I think the reason we've moved more and more to the left over the last hundred years is because it's just a more humane position. Ensuring all - or at least most - of the people in your society are cared for is a more humane position, one a 100% "free" economy (free for whom? or for what?) just doesn't promote. And yes, America has some socialist tendencies, but the degree of socialism is nowhere near most Western European countries and you know what? They really are soo much better off for it. This idea of slave=worker taxed 100% is kind of silly - who has ever called for that? But in many democratic socialist countries they're taxed way more than we are - up to 50%! And yet they have a much better quality of life overall - even their poor.
Now this was a really great post! Thank you Shannon! I appreciate your emphasis on taking action -- that's so important. And I'm glad you put income inequality right at number 1, because that's the true cause of homelessness: not having enough money, even for addicts and the mentally ill. It really is that simple. I think it just seems complicated because we as a society in general aren't ready (or willing, maybe) to alter the status quo to such a degree that the extreme wealth inequality we see today (and thus, extreme poverty) is significantly lessened. And trying to solve social problems created in large part because society is structured a certain way while simultaneously attempting to maintain that societal structure is complicated, if it's even possible.
To that, I will add to Seth: jobs creation as a solution is nice in theory, but what good is it if those jobs aren't paying people enough money to actually survive? I add that only because I've noticed when people talk about "jobs creation" they're often referring to low paying jobs -- the sort that won't really lift someone up enough to true self-sufficiency, just the appearance of it. And there are quite a few homeless people out there who DO work, who have full time jobs even. No one who works full time should ever be homeless because they don't earn enough money.
Well, I myself have been homeless -- not chronic living on the street homeless, but homeless all the same, so I understand the constant focus on survival issues faced. But you know what? There where times when I spent my last few dollars on the latest issue of Vogue because it was an escape from that constant worry that made me feel better. You know what else made me feel better? Dressing cute, because it's something that has always been important to me and I knew that if I "let myself go" I'd just sink (deeper) into despair. The shallow vanity of youth? Maybe. But it helped me preserve a state of mental well-being, as much as is posible in such a situation. So no, I honestly don't understand these kinds of knee-jerk reactions.
That said, I think it's great that there are such passionate advocates like yourself. But yes, I do think you missed a teachable moment -- it seems many are so focused on who they are advocating for, they've forgotten who they are advocating TO. If the purpose is to change the perceptions and minds of regular, everyday people (and that should be part of it or else what's the point?), then you have to reach them at the level they're at now. And, unfortunately, where that's at is being immune to the homeless and poverty that surrounds them everyday. Maybe they "should" think one way or another, but they don't. If you want to reach them you kind of have to look beyond shoulds, or no one will hear you. So yes, I absolutely think images of models dressed like homeless people on the cover of a major fashion magazine opens an opportunity for dialogue, because that is an image that people will SEE. And clearly, it has sparked conversation, since there have been numerous reactions around the web, as you yourself stated.
But again, that said, I don't think it's enough to get people to necessarily "care" or become engaged in the topic. And that's where the opportunity is missed: people are paying attention to the issue right now, in this moment. But instead of grasping that and approaching them on their level and saying look here, this is what homelessness is really about and pointing them in the direction of information that will engage those who attempted to look deeper, all I've read are people railing against the pretentious fashion industry for being so "offensive." As I said before, that just makes people tune you out, and those who would be inclined to dig deeper just move on. It sucks that it works that way, but it does and if you want to change anything (and I think you really do!), then you have to keep that in mind.
I have to admit, I find the patronizing tone of posts like this from those who advocate for the homeless disappointing. Here is an opportunity to engage the public at large in dialogue about the issue of homelessness (and not the first arisen from the fashion industry either), but instead that opportunity is squandered by condescension and self-righteousness. I mean, really? Homelessness being perceived as "en vogue" is offensive and negative, a slap in the face? I would think that perception of homelessness is leaps and bounds better than the one that leads to "bum fight" videos.
Perhaps you're not one of the people who think of fashion as a form of self-expression, and that self-expression plays a pivotal role in mental well-being, but there are MILLIONS of others who do. To be so dismissive and derisive of something that is important to so many only makes them tune out whatever message you're sharing. Thus, you effectively end up preaching to the choir. How is that going to help foster change? It's not.
And in the case of Steven Meisel, the photographer who shot the Vogue cover, he often deals with social justice issues in his work. He wants to shock people, to open their minds, to get a dialogue going, and he uses the platform he's been given to do that: fashion photography. It's unfortunate that, in this instance at least, many of the people who are best equipped to help engage and expand that dialogue are choosing not to do so. Imagine how much further your message could have gotten if you had dispensed with all the condemnation and instead focused on the question of "why is homelessness capturing the public's attention in this way?"
|
2 Actions
|
|