Any blinding is not pleasant. Including the humane, politically correct winks that are draped over us with the best of emotions. Maybe it’s these velvet blinds that are worse than the itchy ones and that’s why we’re trying to throw them away.
But honestly discussing complex issues can also be painful and humiliating. But let’s try.
There seems to be no more terrible curse than poverty. The poverty of a person or a social group – and even more so the poverty of an entire country. The entire spectrum of nightmares – from personal or national humiliation to poverty, disease, starvation and even starvation.
Why does poverty continue to be an eternal scourge? The suffering of humanity as a whole (in the case of the “rich” and “poor” countries) and the problem of highly prosperous countries (where they still have the poor) and even the tragedy of individual families, one suddenly encounters an unhappy, poor second cousin among prosperous workers and associate professors – and that’s it. nothing can be done about it.
Why can not you do? It is easiest to give a fatalistic-statistical answer, so to speak. In a class of only excellent students, their losers will show up tomorrow. And vice versa, of course: tomorrow in the class of losers someone will have to be “five”, and someone “count”. So they say, society is organized. Inequality creates the energy of competition and labor supply.
All this is fine, but can’t this disparity be made less obvious and less disturbing?
You can also try. But it is unlikely to work. Because poverty is not only a misfortune, but also a way of life. For people, nations and countries.
Because most of the time we are not talking about victims of a social or even natural disaster (e.g. drought). We are talking about a kind of “doctrinal poor”.
This was written by the great sociologist Oscar Lewis, who spent half his life among the poor in Mexico. Before Lewis’ books, it was believed that poverty was perceived by people as a misfortune, something they tried with all their might to get rid of. Output – no. This is a way of life in which people habitually and even comfortably live, a kind of “culture of poverty”. But the patterns of this culture do not allow them to go outside its framework. Roughly speaking, this is the “saving” value instead of the “win” value, the “cunning and stealing for yourself” value rather than the “collaborate and share” value.
But it’s not just a matter of statistical invariance and learned rules of behavior. The thing is, poverty is profitable. It is strangely beneficial, just like the disease.
At the international level, there is constant talk of aid to poor countries, especially African countries, and above all in the form of debt relief and new loans. Sober voices are being heard: until then, such aid will be nearly meaningless until rich countries find a way to ensure the sustainable development of poor countries. But these voices are drowned out in a human chorus: people in Africa are starving and dying today, right now, this minute. Don’t fool us with the “angle and fish tale”, give us food! A bag of rice gives life – and as for the costs that make this bag truly gold – it’s embarrassing to think about it when children are starving before the eyes of well-fed Europe. Especially if you remember the centuries of colonialism.
Yes, of course, a person must first be saved, and then taught to the mind. But what is “poverty in poor countries”? It is a kind of “symptom”, that is, a defense against the contradictions of the post-colonial world. Corruption, tribalism, ethno-religious conflicts, unimaginable social stratification (forest tribes living at the Neolithic level and their leaders living in villas on Lake Geneva) are difficult to combat. Talking about these issues honestly and honestly at the national level will lead to the collapse of identity, civil war and mass exodus. To prevent a disaster, national self-consciousness says: “We are a poor country.” Painful in itself, this symptom removes the danger of national self-destruction and creates a new identity – the “poor country” identity. Poverty is regarded as an essential feature of the nation, a model of people’s behavior within the country and that country’s behavior on the world stage.
Oscar Wilde wrote that the poor love money more than the rich. Paradoxically, the poor are allowed more than the rich. Poverty, corruption, inequality are excuses for nepotism.
But the real issue is the restructuring of identity. “We are not thieves, we are not lazy, we are not godparents, we are not bribery, we are not rebels slaughtering neighboring tribes… we are just poor people. Our country is poor, hence all our problems.” Poverty is understood as a kind of disease. And the disease – especially the disease of the soul, including the national disease – provides a number of specific benefits.
The primary benefit of poverty as a symptom is: relaxed self-awareness. I am not a vagabond, I am a poor man, I am not a thief, I am a poor man, I am not ignorant, I am a poor man, etc. All this works at the level of the individual – and not only in poor Africa, but also in rich Europe. The same is true at the national level as a whole. Everything that is embarrassing for a “healthy” (developed, wealthy nation) is excused for a “sick” (i.e. poor) nation, and even forms the basis of national self-esteem.
But there is a secondary benefit of poverty here.
Modern developed countries are arranged in such a way that they cannot calmly take care of starving people. Moreover, they are starving, apparently as a result of some force majeure conditions: drought, flood, civil war, refugee. But the situation does not allow to take a close look and understand the reasons – help is needed immediately. And help usually comes. More reliable, but much more expensive, in the form of credit and direct distribution of food: this requires people, transport, security and field medicine. Fuel, spare parts, weapons, ammunition, overalls, medicine. Monthly salary.
The high costs of direct distribution force developed countries to channel most aid in the form of money. It is clear that a significant part of them was stolen: they are also costs, but rather moral ones, while direct distributions require real costs – that is, they are more expensive in the first approximation.
“Poverty as a disease” provides material benefits. Patients are being treated. The patient is forgiven for harsh and even aggressive reminders that he or she is sick and needs care. This is how almost all poor countries and individual poor people behave.
For them, poverty is not only a way to get rid of their real problems and gain a strong identity, but also a way to get free benefits, loans that you still don’t have to repay.
Developed nations and philanthropists easily move with them – but not just for philanthropic reasons.
This is where benefit number three comes in.
The growing stratification of the world into poor and rich countries, societies into rich and poor people, and the inability to build a system of interaction between them that is politically stable, economically profitable and socially just – this is the main contradiction that torments developed countries. In the minds of rich countries and the rich, a premonition of the “end of history” in the worst sense of the word is ripening. And helping poor countries and poor people at home is only a defense against insoluble conflicts. Another type of symptom. Therefore, the concept of “rich – poor (countries or people)” in itself is very useful for both countries and people for the rich. It strengthens their self-confidence as a benefactor, replacing the reality of their own helplessness and pain.
For this reason, developed countries hold high meetings and take noble decisions. First about helping poor countries, then about debt forgiveness from the same countries that were never rich from large-scale financial injections. But why haven’t huge loans helped these countries develop their economies and social spheres? And why did such an obvious failure (or rather, a chain of failures) not cause legitimate anger from donors?
Here is the fourth benefit of poverty. No one can prevent the leader of a poor country that borrows gifts from rich countries from buying palaces and private planes in these countries. The property is purchased from a European owner; airplanes, cars, as well as African made, tailoring and non-bottling costumes and wines; and, as a rule, service personnel with European citizenship. So some—perhaps most—of the money given to the poorest countries in the form of loans actually (in the form of purchases) and some (in the form of taxes) legally returns to Europe. After that, the forgiveness of debts seems to be a symbolic act. In fact, the act of legitimizing what is happening: demanding the refund of the money returned to Europe through corruption – this would be an unbounded cynicism, contrary to all European values.
Things are better in private philanthropy. From 100% of donations (yes, imagine!) up to 60% of donations go directly to recipients (the first figure belongs to small voluntary organizations, the second to large organizations that hire staff, rent buildings, etc.). But they also fix poverty as a way of life of the person receiving social assistance.
A former acquaintance of mine, a social worker in Washington DC, Dr. Abby Banks said that the hardest thing for an unemployed and homeless person is to “jump out of welfare and jump into life.” Not everyone succeeds and not everyone wants to. It’s cheaper and easier to live on a poverty allowance. Here too, skill, dexterity and experience are required: to be on time for all registrations, distributions and distributions. She said that the head of the homeless and poor works no worse than a normal successful manager, but that this person’s job is to manage one’s own poverty.
I want to believe that it is still possible to get rid of poverty.
But for this you need to understand that in 90% of cases it is not a sudden misfortune that fell on a person, not a semi-mystical hereditary stigma, but an established stereotype of social behavior. Honestly, it’s an unpleasant cliché. I assure you – there is no pride or snobbery in hostility towards the “professional poor”.
I have a friend – a smart and strong woman from a distant province, a dysfunctional family and a difficult social circle in general. He himself (not married), works and studies a lot, albeit very modestly – but achieved well-being. Mind, labor, shelter, whatever you want. He has a good job, a modest but new and clean apartment. He travels. She reads, listens to music, improves her skills. He even helps his unlucky relatives, trying to rip off a piece, another piece, another piece from him, although in reality they are idlers and parasites …
Few people hate the “professional poor” as much as he does.
The author expresses his personal opinion, which may not coincide with the editors’ position.
Source: Gazeta
