Most people who aren't poor don't trust people who are.
The lack of trust of which I speak comes in a number of varieties.
Middle and upper class folks often think low-income people are stupid, lazy, not trustworthy, culturally deficient and/or generally unworthy. Not many will admit to these opinions, but actions speak loudly. When pressed, some will even own up to such ideas.
A tipoff to this attitude or perspective can be seen in how charity works. Often we frame the world in a way that guarantees the poor will be in need of us, our solutions and our superior resources.
"Why, without us where would the poor be?" our attitudes sometimes shout.
Professional people who make a good, middle-class living working among the poor can be among the worst culprits when it comes to not believing in people.
Here's a test to try. Suggest to a service provider that a really good way to organize the delivery of needed services would be in involve the poor in the planning and implementation process. Watch the reactions.
Most people assume the poor have few, if any, assets to bring to the table.
People who provide emergency housing to the homeless sometimes can't bring themselves to believe that, given a safe place to live, a space to control and call home, many homeless people would do just fine without all of the other "necessary" services offered by the experts.
The "poverty industry" is really a major part of the problem, especially in this matter of believing in people and their inherent capacity to solve their own problems.
The fact is the poor are no more likely to be lazy, evil, stupid or unmotivated than the rest of us! Experience teaches me that the poor offer up what they do have more freely than the more well-to-do. Something about a sense of control or ownership comes into play here.
Sometimes the categories created by the people in charge--that is those with the money--box others in and sentence them to nicely manageable categories where people become statistics and the grist for strategic plans. The entire process provides a much needed and convenient reason not to provide what is really called for: genuine opportunity and fair and open access to financial resources.
So much is lost due to this determined brand of faithlessness. So many assets squandered. So many opportunities for creative new solutions and partnerships undiscovered. So much color, variety and creativity surrendered before it is even recognized. So much of the dull, boring, paternalistic, condescending, ineffective, "same old, same old" approach getting us nowhere fast!
I've about decided that the worst kind of unbelief may just be the inability to believe in people no matter what they own or don't own.
6 comments:
It is so refreshing to hear from someone who believes in the dignity of all people. My limited experience with those living in poverty is that they work hard to provide what they can for family; they want good things for their children; they need the same kind of respect that is provided to those who have financial resources. I direct an after-school program that uses volunteers who are truly committed to doing good, but their fear of the neighborhood and condescending attitudes (intended as sympathy or compassion) toward the families we serve speaks volumes about their lack of understanding of this community. I'm sure no expert, but I do know that when Jesus talked to people he spoke with respect. I read your blog regularly and am informed, encouraged and inspired. Thank you.
We who have been born into material wealth have no real bearing on such matters. We recoil from Larry's ideas by instinct (developed over a lifetime of indulgence and self-affirmation). We have been told, and often believe, that our earthly prosperity is the result of some great worthiness within us, as if the meager toil of our days could somehow justify the disparity between our worldly pleasure and another's earthbound suffering.
It is too painful, too jarring to come down from our tower and to walk the streets at which we have but previously stared. And yet, despite our total inability to see ourselves in the shoes of our suffering brothers, we take for granted that God, whose majesty is infinitely more than ours, could come down from His heaven and into our own life. We do not remember that Christ, whose flawless soul held more wealth than we could ever know, came into this world as one such suffering servant; we do not listen to His command to pass on only love, not judgment; we forget that none but God can know what lies within the hearts of our fellow men, and we allow the mortal sin of pride to cloud our eyes and block the light of His grace from entering our hearts.
We who are much with wealth and little with love so often imagine that a luxurious heaven awaits us, as if by birthright. We may even imagine God as a perfect version of ourselves, but we would never think to see ourselves in the life and heart of another who is less fortunate than us. And why?
Because we, the camel trying to squeeze through the needle's eye, refuse to give our hearts to Him who gave his life for us. May God, in His mercy, save us from ourselves.
Lucinda, thanks for your question and your heart. Actually, the situation you describe is an example of exactly what I was trying to describe in terms of how it is that society and its leaders, including "poverty professionals" look upon the poor. Our viewpoints about people determine policy. The "projects" are a classic example of how public policy did not take the poor seriously enough. The warehouse approach was developed for a number of reasons including efficiency and the desire to segregate and concentrate the poor rather than scatter low-income families among the larger community. We still see the "not in my neighborhood" attitude expressed everytime a public housing authority tries to adopt a more effective, scattered site approach to affordable housing. Back of all of it is an attitude and a bias against the poor and against people of other races.
Almost never was the concentration of the poor accompanied by adequate employment training opportunities, access to robust public transportation, or the prospects of jobs that paid a liveable wage. The goal was to house "those people" away from the rest of us. The factors contributing to the growth of the underclass in the US are complex. But bottom line, how could people assigned to these living arrangements with so little prospect for moving up really be happy or content, let alone grateful. Your question establishes my original point, at least I think it does. Anyone else have an idea???
Amen. You're right about middle-class attitudes toward the poor. I worked several years at a mission church among the projects. The attitude among the leaders (us) was very frustrating because of the condescending approach toward "them." Would you believe that, even after years of ministry there, the us-and-them mentality persisted?
Yes, I still see this attitude every day in the volunteer workers who staff our emergency services agency. I've been trying to re-train my co-workers every day for seven years, but one new worker comes in and the whole bunch reverts immediately! Our small city has lots of churches, but a very poor, scattered and random collection of agencies to assist the poor and build community. This bottom-up approach is just not working; we need some direction, vision and commitment from the top! Thanks for listening, all.
Greg, I can tell what turned us completely around and for good here in our organization in Dallas: we put "poor people"--those who came asking for assistance in charge. Call me if you would like more information. But I can tell you this, all of our subsequent success and growth is the direct result of this one decision.
Post a Comment