Hi everybody,
sorry for the rushed and unfinished (the janitors in the Leeds
library are uncompromising) Friday night message of mine -- and let
me explain the motives behind it:
I don't know much about the situation in London, but here in Leeds
I'm meeting every day quite a few homeless people selling a journal
called 'Big Issue', whose only aim (it seems to me) is to show how
'well' the government (or city council? Who's actually behind that?)
is 'coping' with the problem of poverty and homelessness (for example
by raising money from selling Big Issue -- a stunning tautology!).
Please correct me if I'm wrong: It seems to me that by introducing
this the Thatcherite government has made a successful step towards
legalizing poverty -- portraying it as something "natural", everyday,
and not as an abberant result of government mistakes. Moreover, this
measure seems to divide the homeless people into 'good' (those who
come everyday to take their daily load of journals and submit to stay
all day at one place selling it) and 'bad' (those who refuse to do
so, and thus -- in the eyes of the council or government -- don't
deserve any help). And it worries me that Tony Blair's government is
so readily and unquestioningly overtaking this practice of
poverty-institutionalization from its predecessor.
The questions that spring to my mind are: 1) Could the practice of
keeping the homeless people busy with selling the Big Issue be
understood as yet another form of disciplinging and surveillance?
(here in Leeds, every vendor seems to have his/her attributed place,
which he supposedly can't leave, and the exchange of two vedors'
places (with each other) is happening only after someone's decision
from 'above' -- arguably on the basis of moving the 'veterans'
(i.e. experienced and successful sellers) to the 'frontier'
(=districts where selling B.I. is more difficult), but couldn't it be
seen as well as transferring the 'pacified' ones to places under
less control, and bringing the 'uncivilised' to a more central
districts, with a greater movement of spectators, and therefore
a stronger public gaze...?)
2) Does this happen in other British cities as well, and with what
difference? What are the specifics of this in London?
3) Can there be drawn a parallel between the role of late-19th
century London charities, and this more contemporary practice? In
what ways? In what ways not? (One of them could be -- perhaps -- the
satisfaction of the upper- and middle-classes's conscience, by
presenting a persuasive image that enough is being done?
4) Can there be drawn a parallel between the prevailing upper- and
middle-classes' view of poverty, in the late-19th century London and
in (post-)Thatcherite London? (The similarities are tempting). In
what ways has Maggie contributed to this by direct steps and
measures? In what ways can this be seen as a more worldwide process?
All of these tremendously interest me, and I'll be most grateful for
any comments, disapprovals, suggestions, or recommendations of
articles dealing with these or related issues.
Finally, the essays that I wanted to ask about in the
earlier message were especially those from Susan Fainstein's
(excellent, in my opinion) book _Divided Cities_. What are, then, the
possible trajectories of further 'development' of London, as they
seem these days? Has there been any dramatic changes since 1992, when
the book was published? (The exchange of governments doesn't -- at
least to me (again: tell me if I'm wrong) -- seem to be one). And --
is there another more recent book (published/ in press/ in
preparation), or at least articles, dealing critically with
contemporary London?
Yours,
Tom
[log in to unmask]
P.S. I'm afraid this topic is not as critical as any comment on the
terrible massacres in Indonesia must necessarily be. However, I don't
share the view that any topic discussed at the forum is
automatically exclusionary of any other one, 'draining energies' etc.
As Denis Linehan has suggested, this is not a real forum where
everyone has to listen to what's being said, or at least pretend
(s)he is. All of us can choose which message to read first, and I'm
sure that any mention of Indonesia in the 'Subject' line will
necessarily attract one's immediate attention. The other topics will
naturally come second or third, and I can see no wrong with this.
Forgive me to keep you so long, those who had enough patience to get
to these lines.
T.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|