<Theofragen>

Abby's car was broken into last week and her cd player was stolen. This happened while she was in class at Georgia State University, which is in the heart of downtown Atlanta. This is the second time that someone has attempted to break into her car. The first time occurred outside our condo and the inept thief was unsuccessful at even getting into the car. S/he, however, did manage to do $1000 worth of damage to the car in his/her failed larceny. Despite these frustrating experiences, I like living in-town. Everyone has tradeoffs. We sacrifice space, a garage, square footage, and safety to live in the city. It does put us as close as we could afford to be to Little Five Points, the focal area for my church plant. It is also only 2 miles from GSU. What is one to do?

This frustrating experience provides impetus to ask you all a question that has been bouncing around in my mind for a month now: how are those of us who are not poor meant to live in relation to those who are? In his, Philosophy of Right, Hegel wrote at length about the poor, whom he called "the rabble." Although Hegel contended that it is the duty of the state to care for every citizen, he was dubious that this will ever actually happen. Hegel was even more doubtful that the poor will be sufficiently cared for by private charity. He concluded that the best way to deal with poverty is to "leave the poor to their fate and direct them to beg from the public" (245).

This was a major point of departure for Marx (a critical Hegelian himself). Marx agreed with Hegel that modern society tends to create an impoverished class, whom he labels "the proletariat." He is optimistic, however, that members of the proletariat possess the means to ameliorate their lot in life. He saw the proletariat as a powerful, creative, revolutionary class whose destiny it is to topple the existing inequitable system. Hegel, by contrast, is altogether pessimistic. He maintained that poverty destroys the sense of self that is necessary for ethical living in society. Poverty, Hegel contends, gives rise to the "non-recognition of right." The "rabble" do not recognize themselves as part of the system, but victims of the system. Hegel therefore held that they fall outside of the bounds of what is right and wrong within the system and have no hope.

So, according to Hegel, the persons who stole Abby's CD player-provided they are in fact living in poverty-have not committed a wrong. Instead, their actions are a result of being forced outside of society and, concurrently, out of the bounds of ethical injunctions. Thanks Hegel! I know that Abby and I feel personally violated and victimized by this theft. Is this just one small dose of a medicine that the poor must choke down everyday? If I fail to care for the poor in my midst (by what means?) have I committed a far greater injustice to those without means to improve their lives, be it by private or governmental relief?

What do you think? When you look at a homeless man or woman do you feel optimistic or pessimistic that they can improve their lot in life? Moreover, do you feel optimistic or pessimistic that our current system in 21st century America provides the means to mitigate poverty and fiscal injustice? Or, are you with Hegel, that the poor should take it on the chin and look for handouts? How, based on your optimism or pessimism, do you relate to the proletariat/the rabble/the poor/the disenfranchised in your midst? Peace.

Inner-city Living

1 Comments: