Sunday, August 07, 2011

The Least Among Yinz

I am going to throw a reciprocal link at John Kindley at People Vs. State in part just because he was a good sport in comments recently, and in part because general antipathy to deities aside, I do like me some of that good old-fashioned gnosis. I don't much care for priests and prelates, but I do have a soft spot for mystics. In any case, I want to revisit the sewers. You know, I have always admired the ingenuity of the poor: the black dudes on my street who keep those cars running and passing inspection somehow, long after they should die; the Iraqis' goddamn genius with a generator. Now there is no moral dilemma in working to improve the material lot of the poor; the truism holds: no one should starve. But that desire to improve swiftly becomes the moralistic paternalism of the very liberalism we claim to despise. It is one thing to have compassion; quite another to pity. Insofar as there is a moral dimension, it is the inverse of the material one, and when I say that we may have to learn to be poorer, I do not mean simply that we may have to make do with fewer possessions and trips to the Whole Foods. Of course, it is likewise easy to sit in a position of privilege and edify poverty, and I don't advocate the poverty of asceticism merely for its own sake, which has always struck me as slightly juvenile. Nonetheless, the radical sensibility, truly embraced, as J-Lamb himself imagined it, requires not that you wonder how to make the poor more like you, but that you seek to become more like the poor.

18 comments:

Mr.Fundamental said...

the less I work, the richer I feel!

Enron said...

Well, the poor's ability to adapt to survive seems to edify until they get caught up in the numbers game

Leonard said...

So I'm supposed to want to be like the poor because... why? Ah: because they try to improve their material lot, and "that desire to improve swiftly becomes the moralistic paternalism of ... liberalism". I despise liberalism, natch, but that's because, in my opinion, its modern form is about creating clients from the poor -- that is, the exact opposite of promoting "that desire". Modern liberalism is all about crushing independence and enterprise, wherever it can find people in a weak enough social position to become clients.

Almost as bad as reducing people to clients, is programming them to think that they deserve it. At least serfs knew they were serfs.

I don't want to be like the poor. J-lamb's poor, maybe. Our poor, no.

John Kindley said...

The real bitch of poverty is its precariousness. Everything has to keep going just right or disaster looms. Some people who aren't really poor are poor in this sense, and our economy seems bent on keeping both the really poor and the not-so-poor poor in this sense. A sensible person and a sensible society would trade a precarious wealth for a more secure or "serene" poverty.

The poor who don't have much and who don't need or want much: that's who I'd like to become more like.

Peter Ward said...

I'm much more terrified about the economy than I am outraged at the napalm being dumped on the Villagers--yet morally the latter is much worse. And it's not poverty per se that frightens me; it's the volume and the mindlessness, atrophy-inducing quality of the work to come and the attendant diverting struggle when not working that does. For me at any rate, it's not the some Superior Virtue of the Oppressed* liberal bleeding whatever. It's the firm belief that only by addressing the suffering in store for others can the (in many cases lighter, I suppose) suffering that's in store for me potentially be routed. In this case the motives are purely selfish, i.e.--and frankly if the world were more selfish I believe we'd be in a happier state.

Of course we can be poorer and get by; my paternal grandfather made it a good 40 years as a homeless person--but I can't accept a morality that says poverty is a condition to which we should aspire. Nor should we chase the petit liberal into a blind alley--of course--We should seek a "third way"; one that isn't the nanny-state but isn't the gutter either.

*By the way, J-lamb's declaration of the superior virtue of the poor has been a great weapon in the hands of the rich--"Don't look at me in my castle, why if it weren't for me we wouldn't have all these poor saints everywhere."

davidly said...

I see your point, John Kindley. But it is the relative wealth, the perception of having something to lose, that is precarious. Hence the desire, often unconscious, to acquire more and more in order to put something away even when the rainy-day fund is full. True poverty is anything but precarious. The poor know that the rainy day is when you look for a place to stay dry.

Justin said...

Of course, it is likewise easy to sit in a position of privilege and edify poverty, and I don't advocate the poverty of asceticism merely for its own sake, which has always struck me as slightly juvenile
I completely agree.

our economy seems bent on keeping both the really poor and the not-so-poor poor in this sense.
Yes a thousand times, and through the magic of education inflation, it has moved up through the so called middle to upper classes. Good friend of mine just completed medical school, he and his wife have a collective $1600 a month for the next couple of decades. The ex-gf has $150K in law school loans that will keep her in a mortgage without a house for just as long.

Everywhere you look in this system, the general premise is to keep you indebted and under constant financial pressure just to have a marginally comfortable life. At the margins, of course, its a much crueler con game, because the margins are not supposed to be comfortable. So there the idea is to keep you so beaten up and beaten down that you have no time, energy, or inclination to question or resist. Its all a man or woman can do to eat.

Jack Crow said...

Was at a good friend's son's birthday party, yesterday. He is wealthy. I am not.

I worry my health, because I cannot afford to have it get worse.

He worries everything else, because he cannot afford to lose the part of his self that gives meaning to all that he's got.

My life is actually more precariously pitched against its own limitations, but as davidly rather markedly notes, my friend experiences life more precariously. It is more of a trouble to him than mine can be to me.

If I get any sicker, I'm just going to die.

If he gets sick, he loses the whole world.

mistah charley, ph.d. said...

Gershwin, "Porgy and Bess" - Oh, I Got Plenty O' Nuttin'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qf6WLrMIsMA&feature=related

Milton Marx said...

"but that you seek to become more like the poor."

Great. Why don't you get started on this and report back.

Milton Marx said...

"I have always admired the ingenuity of the poor"

God, no, you didn't really write that, did you? Is it possible to be more patronizing?

IOZ said...

Is it possible to be more patronizing?

Yes.

¯\(°_0)/¯ said...

IOZ,

Will you let us know when your picture appears on People of Walmart?

IOZ said...

I do have some pretty short shorts.

Paul Alexander said...

The problem with poor people is a matter of personal hygiene. Have you guys ever sat next to one on a city bus? P U!

Professor Coldheart said...

FUCK THAT SHIT

I'mma get PAID.

Freddie said...

Marx told you: this kind of thinking is precisely what keeps you in the bourgeois class you hate.

TGGP said...

The real bitch of being poor is living next to poor people.