Peter Saunders makes a lot of sense in his continuing attack on the welfare lobby (and Left generally) insisting on defining "poverty" in a relative sense.
Funnily enough, one of the comments posted after the article says this:
"The thing that Saunders does not understand is that in wealthy societies where there is no starvation or dying from exposure, poverty is about being unable to participate in the society with respect and esteem.
A relativistic definition of poverty is not adopted by ‘the left’ just so they can advocate redistribution of income. It is favoured because it is the only real way of understanding what it means to be poor. If parents cannot afford Nike trainers for their child, the child ‘feels’ poor. The lack of money for trendy shoes ‘means’ poverty in our society."
What to make of this post? Surely she can't be saying that it reflects good, sensible values to say that children have a right to have the "coolest" brand names rather than simply a reasonable quality shoe? If she saying that, it plays exactly into Saunder's criticism of why a relative treatment of poverty is pretty stupid and unhelpful.
Picking brand fetishism as a way of illustrating being "unable to participate" is pretty startling, so much so that I wonder if she is having us on. But I don't think she is.
No comments:
Post a Comment