I did notice the other day that there was a problem with my comment about the UNDP and its forgetfulness of the vocation to the future of the low: the project of the groups low (educate your children) does not seem as ‘project’. In the end, the sectors media, too. And if by ‘subjectivity’. wouldn’t it be the project of the indigent to get money for the day? Basically, the argument used what that does is remove the idea of the project, all utility.
Now, I think that the argument is not enough. Because the theme is for groups low in educating their children (to give them the best education) is a project because it is something difficult, which requires planning and programmed, that if you don’t plan what’s more likely is that it is not. That is, it is possible, that requires effort. For the sectors media, education of the children is not a project, because, finally, it is not a subject, it is not something that is in doubt. For something in the groups media, the preguntarsele for projects the theme of education does not appear. What constitutes a project (something complex that depends on a good organization for that to happen) depends on the circumstances. For me several things are projects than for someone in an economic situation the more wealthy (let’s say Piñera) does not require a project, it is something whose feasibility would be obvious.
And that is the difference between the groups low-and middle -. Sectors media would move between what is assumed and what is impossible. There is No place for a project, and less for projects that achieve target’s own life. The groups of low, apart from what is taken for granted (i.and that will not starve), and the impossible, the space of the projects: what s it is possible to achieve if one is planning to do this. And that would be what I would have forgotten the UNDP.