"Leave her alone! Why are you bothering her? She has done a beautiful thing for me. The poor you will always have with you and you can help them whenever you want. But you will not have me." Matt 26:6-7
Jesus is defending the woman (quintessential masculine mission!)...against the shrill, moralistic Judas who indignantly insists the money go to the poor...in her tender, physical, extravagant gesture of affection. He welcomes the love; he invites more with his words "you will not have me." And about the poor: "the poor you will always have with you and you can help them whenever your want." He is echoing Deuteronomy 15:11 "For there will never cease to be poor in the land; that is why I am commanding you to open wide your hand to your brother and the poor and needy in your land." He does not declare a war on poverty. He accepts it as an irrepressible, inevitable reality; but one that invites us always to open our hearts in generous, trusting embrace. "There will always be the poor around; be ready as much as you can to welcome, assist, aid them. They are an everlasting presence and an embodiment of my own love." We can receive communion every day; we can pray every day; we can help a poor person every day. They are right here with us: a permanent, steady presence, like Jesus in the tabernacle of the nearest church.
Part of the Mystery of ever-present poverty is the intractable, really invulnerable "Culture of Poverty": the complex, profound entanglement of values, behaviors, beliefs, institutions, habits, and attitudes that keep the poor trapped in the quicksand of poverty. This is not economic poverty. Most immigrant groups...Irish, Italians, Somalis, Ethiopians, Cubans...came here in economic poverty, but not cultural poverty, so they were able to take advantage of whatever opportunity presented and work themselves out of poverty because of their cultural wealth...family structure, faithful fathers, religious support, work ethic, etc. Over 60 years ago, anthropologist Oscar Lewis, in his classic study of Mexican families (Five Families 1959) brilliantly described this reality:
"...the culture of poverty is both an adaptation and a reaction of the poor classes to their marginal position in a class-stratified, highly individualistic, capitalistic society...The people in the culture of poverty have a strong feeling of marginality, of helplessness, of dependency, of not belonging. They are like aliens in their own country, convinced that the existing institutions do not serve their interests and needs. Along with this feeling of powerlessness is a widespread feeling of inferiority, of personal unworthiness. This is true of the slum dwellers of Mexico City, who do not constitute a distinct ethnic or racial group and do not suffer from racial discrimination. In the United States the culture of poverty of the Negroes has the additional disadvantage of racial discrimination.
"People with a culture of poverty have very little sense of history. They are a marginal people who know only their own troubles, their own local conditions, their own neighborhood, their own way of life. Usually, they have neither the knowledge, the vision nor the ideology to see the similarities between their problems and those of others like themselves elsewhere in the world. In other words, they are not class conscious, although they are very sensitive indeed to status distinctions. When the poor become class conscious or members of trade union organizations, or when they adopt an internationalist outlook on the world they are, in my view, no longer part of the culture of poverty although they may still be desperately poor."
(Aside: the important thought of Lewis influenced Harrington's historic "The Other America" which launched the War on Poverty and Moynihan's controversial study of the Afro-American family.)
Writing in 1959, prior to the triumph of the Civil Rights Movement in the USA, he rightly mentions race as a complicating factor for American blacks. What he would say today, 2020, about the prevalence of "systematic white racism" is a good question. It is without doubt that he would deeply understand the "culture of poverty" that entraps whites and blacks and browns and all types; a cultural dynamic that does not consider color of skin.
Correctly he identified this culture as a structural element of an individualistic, competitive, meritocratic and consumerist society. It is part of the stratified, class structure of our society. We have the rich, the poor and lots in between. That structure does not change. Color of skin does not matter to it. By the 1980s corporate capitalism was putting all management people through "diversity training" because they realized that racism was no longer profitable. Today, the big companies have jumped on the Black Lives Matter bandwagon because it is profitable and prestigious. But the underclass, black/brown/white, remains constant.
In a highly meritocratic society such as ours there is considerable fluidity and movement between the classes. Many people climb up from the bottom because of combinations of raw talent, motivation, work ethic, good fortune and happy connections. Many others fall down, again due to ill fortune, bad habit, and weak social network. This means there is hope for some to improve, even as the structure remains and most at the bottom remain there. It also makes for anxiety in the middle and upper classes who know that failure or misfortune can cast them off the cliff of success with barely a moment's notice.
The Christian intellect will recognize poverty as inevitable as is sin, suffering and death...until Christ returns. The Christian heart will run to embrace, comfort and accompany the poor...right here and now. This is not to say that we are to wash our hands and make no systematic, political and social policy efforts to help the poor. We ABSOLUTELY must! But they need to be realistic, patient, gradual and free of crusading righteousness and anger. The War on Poverty did not destroy poverty but it did create a culture of dependency, entitlement and sloth. The War on Drugs did not eliminate narcotics but it did imprison a huge number of black men. The dangers of "social engineering" are well known on the right. But hands-off, free-market-no-regulations capitalism is just as bad. It is undeniable that global capitalism has lifted millions out of economic poverty over the last 50 years. But it is less obvious that this has also weakened bonds of family, religion, community and moral character and has worsened the "culture of poverty"...most intensely in lower class white society in the USA, the Trump base which looks to him longingly and futilely.
We need intelligence, gradualism, and patience in our social planning. It is unfortunate that the right has an allergy to social policy in its inevitability and so the field is monopolized by the left with its disastrous messianic propensity.
The liberal viewpoint attacks this concept of "culture of poverty" as "blaming the victim" and a way of avoiding the moral call to change the economic structures that keep people poor: no jobs, bad schools, lack of housing. More thoughtful minds, on the left and right, see that the two dynamics (cultural and economic) need not contradict each other, but work hand-in-hand. The economic structures reinforce the cultural and vice-versa for better and for worse. Surely we need both. We need jobs, schools, and housing; but huge expenditures will avail nothing if there does not emerge stable families, faithful fathers, moral character, and communities of solidarity.
What are we to do?
The first response to poverty is always immediate, concrete, personal, here and now. There is a poor person nearby. Look at her; listen to her; smile at her; assist her if you can; pray for her; enjoy her. (or him!). This is Mother Theresa, Dorothy Day, Katherine Drexel, Francis Xavier Cabrini, and the entire communion of saints!
Secondly we all need to strengthen our bonds, in our Lord, of faith, hope, love...of loyalty and fidelity...of holiness and wholesomeness. Stronger families, communities and friendships will radiate a contagious, invulnerable energy to all levels of society and culture.
Lastly we do need economic policies that make it easier for the underclass to take steps towards independence and health. These will be gradual, realistic and modest. They are a moral imperative.
(Aside: the important thought of Lewis influenced Harrington's historic "The Other America" which launched the War on Poverty and Moynihan's controversial study of the Afro-American family.)
Writing in 1959, prior to the triumph of the Civil Rights Movement in the USA, he rightly mentions race as a complicating factor for American blacks. What he would say today, 2020, about the prevalence of "systematic white racism" is a good question. It is without doubt that he would deeply understand the "culture of poverty" that entraps whites and blacks and browns and all types; a cultural dynamic that does not consider color of skin.
Correctly he identified this culture as a structural element of an individualistic, competitive, meritocratic and consumerist society. It is part of the stratified, class structure of our society. We have the rich, the poor and lots in between. That structure does not change. Color of skin does not matter to it. By the 1980s corporate capitalism was putting all management people through "diversity training" because they realized that racism was no longer profitable. Today, the big companies have jumped on the Black Lives Matter bandwagon because it is profitable and prestigious. But the underclass, black/brown/white, remains constant.
In a highly meritocratic society such as ours there is considerable fluidity and movement between the classes. Many people climb up from the bottom because of combinations of raw talent, motivation, work ethic, good fortune and happy connections. Many others fall down, again due to ill fortune, bad habit, and weak social network. This means there is hope for some to improve, even as the structure remains and most at the bottom remain there. It also makes for anxiety in the middle and upper classes who know that failure or misfortune can cast them off the cliff of success with barely a moment's notice.
The Christian intellect will recognize poverty as inevitable as is sin, suffering and death...until Christ returns. The Christian heart will run to embrace, comfort and accompany the poor...right here and now. This is not to say that we are to wash our hands and make no systematic, political and social policy efforts to help the poor. We ABSOLUTELY must! But they need to be realistic, patient, gradual and free of crusading righteousness and anger. The War on Poverty did not destroy poverty but it did create a culture of dependency, entitlement and sloth. The War on Drugs did not eliminate narcotics but it did imprison a huge number of black men. The dangers of "social engineering" are well known on the right. But hands-off, free-market-no-regulations capitalism is just as bad. It is undeniable that global capitalism has lifted millions out of economic poverty over the last 50 years. But it is less obvious that this has also weakened bonds of family, religion, community and moral character and has worsened the "culture of poverty"...most intensely in lower class white society in the USA, the Trump base which looks to him longingly and futilely.
We need intelligence, gradualism, and patience in our social planning. It is unfortunate that the right has an allergy to social policy in its inevitability and so the field is monopolized by the left with its disastrous messianic propensity.
The liberal viewpoint attacks this concept of "culture of poverty" as "blaming the victim" and a way of avoiding the moral call to change the economic structures that keep people poor: no jobs, bad schools, lack of housing. More thoughtful minds, on the left and right, see that the two dynamics (cultural and economic) need not contradict each other, but work hand-in-hand. The economic structures reinforce the cultural and vice-versa for better and for worse. Surely we need both. We need jobs, schools, and housing; but huge expenditures will avail nothing if there does not emerge stable families, faithful fathers, moral character, and communities of solidarity.
What are we to do?
The first response to poverty is always immediate, concrete, personal, here and now. There is a poor person nearby. Look at her; listen to her; smile at her; assist her if you can; pray for her; enjoy her. (or him!). This is Mother Theresa, Dorothy Day, Katherine Drexel, Francis Xavier Cabrini, and the entire communion of saints!
Secondly we all need to strengthen our bonds, in our Lord, of faith, hope, love...of loyalty and fidelity...of holiness and wholesomeness. Stronger families, communities and friendships will radiate a contagious, invulnerable energy to all levels of society and culture.
Lastly we do need economic policies that make it easier for the underclass to take steps towards independence and health. These will be gradual, realistic and modest. They are a moral imperative.
No comments:
Post a Comment