PROGRESSIVE REFORMERS LOVE & NEED THE MISERY OF THOSE WHOM THEY ALLEGEDLY HELP
When will the caring activists of the left ever learn? Never have
so few individuals -- with
so many good intentions -- created so much misery for
so many people whom they wanted to help.
As the
social-engineering debacles of the last half century in the United States have demonstrated
carelessness in
(allegedly) caring for
the disadvantaged in our society only
leads to a glaringly
uncaring result.
After all it was pioneering liberal-left social engineers in the 1940s and 50s who came up with the not-so-creative idea of fighting poverty in American slums by
ripping down existing
for-profit rental housing and
replacing the existing rental stock with the cold massive impersonal concrete HUMAN STOCKYARDS which we now know as PUBLIC HOUSING PROJECTS --
the equivalent of urban hell for several generations of the poor in North America since then.
Not only was poverty not checked by
this urban reformbut its
unintended consequences-- the absence of cheap rooming houses and other lodgings for societys marginalized citizens --
ultimately created the phenomenon of
urban homelessness.
And of course we all know the many wonderful benefits that came with living in comfy government-subsidized projects --
rampant drug addiction vandalism family breakup gang wars killings & social decay.
Oh and did we mention another
BENEFIT of such PROGRESSIVE housing initiatives -- an even more
ingrained cycle of poverty?
Yet the obvious bitter fruits of the liberal-left do-gooders all-knowing beneficence in providing better housing for Americas underclass
did NOTHING to STOP additional similar FUTURE benefits: never-ending INEFFECTIVE SOCIAL-ENGINEERING EFFORTS by this lot.
For example
in the 1960s confronted with the demoralizing
evidence--
most of it imaginary --
that poor self-esteem and a cycle of failure was supposedly
hindering the
educational achievement of poor black students liberal-left educational reformers set about dumbing down the schools in disadvantaged black urban slums -- with an effort to boost the self-esteem of minority students by ELIMINATING pretty well all standards of educational achievement (for example exams & school-district test scores).
Unfortunately the only noticeable result of this attempt to treat the educational system as a social laboratory was that standard test scores plummeted in these enlightened educational enclaves literacy became the equivalent of an endangered species student conduct deteriorated dangerously and precipitously and a unique new
lets stay stupid ethic (otherwise known as
not going white) evolved
among most poor black students who in turn
harassed any fellow students who showed any desire to get an education to improve their lot and break the chains of poverty.
Oh and did we mention that
public schools in poor black urban slums quickly became
a mirror image of government-subsidized housing projects--
run-down urban fortresses afflicted by the scourge of vandalism gangs hard drugs random violence & social anarchy?
However not surprisingly that hasnt stopped the
liberal-left cognoscenti from coming up with
ever-more innovative ways to waste taxpayer dollars on ever-more destructive cures for various (real & imagined) social injustices ... during the ensuing years.
IS THERE A CREDIBLE EXPLANATION OF THIS PROGRESSIVE MADNESS?
The $64000 question is why?
Enter a most educational book
The Careless Society: Community & Its Counterfeits"by
TROSTKY-TRAINED community activist John McKnight (Basic Books 1995) an oldie but goodie" tome whose insightful pages I recently revisited.
Even more specifically I would single out Chapter One (Professionalism) and McKnights ground-breaking essay in that chapter entitled
Professionalized Help & Disabling Service
Granted watching a
Whos That Girl" rerun is probably a more entertaining diversion.
However if youre one of those people who feels guilty after being accused by liberals of not being a caring enough person in your politics then youll probably find this book most enlightening.
Its a golden-oldie that still packs a punch even though it received minimum attention when it was first published.
So what new insight does Mr. McKnight bring to an understanding of the educated
caringclasses and the
ever-expanding helping INDUSTRY which they helm.
Well if I might serve as your interpreter let me first posit that I think McKnight was suggesting that we all should recognize that
no matter how intrinsically idealistic and caring todays social dogooders might be THEY ARE STILL HUMAN.
Therefore
SELF-INTEREST is bound to
INTRUDE at times into
EVEN THE MOST IDEALISTIC OF INITIATIVES intended to
HELP THE LESS ADVANTAGED.
In other words todays social reformers and activists may be well intentioned
but theyre fooling themselves about the nature of their mission.
According to McKnight
the language of the
helping professions may be one of
caring (just like Bill Clinton they feel the needys pain). But behind what McKnight calls simply
one more expanding service
INDUSTRY lies a unique
BUSINESS (distinguished by its emphasis on doing good) always
looking for new markets and
staffed by an ever-growing cadre of caring professionals in need of income.
According to this scenario todays caring elite of policy wonks & service professionals NEED need.
They derive their
LIVELIHOODS -- not to mention
THEIR SMUG SENSE OF SUPERIOR GOODNESS --from servicing the
NEEDS of those whom
THEY DEFINE as THE NEEDY.
So from McKnights point of view professional caring in modern society has become just another business but one whose true mission is
masked by
its aura of caring & love for those whom it helps.
Or to put it in his own words:
It is clear therefore that the word care is a potent political symbol. What is not so clear is that its use masks the political interests of servicers. This fact is further obscured by the symbolic link between care and love. The result is that the political-economic issues of service are hidden behind the mask of love...
Behind the mask is simply the servicer his systems techniques and technologies -- a business in need of markets an economy seeking new growth potential professionals in need of an income...
According to McKnight the
masks of love and care obscure this reality so that the public cant recognize the
professionalized interests that manufacture NEEDS in order
to rationalize a service economy.
Furthermore John McKnight writes: Medicare Educare Judicare Socialcare and Psychocare are portrayed as beneficent service systems intended to meet the needs of the disadvantaged rather than programs targeted to meet the
needs of
professional servicers (and their political & media allies) as well as
the economies they support.
Most important from McKights point of view this is not a shell game where helpers consciously set about to exploit the needy for their own selfish ends.
Instead servicers are well-intentioned individuals who so strongly identify with
the caring face of doing good that
they cannot let themselves recognize its negative consequences.
The
mask of goodness is
so important to their sense of self they
cant let themselves see its TRUE face: the exploitation of societys disadvantaged classes by a CREDENTIALED elite to enhance both THE ECONOMIC WELL BEING and SENSE OF MORAL SUPERIORITY of that same HELPING" ELITE.
In McKnights words
removing the mask of love shows us the face of
servicers who need income and
an economic system that needs growth. And within this framework the client is less a person in need than a person who is needed.
Or in pure economic terms continues McKnight the client is less the consumer than
the RAW MATERIAL for the servicing (business) system.
In other words
todays progressive dogooders NEED the needy and
they must continually identify new need (social problems) to grow their business: government-funded social initiatives to help those in need and (most important) to create LUCRATIVE EMPLOYMENT for the alleged enlightened classes who help them.
Therefore even though it might not be the original intention of leftist social dogooders it doesnt take long
for those whom they set out to help (societys disadvantaged classes) to ultimately become
COMMODITIES in
the progressive BUSINESS of caring-- and for
the professional helpers by implication
to become the new INDUSTRIALISTS of caring.
And those helpers I might add include a whole new educated class of professional social workers psychologists child-care workers government bureaucrats administrators legislators social-policy wonks community activists and even self-appointed minority spokespersons like Al Sharpton & Jesse Jackson.
Not surprisingly
one particular POWER DYNAMIC most usually emerges from such progressive helping efforts:
the HELPER is viewed as THE EXPERT who holds all control & power; and THE ONE WHO IS HELPED is chronically consigned to the role of THE NEEDY DEPENDENT VICTIM.
For example within this power paradigm social-policy wonks and social workers possess the professional training and expert knowledge to know whats required to rescue the needy; and the needy need that professional intervention since they are seen as being incapable of helping themselves.
Of course when self-interested career activists like Al Sharpton & Jesse Jackson are involved another dynamic inevitably kicks in:
The rich (come on down Al & Jesse)
get richer (from government and corporate donations) and
the poor get nothing (from Jesse & Al and any allied organizations like the NAACP).
Ironically as John McKnight also suggests many of todays much-advocated
social-problem-solving efforts are actually
iatrogenic --
the equivalent of doctor-created disease.
And iatrogensis is a term coined by social critic & gadfly Ivan Illach to remind us that doctors like to gather the sick in infection-ridden hospitals where ill patients often contact infectious diseases
which make them even more sick than they were when they first entered hospital. Consequently for many hospitalized patients
the doctor-prescribed cure is worse than the disease.
In the same way most liberal-left SOCIAL CURES via government-mandated SOCIAL ENGINEERING are also IATROGENIC -- social remedies bedeviled by a bevy of HARMFUL unintended SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES which are created by GOVERNMENT agencies RECKLESSLY INTERVENING in the PRIVATE SPHERE.
The problem is that public intellectuals of the left suffer from the HUBRIS of thinking they know more than they do.
And over and over again we are confronted with more grim sociological evidence that MERE HUMANS -- even the most schooled and brilliant CAN NOT sufficiently manipulate (via government intervention) THE COMPLEX INTERTWINED SOCIAL & CULTURAL PROCESSES -- that underlie HUMAN SOCIAL SYSTEMS -- to achieve THE SOCIAL OUTCOMES they desire.
There are simply too many interweaved social & cultural variables -- governing the functioning of modern industrial societies -- to anticipate & keep track of when governments wish to create desired social changes.
And if they insist on trying they ultimately end up destroying society instead.
For example the fabled
War on Poverty in America may have been based on the accumulated sociological wisdom of the academic intelligentsia of the 1960s but
it quickly turned into an EMBARRASSING DEFEAT -- as a host of
UNINTENDED social consequences (created by the experts ill-chosen social-engineering remedies)
ambushed all the good intentions
and left the metaphorical equivalent of A SOCIAL KILLING FIELD among the HAPLESS VICTIMS OF LEFT-WING LARGESS.
Aside from the countless billions of dollars wasted on needlessly enriching the educated helping classes in their battle against the social ills afflicting the disadvantaged the celebrated campaign to eradicate poverty and its ills only reinforced the cycle of poverty in black disadvantaged neighborhoods
creating a frightening social contagion of ever-escalating welfare dependency family breakdown & neighborhood violence -- in the end
ushering in a shining new era of urban social anarchy & hopelessness. Doctor-created social disease at its worst!
In the language of John McKnight
too often modern professional social service -- or contemporary government attempts to positively change society -- are actually forms of DISABLING HELP for those targeted. Rather than EMPOWERING those whom such social initiatives intend to help such progressive efforts leave these populations ISOLATED PASSIVE & DEPENDENT.
Rather than getting better the socially ill only get sicker.
In other words it shouldnt be surprising then that since the mid 1960s all the following progressive efforts to change society have failed so miserably: for example (1) efforts to dumb down the education system to enhance the self esteem of disadvantaged students; or (2) to understand the social roots of crime in order for the justice system to recognize the corrosive effect of such inequities on the powerless; or (3) to financially aid the needy because the economic system is allegedly so rigged against them (income inequality).
These IATROGENIC social cures have produced nothing more than increased illiteracy crime poverty and general social misery.
Unfortunately attempting to cure such problems with more of the same helping medicine TODAY will only result in more unintended iatrogenic social consequences TOMORROW and IN PERPUTITY.
YES BUT HOW ABOUT A FINAL CONCLUSION TO THIS LENGTHY MISSIVE?
And what do I think of all of the depressing (above-mentioned) FAILED social & political efforts to change society for the better?
God help future generations who inherit the IATROGENIC social & political consequences of all the misguided efforts of helping professionals & liberal-left politicians today!
Nuff said.
Murray Soupcoff is editor and co-author of
Good Buy Canada" and author of
Canada 1984".
He was a founding member (and senior partner) of Ian Sone & Associates Ltd -- Canadas first independent social-research company specializing in the evaluations of federal provincial & municipal government projects in Canada.
He is also the publisher of the FREE Soupcoff Report" investment newsletter whose distribution is partly subsidized by paid subscriptions from former research clients.
You can e-mail Murray Soupcoff at:
[email protected]
