrition education, food distribution, food fortification, etc. – have served more to self-justify their doing ‘something’ rather than really helping the poor who suffer from malnutrition.
43. International aid is of no real help to the poor if the local food and income maldistribution factor is ignored and no corrective measures for the latter are built-in into the interventions to be financed.
44. Most food aid has had a negative impact on local grain prices, disincentivating local farmers to grow the same grains.
45. Too often have technical assistance missions been short term and with little real involvement in the problems by consultants. More often have the goals of the agency been fulfilled rather than the needs of the recipients.
46. Nutrition-planning at the government level primarily reflects the objectives of the group in power.
47. Mainly in countries with governments committed to quite radical social change can nutrition planners concentrate primarily on the more technical aspects of nutrition planning.
48. Planners keep planning for the poor without incorporating them into the process.
A. (Optional) How would you classify yourself, politically:
conservative
moderate
liberal
leftist
B. (Optional) You consider yourself belonging to which social class?
lower
lower-middle
middle
upper-middle
upper
C. (Optional) Your parents belonged to which social class?
lower
lower-middle
middle
upper-middle
upper
D. (Optional) Do you think you behave in full accordance with the positions you have taken in answering the above questions?
Yes 51%
No 3%
Partially (with contradictions) 46%
E. (Optional) What do you think are the major impediments to progress in solving hunger and malnutrition in the world?
(1) Social injustice: 10%.
(2) Resources and wealth maldistribution: 14%.
(3) Programmes of limited objectives/lack of political commitment: 12%.
(4) Imperialism/Underdevelopment: 14%.
(5) Rigid political structures: 18%.
(6) Other: 30%.
Source: Schuftan and Bertrand, 1981. PERCENTAGES AND NUMBERS CAN BE HAD FROM THE AUTHOR.
3. Conclusions that can be drawn from the Survey:
A number of cross-tabulations were clone with the preceding data which would be too long to present here. Instead, the major conclusions are summarized below.
With regards to the original objective of this piece of research presented – the description of a significant sample of the potential or actual nutrition planners -the conclusions are straightforward.
(a) There appear to be two clear schools of scientific/political behaviour in our sample. One holds a more moderate, but still generally liberal set of views regarding the failure of modern technology in resolving world hunger and nutrition problems. The holders of these views seem mostly to come from the United States. A second, more liberal group, with a relatively more radical perspective on the failure of technology and more vociferous in citing political causes as the root of hunger, has been educated or comes from Western Europe or some of the Commonwealth countries.
(b) There is no single profession that can be typified as a breeding ground for nutrition planners. They come from areas that reflect the multifactorial nature of the food chain and the nutrition system. The fabric which seems to hold them together is one which is more ideological than discipline-oriented. So far, they are primarily educated in the United States and Western Europe, reflecting the Western world’s deepening concern with the study of the distribution of food. The Socialist bloc nations apparently feel that they know the answers to food distribution problems and hence feel little need to pursue it as an academic issue.
(c) The middle class, relatively young, primarily male nature of the survey sample reflects well the Western technocracy or development set. While the European trained and/or native group tends to be more to the left in their attitudes than their counterparts in the US, both groups are decidedly liberal and of the opinion that social structural changes are the starting point for solving hunger and malnutrition in the world.
Is there any practical advantage in knowing better who we are and what we stand for? To begin with, each reader will be able to place him/herself in the context of the positions his/her peers around the world are taking on central issues.
Changes to come, in our field as in others, follow a process; this process in the last five or ten years has been towards more structural and deeper social changes as a prerequisite to solve the problems of malnutrition. This seems to be confirmed by our data. Does this mean that the upcoming generation of nutrition workers will stay on a more radical pathway, as the survey showed, or will they turn to more comfortable moderate positions? (It would be interesting to repeat the survey five years from now….) Are we going to become more aggressive in advocating those changes so many of us feel are needed, now that we know that a significant proportion of our peers think along these lines?
A survey like this one briefly presented can never answer all the questions and often will raise more new ones. Surveys are like snapshots; they can show us where we stand, but they do not necessarily start us moving in the direction we want to go.
The main goal of this effort was to allow each of us to re-examine our own professional lives as scientists and as concerned human beings in the hope that we commit ourselves to some change in a direction that we may now accept is called for, in a changing world that is generating more hungry and malnourished individuals every day.
References
Bantje, H., Constraint mechanisms and social theory in nutrition education, mimeo, BRALUP, University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania (1978).
Critchfield, R., The village: the world as it really is… it’s changing, Agenda, 2, 8, USAID (1979).
Green, R. H., Gale warnings, fragments of charts and guides for navigators, Devpt, Dialogue, Dag Hammarskjold Foundation (1980-1).
Moore-Lappé, F., and Beccar-Varela, A., Mozambique and Tanzania: Asking the Big Questions, IFDP, San Francisco, CA. (1980).
Moore-Lappé, F., Collins, 1., Food First: Beyond the Myth of Scarcity, Houghton Mifflin Co, New York (1978).
Omo Fadaka, J., Water planning and management – an alternative view, IFDA Dossier 7, Lyon, Switzerland (1979).
Rahman, A., Science for social revolution, IFDA Dossier 4, Lyon, Switzerland (1979).
Schuftan, C. The challenge on feeding the people: Chile under Allende and Tanzania under Nyerere, Social Science and Medicine 13C, 2 (1979), p. 97.
Schuftan, C., and Bertrand. W. ‘Nutrition planning: what do professionals working in this field around the world think? (Results of a world-wide survey on attitudes toward nutrition policy)’, Food and Nutrition Bulletin, U.N.U.. Tokyo, January 1981.
Sigurdson, J., Better analytical tools and social intelligence, The Lund Letter on Sc. and Technol. and Basic Human Needs 6 (1978).
Winikoff, B., Political commitment and nutrition policy Nutrition and National Policy (Ed. Winikoff. B.), MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. (1978).