Wednesday, April 8, 2009

thoughts on begging

I ran into Kwin the other day for the first time in ages as I was walking briskly from Southern Cross Station, eager to get back to my warm living room and my book. She was sitting on a blustery street corner (Bourke and Spenser), colourful artwork displayed in books, few coins dispersed in a hat laid out on the ground. I exclaimed that it seemed like such a cold, windy spot; she answered that sometimes she needed to see the sky and some trees, because you can’t look at concrete buildings forever. We chatted for a while about this and that, while she rolled a cigarette. A man came along and handed her a five dollar note. “Bugger!” she whispered, loudly, after he’d left. “He always catches me when I’m smoking!” I asked her why it mattered, and she said that he used to give her twenty dollars, until he found out she smoked. “Now he only gives me five – he doesn’t want me spending his money on cigarettes. I can see where he’s coming from,” she pondered, “but I don’t like the idea of people giving me money with conditions attached. If you want me to have a night’s accommodation, go down to the local backpackers and buy me a night’s accommodation. If you want me to have food, well buy me a sandwich. But if you give me money, it must be given graciously. Don’t tell me how to spend it.”

I can see where Kwin is coming from. To stipulate how somebody is to spend a gift is paternalistic and somewhat controlling. Rather than build a bridge, it breeds mistrust and further instils the power dynamic between beggar and giver. It is to say, “I give you this money because I pity you, but I don’t trust you to spend it wisely.” What kind of a gift is that? It leaves the giftee grovelling and disempowered and the giver puffed up on self-righteousness. In our momentary experience as welfare-provider, we forget that we are also likely to spend that money on drugs, alcohol and cigarettes. ‘Gifts’ attached to the words “do the right thing with it” are underlaid with a false superiority on the part of the giver.

I still hold to a noble idea that money is better utilised in the hands of an organisation like the Salvation Army, where perhaps it can be used to address a problem closer to its root, than in the hands of a beggar, where at best the money represents temporary pain relief. When a woman armed with a convincing sob story and a request for some loose change confronts me on the street, however, I find it difficult to hold to my conviction. Slightly frazzled and feeling compromised either way, I usually hand over a few coins. My housemates, who have lived in the CBD and thought about this issue longer, seem more intentional when faced with the same situation. They see it as an opportunity to build relationships with people who are very marginalised: Gemma often invites people to lunch and at the very least will ask them their name; Dave only gives money to people he knows. I like this form of giving – the kind that strengthens our social fabric through relationships, rather than the kind that hopes for a salad roll, but actually just keeps people in their place.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Great post - that story cuts to the heart of the complexity of begging and giving and makes me rethink my attitude.

Plus for years I've vaguely thought that building relationships has to be part of my response, but you and your friends are actually doing it effectively.

Andreana said...

Hey there! Well I'm trying to do better at this. It's good talking to others about their responses. Marcus (also from Urban Seed) says that he tries to respond creatively, depending on how he's feeling and what the situation calls for. Sometimes he goes and has a meal with someone; other times he has a conversation about how much a hit is at the moment. He was with Gemma once and says that she prayed with someone who was asking for money.

Unknown said...

Andreana, I'm getting to like your posts. This is brilliant but I've more reasons than most to ponder on this. When I worked for the Churches National Housing Coalition I set up a food voucher scheme called MegaBite, aimed (amongst other things) at offering an ethical response to begging. I'm still involved with the scheme, which involves giving vouchers and not cash. The vouchers are then redeemed in food outlets - cafe's, etc. I very much recognise that paternalism is an issue. What we find though, is that the vouchers enable people to eat in everyday places, without pushing them into soup kitchens or day centre cafe's. Nutrition is a huge issue, especially amongst street based homeless people. The average life expectancy of a street based homeless person in London is 43.

So, yes I'm uneasy about needing MegaBite but on balance the benefits outweigh the disadvantages. For myself the scheme has opened up all kinds of questions about Christian practices, especially the practice of almsgiving. Christian practices like hospitality, peacemaking and almsgiving are always vulnerable to criticism when they are adapted for a political arena. I've lost count of the number of times I heard
MegaBite described as a 'token solution'. For what it's worth, most of the people involved in working with hospitality, almsgiving or peacemaking seem to go on a journey of awareness. I worked for Nightstop in Leeds a few years earlier where volunteer hosts opened up their own homes to young homeless people. Those of our hosts who were Christians were strongly motivated to dig deep into the spiritual roots of hospitality and all of our hosts ended up with a far greater understanding of the political and economic factors behind homelessness.

I've discovered this post of yours as a good time as I'm in the early stages of settign up a Christian Practices Project called 'Praxical'. Thanks.

Andreana said...

Hey there

I think MegaBite sounds like a really great scheme. The thing is, it's different from making a moral judgment as to how someone should spend the money you give them; you're offering something that they can choose whether or not to take. And I like the element of choice - lots of homeless people I know complain about the quality of food in soup vans and the like, and again, congregating homeless people into homelessness services further marginalises.

Sure, we shouldn't have homelessness in the first place and we need to address social-economic factors such as housing shortages, but I also think that homelessness stems in part from our society's individualism. Offering a food voucher seems to me to be a step in the direction of mending our torn social fabric because (a) two people have just had a human encounter and (b) people have the dignity of choice and of accessing places that aren't just for homeless people. It's like enabling the leper to come within the city's walls - homelessness services perhaps being a little like communities of lepers that are separate from the rest of society.

So I think that 'random acts of kindness' can actually be REALLY powerful - and sometimes they are more powerful than big campaigns to address big issues, because they are often motivated by love, rather than all the other motivations that can plague big initiatives. And you're right - these small acts of recognising the humanity in others, even if there are elements of paternalism there, can be the beginnings of long journeys.