In regards to this, there was an article I read recently about a suggestion to help "cure" the problem of poverty/homelessness and encourage people to work through their problems.
Essentially the theory was this: Pump a ton of money into social services, and really, TRULY get people started on their feet. The article used a bee-sting analogy: for example, if a person has only one or two bee-stings, they are likely to treat them by rubbing ointment on them, or whatever. But if a person is COVERED in bee-stings, curing one or two is hardly helpful, because they are still covered. Same with cars; if a person has a new car and they get a dent in it, they will likely fix it. If a person has a run down P.O.S car, they probably won't bother dealing with another scratch.
Of course, this idea was EXTREMELY controversial, and met with people's outrage at the very thought of helping those who "did this to themselves." I wish I could find the article. . . http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_economic_inequality.html I think that's the article.
Lidocafe - I still remember something you said one evening while we were waiting for a bus downtown. You gave a man some change and said that you had seen where some of the people who become addicts and homeless grow up, and you said "if you look at that, what other choice did they have?" As you know, I come from a background with a rather jaded view of the world, and also some amount of hopelessness when it comes to society's redeeming features, but the remark has stuck with me.
Also, I think that maybe authors with more "socially conscious" motivations for writing about the poor, the outcast, etc. are wanting to stimulate and inner-dialogue with the reader about these issues. For example, if we are to see a street person, we can walk right past without engaging them. But in a novel, we are CHOOSING to engage with characters, and perhaps by making characters realistic personality-wise, we will be more compelled to consider the homeless people who resemble the "street person" in the book we are reading. What I'm saying is, I don't know about you, but when I see people, I often think "that person is TOTALLY (Character) from (Novel)!" I'm not sure if sympathizing with outcasts and underdogs because you liked the fictional version of them is "good", but in any case, whatever gets people thinking. Literature is supposed to tell a great truth or explore perceptions and challenge widely held opinions.
Sadly, to the average person, if they were to actually look at the homeless/poverty problem in it's entirety, it would be overwhelming and heartbreaking.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Essentially the theory was this: Pump a ton of money into social services, and really, TRULY get people started on their feet. The article used a bee-sting analogy: for example, if a person has only one or two bee-stings, they are likely to treat them by rubbing ointment on them, or whatever. But if a person is COVERED in bee-stings, curing one or two is hardly helpful, because they are still covered. Same with cars; if a person has a new car and they get a dent in it, they will likely fix it. If a person has a run down P.O.S car, they probably won't bother dealing with another scratch.
Of course, this idea was EXTREMELY controversial, and met with people's outrage at the very thought of helping those who "did this to themselves." I wish I could find the article. . . http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_economic_inequality.html
I think that's the article.
Lidocafe - I still remember something you said one evening while we were waiting for a bus downtown. You gave a man some change and said that you had seen where some of the people who become addicts and homeless grow up, and you said "if you look at that, what other choice did they have?" As you know, I come from a background with a rather jaded view of the world, and also some amount of hopelessness when it comes to society's redeeming features, but the remark has stuck with me.
Also, I think that maybe authors with more "socially conscious" motivations for writing about the poor, the outcast, etc. are wanting to stimulate and inner-dialogue with the reader about these issues. For example, if we are to see a street person, we can walk right past without engaging them. But in a novel, we are CHOOSING to engage with characters, and perhaps by making characters realistic personality-wise, we will be more compelled to consider the homeless people who resemble the "street person" in the book we are reading. What I'm saying is, I don't know about you, but when I see people, I often think "that person is TOTALLY (Character) from (Novel)!" I'm not sure if sympathizing with outcasts and underdogs because you liked the fictional version of them is "good", but in any case, whatever gets people thinking. Literature is supposed to tell a great truth or explore perceptions and challenge widely held opinions.
Sadly, to the average person, if they were to actually look at the homeless/poverty problem in it's entirety, it would be overwhelming and heartbreaking.