By Leslie Morgenson
Published in March 2003
Years ago I was speaking with a new Canadian. He made the comment that his country was not well represented by its citizens who had emigrated to Canada. He said it as a criticism meaning the best his country had to offer was still back home. But later I realized it was a compliment to those immigrants who were willing to stretch themselves beyond their comfort zone. Eric Hoffer, a social philosopher popular in the 1950’s would agree. Hoffer said that North America was essentially settled by those whom, in their homelands, would have been considered misfits, rebels, risk-takers; those “living on the fringe”. Those for whom life was stable and comfortable would have felt no reason to leave. For change, the world depends, in part, upon those who live on the fringe and as such, it is a high calling.
Similarly, Lewis Lapham, social critic and editor of Harper’s Magazine writes: “The people who earn the most money are never those who advance the frontiers of knowledge or extend the reach of the sympathetic imagination.”
For change, it would be a mistake to look always to those who are comfortable since they are the conformers of society and conforming rarely represents progress. Evolution favours strong variation; sameness is entropy. And it has been a constant theme with writers from Henry David Thoreau and his idea to allow that some people listen to a “different drummer”, or to Robert Frost’s “the road less travelled”. And so it seems only fitting that I ask the people of St. John’s Kitchen – many of them “fringe dwellers”, who are always prepared to challenge the status quo – what their vision might be for change. What would people want to change in the system or in their personal lives. What do people living on a low income want?
When asked, their responses were immediate and forthright. “Security,” said David. “If you have security, you have enough.” He then went on the explain the fair pension system in France, reflecting the injustices within Canada’s pension plan.
For Linda, it all starts with respect. “There is a lot you can do for the ordinary person to make them feel human.” She talks about Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs and says people just want the basic needs: to be fed, to be safe, to be loved.
Interestingly, as for money, the wish of people living on a low income is not to be financially wealthy. Material possessions were not the topic of conversation when I posed this question. One person, however, when probed, allowed himself to dream: “A juicer might be nice,” he said.
“The government should give more money to pensions (Ontario Disability Support Pension),” says Stephen. A comment reiterated by many who long for nothing more than a modest life. But even that is impossible within the current system which has people living far below an acceptable level of comfort; yet it seems such a simple as well as logical solution.
“Pensions should be indexed according to the cost of living,” says Glenn, “I don’t want to have to eliminate the phone or T.V. just to live decently.” Such items are essential for those who are disabled and spend twenty hours or more alone, inside one room, as many do.
Ken adds, “The money would go back into the system anyway. It would boost the economy.”
Eating better would be high on Bob’s list; more fruit and “veggies”. And he wishes the current welfare system didn’t penalize people for finding creative ways of living, such as cutting back on payments when people room together.
While looking for a job, Scott has discovered a job market that hasn’t offered much security. A view shared by many who must risk losing the benefits and security of a government cheque for temporary work without benefits. Yet, would we expect people in the broader community to gamble with their financial security?
Many people pointed to a government that is invasive, miserly, stimulates paranoia, and lacks understanding. Says Ernst, “I want more control over systems that control my life.”
These comments are confirmed by economist John Kenneth Galbraith (How To Get the Poor Off Our Conscience) who argues we constantly seek strategies to avoid solving the problem of poverty.
The answers, though, may not readily come in the form of a generous government. The ideas from this community are crystal clear and old myths are immediately dispelled when one takes the time to listen to the “fringe dwellers.” People with limited funds, do not wish to be “like” the affluent. People living on a low income do not necessarily wish to afford a $2,000. golf membership, or a $60. hairstyle; they do not yearn to live the life of the “impoverished rich”.
Lewis Lapham writes: “To the extent that the delight in money becomes a transcendent faith, the converts to ‘the world’s leading religion’ imagine that money stands as surrogate for all the other denominations of human currency–for love, work, art, play and thought.” More than money itself, the responses indicated a desire to be treated fairly and a wish to live a simple decent life, which would not come so much in the form of a cheque but compassion.
With the recognition that we cannot reliably predict what another may choose, we can then move from a charity model to a justice model. The charity model often assumes one knows what another needs and wants. The justice model, on the other hand, tries to allow people to make their own choices and changes. It is not surprising this usually happens when people find themselves in an accepting atmosphere. A justice model recognizes that any outside intervention is merely to walk with people on their journey. The practice of charity or justice means that we should not be so eager to reform others. Both models would do well to examine Ivan Illich’s statement, “This early certainty which had so surprised him, that the most important service to the world and to others consisted in turning around one’s own heart.” This is the kind of reform that we can impose on ourselves. Those who work in overseas aid, and others who work with physically or mentally challenged individuals have long acknowledged that the charity model fails when brazen assumptions about “helping” presupposes that people are unable to help themselves. Likewise, for those living in poverty, it predisposes people to dependency and continued handouts and perpetuates the myth that there is not enough food or housing to go around.
Wendell Berry may say it best, ” Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of supply and demand; it is the privilege of human beings to live under the laws of justice and mercy.”
Our Region is capable of providing proper housing and adequate food for all members of our community. In doing so a message would be sent: the stakes are too high for this to be a game. Where housing and food are concerned, we must live in kindness, not competition.
