I feel like Brandt would agree that the sponsor always has something to gain from their sponsorship. She backs this argument by explaining "Loaning land, money, protection, and other favors allowed the politically powerful to extend their influence and justify their exploitation of clients. Clients traded their labor and deference for access to opportunities for themselves or their children and for leverage needed to improve their social standing." This is basically saying that a sponsor offers something in value to someone. This person who is usually in a lower socioeconomic status then the sponsor, uses this item of value to to trade their labor to achieve a better social standing. I feel like Brandt would agree that the sponsor always has something to gain in a sponsorship because why else would you want to be a sponsor at all.
A good example of this would be some employers will supply the money for an obese employee to get a medical procedure called gastric bypass surgery. This would give the employer a more productive worker and the employee get to be a healthier person and a boost in self confidence.
In my life some examples for sponsorship would be my parents. They have invested money in me to get good grades, graduate college, and then get a good job. The benefit to them would be the fact that they don't have to take care of me anymore.
No comments:
Post a Comment