Poverty: challenging the myths: being poor is about not having enough money. Or is it?

New Internationalist, March, 1999 by Nikki Van der Gaag

THE people of Devonport are surrounded by a wall. Three metres high and six kilometres long, it serves to separate them from the military complex on their doorstep. But it has another, less obvious function. It marks out the boundaries of an estate known for its deprivation. Devonport, a suburb of Plymouth in south-west England, is labelled as an area with a high poverty rate, where crime, vandalism and drug-dealing abound.

My own reception in Devonport is warm and welcoming. I am picked up from the train station and driven to an apartment block overlooking the wall. Karen and her son Chris give me a slap-up meal before taking me downstairs to meet 79-year-old Alice, who regales me with tales of being a submarine fitter during the War and puts me to bed with a cup of tea and an electric blanket. From the spare-room window I can see a yard, grim and dripping in the rain, but inside I am full, snug and warm.

This feeling stays with me for the whole of the next day as I attend a workshop that Devonport Action Against Poverty (DAP) is holding in the local community centre which has been refitted and decorated by local people.

Poverty, say the DAP members firmly: `is not about money, though it is about what you can do with money'. People should be respected not for what they have but for who they are. `We call ourselves "people experiencing poverty", or "grassroots people" rather than poor people. We are people first. People who just happen to be poor,' says Karen. `But we are rich in lots of other ways.'

Generosity, for one. I am not used to being housed and fed by complete strangers, let alone those who can little afford it.

Of course money is an issue, but so too are good housing, jobs, healthcare, education, leisure facilities, improved levels of benefit which don't penalize people for working, better transport, and an improved environment. Then there are the things money can't always buy: more time, good relationships, privacy (`Poor people don't have the luxury of privacy; their affairs are everyone's business,' says Karen), community spirit and, importantly, respect.

The need for respect comes high on the list of all those experiencing poverty. Moraene Roberts, another `grassroots person' and a member of the UK Coalition Against Poverty, puts it plainly: `The very poor tell us over and over again that a human being's greatest misfortune is not hunger or being unable to read, nor even being without work. The greatest misfortune of all is to know that you count for nothing, to the point where even your suffering is ignored. The worst blow of all is the contempt of your fellow-citizens.' (1)

Such intangible things are hard to measure or even define. Poverty itself is discussed, defined and measured in an infinite number of ways. The United Nations Development Programme talks about `human poverty': `a denial of choices and opportunities for living a tolerable life'; the World Bank of `income poverty' - `living on less than a dollar a day'. Then there is `absolute' poverty - those below a defined poverty line or threshold - and `relative' poverty - poor in relation to those around you. Recently, governments have begun to use the term `social exclusion' as a useful tool for describing what poor people experience. This is fine, as long as it is not an excuse for failing to spend money. And it begs a number of questions: If some people, areas, or communities are `socially excluded' what are they excluded from? Who then are the `included'? Is this simply a way of avoiding the word `poor'? (A word which people overseas have no problem claiming but which people in the West often reject because it comes with such stigma attached). What Devonport and other places of `social exclusion' least need is yet another label.

The interesting thing about all these definitions is that they only define the poor. No-one thinks of finding labels for the rich - there are far more words for poverty than there are for wealth, as the dictionary on Page 13 clearly shows. It is the poor who are the `problem' - a belief hotly contested by `the poor' themselves. The other problem is gender; social exclusion doesn't value economic roles and relationships at the household and community level, which are mainly performed by women. Yet women all over the world bear the brunt of poverty, partly because of the extra burden of responsibilities they have for the household and partly because they lack access to land, credit and employment. (2)

Labels and measurements are useful tools for dealing with poverty; but sometimes they can detract from what being poor really means, like having to spend all your time worrying about where the next meal is coming from. It means hunger, isolation and disempowerment. And waste, not just for those experiencing it, but for everyone. In the words of Joseph Wreskinski, founder of ATD Fourth World, an organization set up to combat poverty: `Behind the silence of our records and our statistics lie children mutilated in their heart and spirit, young people condemned to despair, adults driven to doubt their very humanity.' (3) Poverty is relentless; it grinds you down and leaves you deprived of hope, of opportunity, of confidence in yourself.