Poverty and Personal Responsibility (Part 1, by Romal Tune)
During this election cycle, we have heard candidates talk about ways in which we can work to end poverty. John Edwards has a new initiative to cut poverty in half in 10 years. These and other initiatives are certainly admirable ideas and much-needed programs that could help millions of men, women, and children.
In additions to programs and needed policy changes from our elected officials, we are also hearing about personal responsibility. And yes, inasmuch as we should look to our elected officials to address the needs of a growing “underclass,” those in need must also do something to change their circumstances. However, as we work to address the needs of the poor through policy, programs, and personal responsibility, we must also take into account that something is missing from this dialogue.
As someone who grew up poor in a single-parent household, I went without dinner more nights that I can even count. At times having to choose between using my bus fare for lunch and walking home, sometimes the decision to eat forced me to humble myself and stand on the corner asking strangers for change so that I could get home. I know from experience that there is more to the task of eliminating poverty than programs, policy, and personal responsibility.
For those of us who either grew up poor or work in poor communities, you have likely come to realize that the psychological impact of poverty is just as damaging as the circumstance itself. Perhaps the most difficult task, when trying to get people to engage in the work of their own liberation, is convincing them to believe that they are worthy of a better life. Yes, there are those in poor communities who, given a fair chance, will rise above their circumstances and pursue a better life. But we cannot ignore the reality that there are others whose spirits have been broken and feel like the darkness of poverty is their destiny. There are those who have been told so many times that they will never amount to anything, will never achieve anything, and even deserve to be where they are, that they now believe it is true. These are the men, women, and children for whom it will take more than good policy to get them out of poverty. These are the men, women, and children who can no longer be inspired by words that seem foreign to them, because it has been words that have done them the most harm.
There is a saying that "hurt people, hurt people." In other words, many living in poverty are simply doing what they were taught by their parents. They are using the skills and words handed down to them by people who were hurting, and they are now instilling the same beliefs in their children. They have not seen examples of how to do things in a different way, they do not know how to encourage their children because they were not encouraged as a child, and they do not know how to live as a community or family where people meet the needs of others so that everyone can succeed, because from early in their lives they have been left alone and had to fend for themselves.
[to be continued...]
Rev. Romal Tune is the CEO of Clergy Strategic Alliances, a graduate of Howard University and Duke University School of Divinity, and a member of the Red Letter Christians.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
Rev. Tune,
Great article. The psychological impact of poverty may be bigger than the other factors you mentioned. This impact is passed on to each generation and is difficult to break. I look forward to Part 2.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | July 23, 2008 4:14 PM
I saw an article in a popular weekly magazine last weekend, in which it was stated that, in the United States of America, we throw away somewhere around $20 billion per year in 'dated' groceries - - produce, meat, dairy, etc. that did not sell by the 'expiration date.' Another estimate in the same article was that, when we include food that is discarded out of our cupboards and refrigerators, not used, we may throw away about half of the total food available in the USA.
I don't know how reliable these stats are, but suppose they are high by 100%, even 200%? The numbers are still large, and it seems likely to me that there is no 'reason of supply' for anyone in this country to go to bed hungry.
The article did not attempt to address the situation in the rest of the world, but we in the USA have much to answer for if the numbers for us are anywhere near correct. We have a distribution problem. Problems can be solved. "Who will go for us?"
Posted by: joekc | July 23, 2008 5:19 PM
"There is no incentive of getting someone from dependance to independance."
Actually, there is a disincentive. If a single mother seeks work there is no assistance to help her with child care. If she earns too much her aid is cut completely. If she needs to take time from work to tend to the needs of a sick child she goes without pay and risks losing the job.
You want to create an incentive? Let's try the following:
1) Free child care for those single mothers seeking to move from welfare to work
2) A scale that provides continued support for the worker, but that decreases slowly over time as her resources increase.
3) EXPANSION and ENFORCEMENT of the Family Medical Leave Act for part time and temporary workers, as these are the kinds of jobs these women will likely be able to obtain. Couple with this a tax incentive for employers to provide a reasonable amount of paid medical leave for their workers so they can care for their children without losing wages.
Posted by: ds0490 | July 23, 2008 11:36 PM
Nobody goes to bed hungry in America unless they deserve to.
Pastor Jeff
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | July 23, 2008 11:42 PM
Thank you for this insightful post. I will take it, and mediate on what I can do personally to help alleviate the problem in at least one other person's life.
Peace,
Jim
Posted by: JamesM | July 24, 2008 7:30 AM
Dear Romal:
I recognize what you are talking about in the last paragraph. I have been teaching in a non profit for families at risk in our community.
When people work so hard to provide for their children they want their children to appreciate what they are able to provide from their own efforts. They don't want their children to see them doing anything that looks like they are receiving a hand out or help from some one. "This is the best that I can do. It is good enough."
So many times they have seen more affluent families succeed and are led to believe that these families are successful because they relied on themselves with out any assistance from belonging to a community. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The most wealthy among us has benefited from the support and cooperation of others.
We preach this song about pulling your self up by your own boot straps in order to find opportunity. But it is a fallacy. The middle class survives when its people become interdependent with one another. We share many projects, organizations and funds together so that our children can have luxuries that they would not have if we each tried to do it on our own.
Working with parents who are struggling with this myth about independence has not always been easy. They want to be seen as the soul providers for their children's needs. It is difficult to convince them to pool their efforts together and do problem solving or fund raising as an organization so their children can have something better than they could each do as individuals on their own. Sometimes I wish economically challenged parents could band together and form a union in defence of their children.
How do we ask parents who fear loosing their dignity to value what they can accomplish by trusting and sharing their efforts with others?
How do we educate them to see the wealth and opportunity that come in the form of cooperation?
Posted by: Ms. Cynthia | July 24, 2008 8:53 AM
Pastor Jeff, are you serious, or just being silly for the sake of provoking reaction?
Posted by: joekc | July 24, 2008 8:55 AM
Moderatelad: "Programs that do not have the end goal of getting people off the welfare roll will not assist us in ending poverty. Our system is only self perpetuation of the problem. There is no incentive of getting someone from dependance to independance."
This was perhaps true of the old AFDC, but is not true now, post-1996. All states have time limits for how long people can stay on welfare, and the federal government requires that states have at least 50 percent of their welfare recipients working full-time in order to receive welfare (and many others are working but not full-time). Plus every state has an earned income disregard that encourages people to work without losing their cash benefits dollar-for-dollar. So the system does have incentives built in.
Posted by: I and I | July 24, 2008 9:46 AM
I and I:
All states do not have time limits for how long you can stay on welfare. I live in Michigan and it does not have any time limits.
Posted by: Paul | July 24, 2008 10:07 AM
Moderatelad --
FMLA isn't a paid absence -- so why will it put small businesses out of business?
With the war on, those benefits have increased significantly, but it's all still unpaid.
Posted by: frankie | July 24, 2008 12:19 PM
The Benefactor Project.com
Posted by: Tom Canavan | July 24, 2008 12:55 PM
Paul,
I live in Michigan, too. It used to be one of two (yes, only two) states in the country that did not have time limits, but it now has a four-year time limit. Gov. Granholm signed that into law about two years ago.
Posted by: I and I | July 24, 2008 5:04 PM
Joekc: Thanks for noticing. I was paraphrasing the "free" marketers that post here while echoing the sentiment of Rev. Tune: "There are those who have been told so many times that they will never amount to anything, will never achieve anything, and even deserve to be where they are, that they now believe it is true." His observations re: the psychology of poverty are right on the mark and are the type of thing that think-tank-economics-lab "free" market proponents callously overlook in their analysis of the poverty issue. For evidence of my assertions see DITE's remarks on the comments of the follow-up post.
BTW-I was also poking fun at the "going to bed hungry" rhetoric. A) As if that were the definition of poverty and B)Most people in America don't go to bed hungry because of the effectiveness of our programs to alleviate that very problem.
Pastor Jeff
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | July 25, 2008 4:47 PM
Outstanding post, Ms. Cynthia! The myth you speak of may find it's perpetuation from it's usefulness as a tool of the capitalists to retain their position. The greatest fear of corporate America is unions.
Pastor Jeff
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | July 25, 2008 4:53 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?