quote:Originally posted by w1rebaby:
The major justification that lets people accept this sort of thing, I've been thinking recently, works like:
1. society is so fluid these days, it's possible to achieve anything if you put your mind to it ("anyone could be the president")
1a. thus if you fail, it's your fault and no-one else's
2. you can't rely on anyone else to give you handouts, you have to look after number one (but, combined with 1, this still appears possible)
2a. thus don't give anything to anyone else, cos they wouldn't deserve it.
I think there's a lot of truth in this; in some ways, it's the flipside of the whole 'classless society' schtick. Something I read recently (Toby Young's 'How To Lose Friends And Influence People') put forward a fairly reasonable case for the US having gone further down that particular path than anyone else, since it's considered (in its own mythology, anyway) to be the ultimate meritocracy ("...where a kid without a cent, he can grow up to be President"). Alternative forms of democracy - India, say, with its still-strong caste system, or even Britain with its class divisions - provide alternative 'reasons' why some individuals might be reduced to begging, than 'laziness'.
As you say, though, W1rebaby, the idea that some people are born so disadvantaged that they can't 'make something of themselves' is on the wane, almost quaintly Dickensian. I think it's a dangerous concept to abandon...
I'm aware that my attitude towards begging (and, to some extent, State 'handouts', although I hate the term) is incredibly inconsistent. One thing I learned from visiting India, however, was that inconsistency is one way of staying sane in the face of overwhelming poverty. Yes I can afford to live in a much more luxurious manner than many, no I can't solve the problem by giving away all my money (and that would make me unhappy), yes I nevertheless feel obliged to give money to beggars (for whatever reasons, 'correct' or not) at some times and not at other times. I'm aware that I am more likely to give money to beggars who are a) female, b) young or c) physically-attractive - but I've sort of made my peace with that.
I think I'd be wary of anyone who claimed to have developed any kind of consistent approach here because either a) they'd have given away everything they owned, or b) they'd be one of those people who affect pride at being 'strong' enough not to personally give to others, justifying it either through 'they're all slackers/alcoholics/junkies' or 'the Government should take care of them'.
Being in the position of hearing 'hard luck stories' in some depth on a regular basis, I'm also wary of making the deceptively straightforward distinction between 'deserving' and 'undeserving' on the basis of perceived victimhood or its absence. Even in WoI's portrayal above, there are areas I'd want to explore further (the "for whatever reasons" she's not living with her parents, for example) - and part of me would remain aware that I'm making judgments based on a still from a photography class ('reasonable exploitation'? why was that particular subject chosen?) with a backstory that hasn't come from the horse's mouth. Not saying it's in any way invalid but I'd bear in mind that the girl's story has come to me through several 'filters', at least some of which may have a vested interest in portraying her this or that way.
Conversely, the 'wasters' - the drug/alcohol users, people who one judges 'not making an effort' usually have a good reason for doing so, once the whole story's explored.
All of which takes me to no conclusion in particular. That it's a complex mess, I suppose, that 'responsibility' rarely lies solely with either individual or society, and that appearances can be misleading.
[ 12-02-2002: Message edited by: Ganesh v4.2 ] |
