An Inquirer article regarding a certain bishop’s statement raised again the issue of poverty as a problem in the Philippines. Bishop Garcera of Daet is quoted to have said “poverty is not a problem.” But whether he said it or not, and no matter who says it, I still maintain that poverty will always be
one of the core problems of the country, and no looking from a
different angle will de-problematize it. However, this issue reveals
that some Filipinos still have wrong attitudes about poverty. Something
seems to be dressing up the condition of poverty as something
attractive, or as something “good,” despite reality saying otherwise.
For some, it could mean, “I love squatters to stay as squatters (photo from Zazzle.com).”
Benign0 raised again the question of
why many Filipinos remain in poverty. My answer tries to partially
explain it: I believe that there has been a glamorization of the poor
that not only spreads wrong ideas about them, but actually serves as a
way to keep people poor and suffering.
Why Poverty is a Problem
Poverty
basically is a problem because it brings people into harmful conditions.
People in poverty have greater health risks. Some of them eat pagpag,
which is dirty and is germ-filled. They are less likely to finish or
even go to school. They tend to have less intellectualism, which would
make their lives less meaningful and more prone to stupid actions.
Poverty is also quite related to higher crime; poor people tend to get
into criminal activities to support themselves. They also tend to have
more children than they can support (which proponents of the RH Law say
the law will solve, but it remains to be seen whether it will be
effective in that).
I think it is obvious that poverty is actually a harmful thing. Why encourage people to get into it or stay in it?
Saying that poverty
is not a problem can be used as an excuse for the poor to stay poor –
and keep them in situations of high risk. Some may say, since poverty is
not a problem anyway, why help the poor? And another fear I have is
that this has been used to demonize the rich, or even just the
middle-class. It’s better to be poor. Poor is good, being rich or
may-kaya is bad. The poor themselves may say, we’re more saintly when
we’re poor, so why bring us out of poverty?
As commenter Midwayhaven said, “a lot of the poor CHOOSE to remain poor mainly due to the ‘victim’ mindset.”
Images of the Poor
Philippine TV shows and movies often show this:
poor=good, rich=evil. This is clearly wrong. Even poor people commit
crimes and can themselves be corrupt. And when they get into a position
of power, they are likely to become corrupt themselves. Professional
squatters are a good example.
Some are
trying to make the poor into “heroes.” This is yet another attempt at
muddling the concept of “hero.” Probably the concept is that heroes
suffers, and the poor suffer. But in truth, heroes do not necessarily
suffer. Heroes are those who try to help others. They may suffer, but it
is because they are trying to help others. Now the poor are mostly
trying to help themselves, not others. How can they even become heroes
when they’re the ones asking help for themselves!
Some people believe it’s better for people to be happy in poverty…
Another
image is that the poor are saints. Not just heroes; even the concept of
sainthood is muddled. This is perhaps because of the common misuse of
Bible verse which is part of the Beatitudes. “Blessed are the poor,” or
“blessed are the poor in spirit.” People may think that this makes the
poor blameless and holy. Not so. It only shows that God looks with mercy
upon the disadvantaged, but it does not absolve the poor of their
wrongs.
In
addition, another Bible verse says non-working poor are doing wrong:
“he who does not work, let him not eat (2 Thes. 3:10).” Some, like
Vladmir Lenin, have used this to attack the bourgesioe, assuming that
they do not work. However, this verse equally attacks the poor – that if
they are poor, but refuse to work and want to receive dole-outs, they
should expect to get hungry as a return.
Rooting for the Underdog
One of the things I consider an often misused and
abused concept is rooting for the underdog. This is a concept often used
in modern fiction. In this country, the underdog concept has been
misused as to propagate a harmful and erroneous ideal.
In society,
the poor is often portrayed as the underdog. The movies often portray
them as abused, downtrodden, and persecuted. But one thing I notice is
that the underdogs are often portrayed as lacking intelligence,
unskilled, ill-mannered and poor in breeding. The movies often play this
up and try to make them look good. But this has a bad effect. It may
teach other people to favor being unintelligent, ill-mannered and
unskilled. And it will likely make them incompetent, lazy, pretentious
and just plain useless in life.
Problem is,
even incompetent and corrupt underdogs will be glorified (remember the
70s movies featuring criminals?). The overdog (my word for the competent)
is often demonized, thus making it less attractive to become one. I
believe the overdog is what people should evolve into when they overcome
their weaknesses, because they have become stronger, more competent.
Media should play up the overdog. Or at least stop portraying the
underdog as the hero.
“Nagpapakapoor”
The glamorization of the poor is such that it may
invite others to become poor. This can be seen in some families where
some members decide that they like the poor life better and go with poor
people who are also poor in living life. For example, some children
eschew parents’ advice and go out with an ill-mannered, poorly educated
brute, only to regret years later the choice made. They may start out
rich or middle-class, but can end up poor. This can be explained as rich
or supposedly well-bred people being pulled down to the level of the
poor – so that they can be poor themselves. This has been portrayed in
TV shows as well.
Because it
looks good to be poor in this country, it may have eliminated the desire
of some people to solve their poverty through their own effort. As
Midwayhaven and many others have said, these people will deliberately
become poor and use the “pity effect” to ask for dole-outs from others –
and from the government. Indeed, there are people who are
“nagpapakapoor” in order to elicit dole outs.
But for most, poverty will definitely wipe the smile off their faces…
Perhaps
my observation may have been exaggerated and somewhat simplistic. But I
am certain such cases exist. It does not always need the rich to do
anything to “oppress” the poor; the poor sometimes keep themselves poor.
Sometimes they know it, sometimes they do not.
Of
course, being poor does not make a person condemnable. But it is a an
undesirable state, and it certainly harmful to those undergoing it. It
is a condition that needs to be solved – not maintained or exploited. Or
liked. Wanting to become poor can be seen as irresponsible, and it can
help propagate social ills.
And
another thing is that the poor are being exploited. We hear of
politicians who win elections because they get the popular or the masa
vote, which we may surmise is full of poor people. They proclaim this
power as the “power of the poor.” But I doubt this power exists. The
poor have no power. It’s only the masa politician who feeds on their
votes to stay in office and keep them poor, while fooling them that they
have “power.”
Don’t forget
leaders in insurgent organizations (yes, the commies) who profess to be
champions of the poor, but are actually rich people themselves. They are
also riding on the supposed “power of the poor,” which is actually
“power to fool the poor.”
We
need to challenge the very hyped image of the poor as “good,” and
dissociate the concepts of “good-bad” from “rich-poor.” We need to help
educate the poor and point out the error of their ways – and expose how
they are being used. To help bring them out of wrong thinking and show
them the right ways to think and act.
Why it is better to be “Anti-Poor”
I
have my own definition for “Anti-poor”: believing that there should be
no poor in society and that everyone should be free of poverty. Being
“Pro-poor” thus is being in favor of having the poor around, and going
against their getting out of poverty.
In
other words, every society should gun for eliminating the poor. No, I
don’t mean using a gun to eliminate the poor. Eliminate poverty by
giving people jobs and allow them to work and earn enough for their own
living. This is where I partly agree with Bishop Garcera: “When you help
poor people they help themselves too… Everyone, when given the chance,
will strive to earn a living” (though I’m not really sure everyone will want to).
It
is wrong to glamorize the poor. It may encourage them to take upon
commitments that they are unable to keep. The poor are not heroes. Poor
is poor. It is nothing special, nor does it make people good. There is
no assurance that poverty will lead to people becoming good and
responsible. In fact, the opposite may mostly be true, making poverty is
a severe social cancer.
Thus,
propagating poverty and de-problemizing will only serve to deepen the
social ills of the country and further cut down an important institution
in any society: the middle class.
Opposition
needs to be fronted against glamorization of the poor, or against
telling the poor that it is OK for them to stay poor. Because it never
is OK. And because glamour after all is based on that dreaded demon
called pride. When people are poor, it would become even worse if their
heads swelled. Instead, Filipinos should seek to develop wealth-building
attitudes, the proper kind, which focus on proper stewardship of
wealth, and considering it a friend and not an evil. Of course,
encourage values such as living within one’s means, and not following
the popular mindset. And of course, encouraging people to strive to be
non-poor.
No comments:
Post a Comment