THIS COLUMN WAS ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED IN WRITER’S BLOCK IN THE February 8, 2017 EDITION OF THE CHRONOTYPE, RICE LAKE, WISCONSIN.
I’ve recently stumbled upon some information that has completely changed the way I look at the disparity in the socioeconomic levels in our society. The circles I have kept are filled with those similar to me in many ways, ladder climbers, goal-oriented, highly literate, hard workers.
At the very basic level of humanity, people want to feel that they belong, are connected. But the circles we keep are often closed and not entirely diverse, especially socioeconomically. Think about it. We connect with those with similar backgrounds in education or at least aligned in goals or work ethic, people we work or went to school with, if not family.
We want efficient, easy connections in our time-crunched lives, ones that support our values. We speak the same language with those we surround ourselves with, but language barriers exist all over the place. The most stifling may be between socioeconomic levels. The fact that you’re choosing to read this paper means you probably value literacy on some level. I’m guessing the people you spend the most time with also value the written word. But there are circles that don’t.
In some recent training on the language of poverty and understanding it, Donna M. Beegle, Ed.D. explains that for those living in poverty, the value of the written word is nearly nonexistent, but relationships are of no less value, in fact, they’re valued most. Reading requires time and patience, two things not readily available in a household drowning in chaos, moment to moment. Communication is oral. Goal-setting is a foreign term. Problem solving means figuring out where the next meal will come from, and oftentimes the quickest and cheapest are the first option.
Children living in poverty aren’t asked how school is, inquired about homework. Assuming they have a home to do work is presumptuous and excluding. Time is about survival and long-term doesn’t exist. Yet, these same children and adults are asked to perform to a goal- and literate-driven society in order to get out of poverty, really, in order to belong.
Literacy is the way we read the operating instructions of the life we know—job or school applications, testing, forms, etc. Beegle says the impoverished may not care about those things because the people they value haven’t, and the key to survival for them is other people, not education or learning a skill—ironically the only two things that advance socioeconomic status. And it’s a difficult barrier to cross.
I’ve been taught my whole life to help those in poverty which has always manifested itself in giving to church or donating food, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with those contributions, in fact they are so much more relevant and necessary in Barron County than ever before. But that’s where the frustration comes in, right? This is one of the most generous communities, I’ve ever lived in, yet the word poverty is thrown back in our face more and more.
Our language of rational thinking allows us to deduce that given access to the same things that we have, the impoverished have made the choices to be there. This thinking opens the door to judgment and self-righteousness, and slams it shut on the possibility of connecting with this circle.
So they barely survive, definitely not thrive and aren’t motivated by the success or authority of strangers. So what is the answer?
I pose this. What if the successful stranger became someone valuable? What if we learned a new language? Might then success begin to breach the circles?
Gently Rise, Softly Call 