In John Kenneth Galbraith’s, “the Position of Poverty, he broke his argument on poverty down into five distinct sections to clarify his points. Over all he spoke about poverty in England in the years past, how poverty was in America in the decades past, and how poverty is in today’s societies. He explained that there are two different kinds of poverty, case poverty and insular poverty. In this blog, I have decided to explain case poverty.
Case poverty affects the individual that is so afflicted. It is a quality (or lack of a basic quality) that is unusual to that specific person or family involved. Qualities such as, a mental deficiency, inability to adapt to discipline of industrial life, poor health, alcohol, uncontrollable reproduction, discrimination only involving a certain-limited minority, an educational handicap, or a combination of all or a few of these short-comings. Case poverty can exist virtually anywhere, even in a wealthy, well-to do community. In order to free these individuals whom struggle with case poverty a society’s best bet is to solve it with public or private charity. Giving back, or lending a helping hand to those who are less fortunate than ourselves. There is no need for a large social change in the society; in this type of poverty it would prove to be inadequate.
Although when stating that all it takes to eliminate case poverty is charity… there are a couple existing, pathetic excuses. These excuses are that a wealthier individual does not give back or help the others who suffer from this, which then spit-fires into a chain reaction, and now many people do not want to donate whatever they can. Also, and this is the main excuse, is the shortage of money over all in all societies. Case, and all types of poverty can be eliminated if as Galbraith states, “an affluent society that is also both compassionate and rational would, no doubt, secure to all who needed it the minimum income essential for decency and comfort” (Galbraith 410). Looking at this solution many pessimists would argue for an example, “why should we help the people that are just too lazy to go out into the world and find jobs and get themselves out of what they put themselves into?” And my answer to them would be, that not every person that suffers from poverty is lazy, not every person had a choice, what about the innocent children? The children of poverty stricken families did not have anything to do with their inconvenient situation. So the solution Galbraith provided I completely support, when it pertains to the children of the present; that way they can be the successful non-poor adults of the future. As the Calvinist precept says it best, “The only sound way to solve the problem of poverty is to help people help themselves” (Galbraith 411). I love this quote because it shows a tolerable, non-prejudice human wanting to better others, in order to better the community, in order to better everyone’s life in general.
So to conclude, to reach the solution stated in the previous paragraph, we need a leader, a President to actually take charge of their campaign and make poverty in America (as else where) one of their main issues. As seen in the past, there have been a select few politians and Presidents who tried to put a stop to poverty in their campaigns, but disappointingly enough… something always hindered them of their goals…. Why does that always seem to happen? Examples of these individuals are President Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Jimmy Carter. Although like I just stated, the war in Vietnam, other government policies, and the inflation rates at these times hindered these men from the advances in eliminating poverty that had surprisingly been made. So who is it going to be next, who is going to step up to the issue and confront it head on; and actually propose a solution, much like the one stated earlier, and end this disgrace in the United States?
Galbraith, John, Kenneth. "The Position of Poverty." From "The Affluent Society." A World of Ideas: Esseintial Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. Trans. Stephen Mitchell. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2006. pp 403-415.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I certainly agree with you that poverty needs to become a focus in today's politics. America's lack of focus on poverty is truly inexcusable.
I also agree that many people do not take poverty seriously. Americans do not think about how other people live, many are only worried about themselves.
Poverty is a very important issue that is ignored right here in Detroit. We not only need Presidents who think this is important, but we need leaders in our community that are willing to make the issue of poverty a priority.
I liked your blog. I agree that in order to help people that suffer from poverty, the government needs to step up and make it a main focus. Also, i think that people in general need to try to help out others whenever they can.
About the "help people help themselves" quotation, it's worth noting that Galbraith disapproved of this approach to poverty:
Nothing has better served the conscience of people who wished to avoid inconvenient or expensive action than an appeal, on this issue, to Calvinist precept—“The only sound way to solve the problem of poverty is to help people help themselves.”
Galbraith's central argument focuses on insular poverty, because he wants the reader to see the need for significant increases in public-sector spending. Because case poverty affects individuals in otherwise prosperous areas (on a case by case basis), its cause is individual individual as well, and thus it doesn't call for broader economic/social reorganization. Insular poverty, on the other hand, affects whole neighborhoods (neighborhoods in which almost everyone is poor) suggesting that the environment--not some quality of this individual him/herself--is a cause of poverty. (The environment includes the availability of good schools, health care, affordable housing, recreation and nutrition, public transit, and safety and cleanliness of streets.)
So if the environment causes the poverty of those who grow up and live in poor neighborhoods, it's the responsibility of the whole society (government) to act by investing in poor neighborhoods. Ultimately, he's asking the reader to consider whether there's any moral justification in having ghettos--and the constraints on people's lives that they impose--in affluent, just societies.
Post a Comment