Print

Print
Message
There are a couple of points I'd like to mention, regarding this post - on "child poverty" and "asylum seekers" and about work.
 
First, I don't really know what is meant by "child poverty." It seems to me its a term meant to refer to third world countries in which raising children out of their poverty-stricken lives is something separate from consideration of their parents' lives. In other words, schooling, medicine, and nutritious food might be made available to them even if not available for their parents. In our western culture, we don't live in a culture in which adults' needs should be shunted aside with the reasoning that children need it so adults' needs will not be listened to. Maybe that's not what is meant, but it comes across as meaning the focus should be on children. And of course, as Bob Holman goes on to say, the lives of the parents matter too. In fact, they matter just as much. And to emphasize one over the other can lead to other inequalities, as there is a risk the younger generation can start to see themselves as having more worth.
 
Asylum seekers are mentioned, as a special case, and more obvious to our eyes, as many obviously have little, and are treated harshly when they come here. But if any group can be assigned to the lowest level of society, without too much complaint from others, it would be those who entered here under unusual circumstances, compared to immigrants, for instance.
 
But what's left out, in this talk of the poverty-stricken, are the many ways people do live in poverty of one kind or another, even if they do have enough food to eat, and the children's needs are being looked after. And that's poverty of fulfillment in life or ways to contribute. To focus on capitalism as the problem may not be the answer. Indeed, Marxists still address that very problem, with virtually no success. And the reason is, of course, that people tend to struggle to get higher on the socioeconomic ladder, as they always will, because those lower down get treated so badly.  It is so important for people to have those credentials after their name -PhD, or  community psychologist, or name their university affiliation, that many will do whatever is required of them to achieve that. And as long as people up there continue to blame people lower down the social ladder for all the bad things that happen, more and more will try harder to get up there just to escape that kind of treatment.  Besides that, people are often working in occupations that may not suit them, but as middle class, for instance, they are able to hand the reigns over to their younger family members and grown children of colleagues. So unless this kind of favouritism is looked at (not just in politics but in the community also) things will not likely change. Those left out will continue to be the poorest in society, unless they make the right connections and do what they must do in order to advance.
 
I question what the writer says about the supposedly leisurely lifestyle of those at the top. What I have found is that most people want to work, and even those with great careers do work hard but that good work is hard to find. But if it pays enough, even work that one is not suited for can be seen as fulfilling, particularly if there is high status associated with it, and enough perks. I'm not sure who is envisioned as being at the top, but for those lower down, almost everybody is better off and seems to be living extravagently.
 
I have interviewed and written life stories of people with great careers, and so on (and I might add, borrowed in order to finance it) and would like to write more about people down farther on the social ladder. Not having university affiliation or the PhD after my name puts me in an awkward situation, not being eligible for academic funding, nor having the trust of those who still believe in the system. If I were any good, obviously (the line of reasoning goes) I would have the PhD. So much of what counts as "good reputation" is actually the network of colleagues one grows to rely on, in one's job - a mutually supportive system, for the most part, from which many are excluded.
 
In response to Craig Newnes, I think the idea is that competition in capitalism is good, and it would be, if merit were the practice, in gerneral, and not just the utopian ideal. But in theory, competition and merit account for differences in pay being seen as reasonable.
 
Sue McPherson
http://www.DiversityinRetirement.net
 
----- Original Message -----
From: [log in to unmask] href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">Mark Wilson
To: [log in to unmask] href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 8:03 PM
Subject: Faith in Communities conference (Scotland) + Community Care article

 Hi
 
I'm attaching details of 'Faith in Communities' conference which may be of interest.
 
Also
 
"It is time poor people had the chance to investigate the well off" - quote from Bob Holman in the following article
 
Mark
 
.  
from www.communitycare.co.uk
 

Fabian report misses point. Give poor people a chance

by Bob Holman

Posted: 26 June 2006


The Fabian Society was started in 1884 by what Caroline Benn describes as “middle class reformers with a conscience” who met to discuss what should be done about the poor. More than 200 years later the society still thrives.

Its latest initiative is a study of life chances and child poverty.(1) It is a blend of revealing statistics, telling analysis and relevant recommendations. The commissioners praise New Labour for reducing child poverty but add that one in five children are still poor. They show that inequality continues to undermine the life chances of many children. A vision is held out of a Britain more like Sweden, Denmark and Norway where a doctor, a hospital clerk and a cleaner may well live in the same neighbourhood and their children attend the same school.

To this end, the commissioners propose a list of improved benefits to be paid for by a higher rate of income tax on top earners which would also reduce inequality. Good stuff but they chicken out of setting a numerical target for equality. To do so might upset the over 300 highly paid MPs, MEPs, MSPs and peers who are Fabians. I am not so reluctant. The target should be that no person has an income more than three times that of another.

The Fabian report was soon followed by one from the Commission on Urban Life and Faith.(2) It is a follow-up to the Faith in the City report of 1985 whose criticisms of Thatcherism almost certainly lost Bishop David Sheppard promotion to Canterbury. The commissioners, drawn from various denominations and faiths, lack the academic expertise of the Fabian treatise but in some ways they go beyond it.

First, they have more passion. Faith workers include some of the few professionals who still live in deprived areas. They are angry about the plight of the poor and write: “The experience of the faithful on the ground is that the poor – if not getting quantifiably poorer – are the losers in  a widening gulf between themselves and those growing more prosperous.”

The passion almost boils over when it comes to the way the government forces asylum seekers into poverty. I asked an asylum seeker friend, who has been in the UK for several years, when her family last had a holiday. Daft question. She explained that they hardly had enough for food. The commissioners rightly condemn the “draconian asylum system (which) consigns a small section of the population to unacceptable destitution.”

Second, they have boldness and are prepared to identify the root cause of poverty and inequality in the free market. They continue: “There is a deeper and still more troubling question about capitalism than simply  outlining the ways in which it promotes inequality. It is time to question whether this model can really promote the happiness or well-being of all.” Third, they believe that the opponents of poverty and inequality must practise what they preach. For instance, the church must challenge its own rich members to take less.

The Fabian commissioners have a superb chapter on the need to change public opinion which holds poor people to blame for their poverty. They call for a narrative which shows that some good parents and hard workers are still poor. In other words, outside forces are the main cause of poverty.

This narrative would be told best by those at the hard end. It is time poor people had the chance to investigate the well off. They could identify the needless extravagance, the costly leisure pursuits, the drinking habits of those at the top. For their next exercise, perhaps the Fabians or the churches will finance this bottom-up report.

(1) Fabian Commission on Life Chances and Child Poverty, Narrowing the Gap, Fabian Books, 2006
(2) Commission on Urban Life and Faith, Faithful Cities, Church House Publishing and Methodist Publishing House, 2006

___________________________________ COMMUNITYPSYCHUK - The discussion list for community psychology in the UK. To unsubscribe or to change your details visit the website: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/COMMUNITYPSYCHUK.HTML For any problems or queries, contact the list moderator at [log in to unmask] or [log in to unmask]
___________________________________ COMMUNITYPSYCHUK - The discussion list for community psychology in the UK. To unsubscribe or to change your details visit the website: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/COMMUNITYPSYCHUK.HTML For any problems or queries, contact the list moderator at [log in to unmask] or [log in to unmask]