Examining Contemporary Poverty in Canada - Case Study Example

Examining Contemporary Poverty Introduction Poverty is often witnessed but less understood. When a person sees poor people, the general response is that of pity. Very seldom do they question that mechanism which created poverty. It is, after all, quite a complex one—a mixture of personal, societal, and structural factors. By personal, it means that poor people are poor because they have not done enough to get themselves out of poverty. On its opposite side, however, it also means that poor people are poor because better-off individuals are not willing to help. In the communal context, poverty happens because of lack of coordination among people who are willing to help. This, however, does not happen all the time because there are organizations like the Salvation Army that are willing to provide necessary aid. Finally, the structural factors are those of the economic and political systems. Mistakes by the government and business leaders are often narrated in terms of GDP losses and budget deficits but they do not reflect the human story underneath them. It is the purpose of this essay to examine the personal, community, and national conditions of poverty in relation to its reduction. The aim is to determine what deters the reduction of poverty on the three levels and how they can be mitigated. A psychological, social, and political explanation is provided for each level, respectively. A discussion is also provided to determine whether the aid-giving is still effective/necessary in the contemporary context of poverty. The general conclusion of this paper is that helping others is still necessary in all the level of poverty since it is among the first steps towards teaching people to be self-sufficient. The philosophy of this paper follows the concept of social justice as defined by Giddens and Griffiths (2006, p. 835): “a social order where inequalities are not glaringly large and which everyone has a chance to lead a full and satisfying life.” Poverty through a Micro Lens Looking through poverty at a micro lens, we can see a person struggling with what he can and ought to do in helping poor people. It is a struggle that takes place at two levels: internal and social. There is an internal struggle because of several reasons. First, people could be discouraged from helping others when they feel that there is nothing an individual can do in solving a universal problem. Most people who want to encourage individuals caught in this dilemma would say that poverty is not so big that a person can do nothing about it. Yet, the power of that rhetoric wanes once we see the people we have helped a week or month ago still stuck in the same condition. However, a great consolation for me comes from the truth that some people that we have helped in the Salvation Army regained the enthusiasm to fight back poverty and started finding ways to be self-sustaining. Moreover, I have realized that my volunteerism has encouraged others just as the volunteerism that is shown by fellow volunteers inspired me to help. The second struggle is that one has to fight criticisms and the feeling that one is doing hypocritical work. There are times when one is confused whether the works they are doing are really for others or for themselves alone. This feeling becomes stronger when reinforced by comments from people who do not see the value in helping others. However, I have managed to reassure myself that matter ulterior motive, which I am not yet too aware of, does not matter. Recalling Adam Smith’s Invisible Hand, I have realized that what matters more is not my unknown ulterior motive but the good that I bring to other people. In the third struggle, one would have to contend with the dilemma of self-preservation. The question comes now and on whether I am giving too much of my own time, wealth, and effort that I would become poor myself. This is not in the case of material things alone. The greater dilemma is the feeling that I am leaving my social life behind or that I am no longer doing things that should satisfy me as a person. These things are a problem because I fear that by not being able to function normally at the social context, I am doing something detrimental to my psychological and social development. For example, I might become a fixated adult because I have not spent my younger years doing what young, normal people do. However, this dilemma, I have realized, only comes from a misperception. One should only realize that helping others is in itself a social act—a very noble one. More than that, enjoyment is a relative state and there is nothing wrong in delighting in social work. Finally, while helping others, the question “What’s in it for me?” could repeatedly pop up in a person’s mind and may be detrimental if they do not see the meaning in helping others. As I have realized, the two greatest benefits in helping others are sensibility and a chance for self-actualization. The importance of sensibility can be inferred from Whitney’s (as cited in Mandell, 1996) definition of the word: “[a] sense of extreme delicacy and keenness of feeling and ultra-refinement of sensitiveness to beauty both natural and moral.” People may not see meaning in their existence or may perceive the most adrenaline-rushing or heart-rending things as routine because they do not see natural or moral duty. By helping others, one becomes sensitive of other people’s needs and thus be able to perceive things in a more meaningful way. Moreover, the feeling that one has made a social contribution leads to self-actualization. The term suggests a natural and inherent human longing for something other than material or physical things (Cox, 1998). Existence does not cease of it is not attained but it will be devoid of meaning. This explanation does not romanticize helping others. Rather, it shows that people who help others are actually benefiting themselves psychologically. At the personal level, there is but very little one can do in fighting homelessness and the lack of clothing and food. That is why one has to go a notch higher—into the community level. At this level, the desire to help materializes into an essential social action. Poverty through a Mid-range Lens Mabughi and Selim (2006, p. 181) define poverty as “social deprivation from a decent quality of life.” This definition can better be understood if divided and discussed in two parts: “social deprivation” and “decent quality of life.” Poverty as a “social deprivation” means that some people are poor because society either refuses to help them or has deprived them of the opportunity to make their lives better. Meanwhile, “decent quality of life” not only includes having clothes, food, and a home but also entails psychological and social well-being. Although “social deprivation” and “a decent quality of life” are unattainable personally, joining a community can significantly help. As mentioned in my “Community Observation,” the Salvation Army provides homes at very low costs. This helps in solving the problem of homelessness but it does one greater thing—it provides a social remedy that encourages action on the part of the poor. It is a charitable act but it does not encourage dependency since it requires both the organization and the poor to meet each other halfway. The organization does not do everything so it provides people chance to do their part in getting themselves out of poverty. This same principle works in the problem of lack of food and clothing and fighting the general condition of poverty. The Salvation Army is an example of a group of people who are willing to address the two challenges of poverty: social deprivation and decent quality of life. The gathering of members itself is already a beginning in responding to social deprivation. People who experience poverty are no longer socially deprived when a group of people gathers together to help those in dire needs. In relation to social justice, the Salvation Army does the work of redistributing the wealth of a society to alleviate the conditions of people who suffer in poverty. Selling clothes at low prices and using the proceeds to help others does not eliminate poverty. It does not make inequalities less glaring either—but it does help in giving a number of people chance to live a full and satisfying life. If social actions identical to the ones done by the Salvation Army are done throughout the world, the elimination of poverty and inequality will become more possible. Poverty through a Macro Lens Looking at the buildings that seem to compete in height and the long highway that wiggles along this city’s coast, it is easy to see that Ontario is among the world’s finest cities. On the other hand, Canada is commonly held as one of the best places in the world to live. However, beneath these acclaims still lies the problem of poverty. Sarlo (2006) reports that as of 2004 4.9% of Canadians live in poverty. He used the basic-needs approach in estimating the country’s level of poverty. This approach defines poor people as those who cannot afford the basic necessities of life: “food, shelter, clothing, healthcare, personal care, essential furnishings, transportation and communication, home insurance and miscellaneous” (Sarlo, 2006). Although his report is encouraging, it still leaves two questions in our minds: what is happening with the remaining 4.9%? In a very progressive economy, why can Canada not eradicate poverty? The greater question would have been whether the figure is deflated but that would require this paper to digress to it is best to focus on the presented poverty level. There are two explanations why 1.6 million Canadians are still poor—personal and structural—but I am more inclined to think that poverty in this country is caused by poor responses by the government to the needs of its citizens. Canadians on their way to work or school are most likely to come across people sleeping on the street with notes written on a cardboard which say they are willing to work for food. Although it is wrong to generalize hastily, it reveals that poor and homeless Canadians are willing to get themselves out of their situation if given the chance. This view is supported by Pohl (2002) who argues that structural changes in the country’s economy have caused people to be jobless. Since Canada’s economy has rapidly changed from being industrial-based to information-and-technology-based, many people who had no training and knowledge in I.T. had to be delegated to lower paying jobs. Worse, some of them may have lost their jobs when their companies shifted their business orientation. While the highly-skilled, young computer graduate is enjoying huge salaries, the average-skilled, 45-year-old factory worker and his family now have to stay on the streets because he cannot meet the new demands of industry and job competition. A poverty-population rate of 4.9% might seem small but if it is translated to 1.6 million, the public should become more aware that there are just way too many people who have to brave the freezing Canadian climate on the street. The problem here might have been that the government has been too focused on transitioning the industrial/lumberjack economy to the I.T. economy that it forgot about the manual laborers that made those buildings rise in the first place. While personal and community volunteerism does ease the poverty that people experience, government responses are needed to make these people self-sufficient again. Wide-scaled and long-lasting changes can only be implemented by the government since the government is where the Canadian people conglomerate their resources and power for a better society. Discussion The aid vs. trade conflict has been rekindled anew in 2006 by Easterly. He argued that what developing countries need is not aid but a better market system, patterned after the ones implemented by wealthy nations (as cited in Doyle, 2006). Easterly goes on to argue that aid given by richer countries is not sufficient and therefore should be stopped. However, Sachs argues that poorer countries need more aid and not less of it (as cited in Doyle, 2006). He reasons that countries like Africa have poor economic and environmental conditions that make progress impossible without help. In order to understand the situation more clearly, the discussion of the aid vs. trade conflict can be analogized through a Chinese proverb: “Give the man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.” The first statement favors the argument of “aid” by Sachs while the second one favors “trade” by Easterly. Although it is indeed ideal to help a person, community, or nation become self-sustaining, we cannot let them go hungry while they learn how to stand on their own. I personally believe that people cannot learn how to fish on a hungry stomach with no home to go to after a hard day’s work. In countries like Africa, people will be discouraged from striving hard educationally and economically if they see no immediate improvement. Moreover, they cannot be economically sustainable if they are suffering from malaria, AIDS, or famine. They still need help in fighting poverty, just as first world economies need stimulus packages during crises. Conclusion Poverty is not a simple issue of not having food, shelter, or clothes. It is an issue that reflects maladies at three different levels: personal, communal, and national/governmental. Each level has its own problem in relation to poverty eradication so each level requires unique solutions. While the consistent decline of poverty in Canada over the last several years is encouraging, Canadians should not slacken their effort to help since millions of people, who have been debilitated in different ways, rely on others for relief. Aid remains a necessary factor in fighting poverty at any level since it would take years before the national and global communities are able to implement changes that would make everyone self-sufficient. We should not limit our visions into thinking that poverty is a personal malady for people who cannot meet their needs. We should also see it as a stigma to a society which prides itself of justice and equality. What we can do now is to join communities like the Salvation Army in meeting people halfway as they strive in heading towards sufficiency. The first step towards communal and national effort starts with the conviction that everyone deserves a decent life and we must help others have it. References Cox, B. (1998). Self actualization. Retrieved from http://www.virtualschool.edu/98c/ Soci305/Maslow3.html Doyle, M. (2006). Can aid bring an end to poverty? Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/5407770.stm Giddens, A., & Grifftihs, S. (2006). Sociology. Malden, MA: Polity. Mabughi, N., & Selim, T. (2006). Poverty as social deprivation: A survey. Review of Social Economy, 64 (2), 181-204. Mandell, L. (1996). Sensibility. In Class Handouts. Retrieved from http:// www.users.muohio.edu/mandellc/eng441/ Pohl, R. (2002). Poverty in Canada. Retrieved from http://www.streetlevelconsulting.ca/ homepage/homelessness2InCanada_Part2.htm Sarlo, C. (2006, November). Poverty in Canada: 2006 Update. Fraser Alert, 1-7. Read More