Even accounting for
personal greed and philosophies of justice and good governance that differ from
my own, I cannot fully understand why our politicians, locally and nationally,
deprive so many of their own constituents and fellow citizens of healthy and
less stressful lives. It is not just conservatives who enforce this deprivation,
but apparently most politicians who stand to gain from policies that resist tax
reform and urban aid spending (Dreier et al 2005:141).
With as much powerful opposition that exists toward
improving the lives of the poor—not necessarily providing them with financial assistance,
that is, but simply allowing them more access to safe housing, affordable food
and essential healthcare—it seems that someone like me is nearly powerless to
help them. I can volunteer with organizations that serve poor people, and I can
keep poor people company when I meet them, but I myself cannot be a home, nor a
treatment, nor a good school for anyone. I do not have wealth enough to provide
these things for poor communities, either, and it appears to me that the lack of
these things are some of the major causes of low life quality for poor people. Furthermore,
the huge power that business-based lobbies and business-affiliated officials
exert over urban and social aid policies makes me wonder if protesting against
insufficient governmental support for the poor could possibly be impactful.
What can I do to help dismantle the thorny web of limitations
that bind poor people in my community and nation? Can I only act effectively on an
interpersonal, individual level?
Logan,
ReplyDeleteI wanted to respond to your post not because I have the answers to your questions, but because I wanted to share with you something that a Professor on the ANSO department taught me early on in my college experience. It has been with me ever since this Professor said it..As scholars of sociology, we often find ourselves frustrated because the magnitude of the things we learn and discover are often so much larger than us as individuals. We get overwhelmed with the idea that we have to change the world in order to "fix" something we want to see fixed. This professor went on to encourage me to start small and change myself. To develop in a way I could commit to and see where that would take me. It's unrealistic to think that we can change the world on our own, but if we change, and genuinely commit to ourselves, perhaps some good can come of it.
On a different note, one that is more closely related to this reading, another professor told me that if there was something to remember about the greater discipline of sociology, it is never accepting "that's just the way it is". I thought about that a lot throughout this reading.
On the very first page the authors start to hint at public choice theory (first stated on pg. 108). "Some would say, 'sure some places are better than others, but this only reflects personal preferences and ability to consume'...it is only natural that people of different economic classes sort themselves into different neighborhoods..." (103) My question is this: What will it take to convince the United States that it is something bigger than individuals and their choices? What will it take to be open to the idea that economic segregation is not the way it is just because it IS?