FOOD Share

Participatory and pluralist democratic models are polar opposites of each other. The former wants all citizens to participate in some type of political construct. Whether it is for the Neighborhood Watch or the Kiwanis, Participatory adherents believe that being involved in these institutions will make people more democratic. In other words, people will be more likely to be politically involved, thus having more control of factors that can greatly affect their lives. Pluralist democracy takes a different stance, it purports that not everyone needs to be involved in politics and goes so far to say that not everyone will be involved in politics. Yet, this is fine because there is someone else, usually an interest group who is representing your own interests.
So what does this have to do with FOOD Share? My Theory and Practice of American Government Professor asked the class to get involved in the campus’s Service Day. So I signed up to help FOOD Share for the day. Located in Oxnard, it is part of the Nation’s Food Bank Network and it “gathers and distributes food, serving those in need through a network of charitable agencies.” (foodshare.com) Along with about fifteen other people, we took food that had been damaged during handling and packaged it into cardboard boxes. There were three main boxing areas for Cereal, Crackers and Cookies, the rest of the food went into a separate bin. The jobs were divided up: some sorted the cookies from crackers from the cereal, while others took the ripped and torn packages and taped them up. Others then boxed the food and put it in its proper area. I had none of those jobs. See, the food had already come in boxes, some were the typical corrugated shipping boxes while others were the open cardboard boxes with handle slots (like the ones that are used for produce viewing in markets or the boxes you put your food in after shopping at Costco) and there were many other boxes that I do not know the names of. All of these boxes needed to be put in the dumpster to be recycled. Our project leader wanted to maintain his reputation of using the least amount of dumpsters to be filled up with the greatest amount of cardboard boxes. I enjoy doing manual labor, and it was the most demanding task that was offered so I volunteered. For approximately three hours I unfolded, stomped on and ripped apart cardboard boxes and put them in the dumpster. Then I would hop in the dumpster and jump on the boxes to compress them as much as my weight would allow me. I have never in my life had such a dynamic relationship with cardboard boxes and will never look at them the same.
Besides what we did that day, or why we did it, who it was done for is the most important aspect. There are hungry people, who with their own economic resources could not afford to buy themselves or their family a meal and now, (in small part because of what we did) they will be able to eat. But why volunteer? Why take the time out of the day to work for no monetary profit when there are other things that are needed or wanted to be done? Whether it was for ethic, religious, moral or other reasons the fact that there was participation is what is important from a political point of view. Now, can this help someone become more democratic? Does being involved in this activity or other ones like it mean that someone is therefore more likely to become politically active because they are active in their community? From personal experience this is usually the case. But, does everyone need to be politically active? Does everyone need to vote, or do people not need to worry about voting because there is an organization that already is pushing for their interests? This is something that we have been discussing in my Gov class and is an issue that many political theorists and scientists still debate.

The Ethicist

In the podcast at www.nytimes.com by Randy Cohen, AKA, The Ethicist, Mr. Cohen addresses two queries of John from Washington and K.C. from Denver. John was the witness of a sexual harassment crime at his workplace. One of his colleagues used the camera of his cell phone and filmed under a female colleague’s skirt while at a company meeting. Later, John then saw his male colleague download the material from his cell phone onto his computer and then continue filming! Surprisingly, John does not know what to do. Cohen, after explaining the legal implications such as sexual harassment and invasion of privacy violations that this man committed, says that “ethically” John cannot ignore this and should have related the problem to an authority immediately. It is blatant that John should have, without any reservation, reported this pervert to someone who could have properly handled the situation. Having to write to Cohen to ask if he should report a sex crime is agitating and shows the ignorance of the concern for other citizens that we should all have.
The second question, which may actually have the need of an ethicist, deals with a contractor working on a project for which a client has allotted a week to ten days to finish, but K.C. the contractor believes that he can finish it within a few days. The question K.C. asks is if he should finish the project in three to four days and “suffer the loss of pay” or drag it out for the allotted time and receive more money. Cohen offers a great solution, which once again as with the first problem should have been executed at the time of the dilemma: tell the client that he can finish the project in a few days, but ask for more money due to his higher expertise, require a “flat fee”, or a “bonus for early completion.” This way the client won’t be paying more money than expected and K.C. can receive the same amount of money without carrying any guilt.
It is always comforting and reassuring to have a person, especially an educated and qualified one, to help you with your problems whether they are small or large. There are many problems, that with the tool of common sense can easily be solved and with no external help, leaving you with the residual feeling of accomplishment.