Poverty in Guelph: Part Three of My Conversation with Jaya James

In the first part of my conversation with Jaya James we talked about how the government interacts with poor people and how it is failing to deliver either financial or individual support to people who are struggling to survive in a complex and competitive society. In the second part, we talked about the social relationships that sustain us as human beings, and how these fall apart and fail the poor. In this last part, we talk about the individual psychology of poverty plus the relationship between Hope House and the institution that founded it, Lakeside Church.

&&&&

Jaya James, Executive Director, Hope House.
Photo by Bill Hulet 

Hulet: You mentioned earlier "the tyranny of the moment". Could you expand a bit on that?

James: I don't know where Mary Chrome got it from---she was our social worker for a while. But she 

Mary Crome, MSW, RSW.
Photo c/o Canadian Federation of
University Women, Guelph Chapter.
Used under the "Fair Use" provision
of the Copyright Act.

used that phrase a lot, so I have to credit her for it.

The tyranny of the moment is this idea---and I don't think it only applies to low income populations, but that's where my experience has been. When you are on low income you are always trying to figure out where you are going to get your next immediate need met. You're not thinking about a month, you're thinking about today.

So today "How are you going to get fed, clothed, sheltered". The next day you spend thinking "How am I going to get fed, clothed, sheltered". This creates this cycle that essentially means you are really focused on this moment in time and it discourages you from doing longer range thinking. 

And yet we all know that when we want to move towards a goal often we have to do things in the short term that may not get us there immediately but ultimately will get us to our bigger goal. So we have to have this "future gazing" experience. If you are spending all your energy and time trying to think of how to get food, clothing and shelter, or even about to get your emotional needs met, you don't have time to think about the future. "Where do I want to go?" "How can I make things different?" "How can I move towards what I want to do?" "How can I get this longer term situation addressed?"

Mary Chrome always used to remind us: "Remember that when someone comes in---and they might have eaten very well---but they need food "Now! Now! Now!"---remember that they are in the "tyranny of the moment"". 

At that moment they are hungry and they're afraid that they will not find food again. So if you can work through---without asking "Why?" questions but instead "What?". So help them list "So here's all the things that are available to help people exit out of that tyranny of the moment. They the can relax a little and say "Okay"". 

Sometimes it's as simple as giving someone a granola bar and letting them eat a little bit of the edge off. Then we can talk a bit about "what do you have in your cupboard back home?" Sometimes they do have food back home but they don't know how to use it. So if we've got those things, let's see if there are a couple of different meals that we can make with that. 

We can also ask "When was the last time you were in for a food market shop?", "Can you do that?" "No, you've already been in this month." "Have you been to Chalmers in the last two weeks?" "No? Then let's work that into what we're going to do."

When you are trapped in the sense of "fight or flight" phase. There again is that cognitive redirection in ability and you can't make wise decisions---or perhaps the most wise decisions. It doesn't mean you always make bad decisions. That's not the best way to phrase this---. 

Hulet: The window of opportunity shrinks and you have to grab the first thing you see. 

James: Right! You're grabbing the first thing instead of what you may actually want.  

&&&&

The issue that James is talking about when discussing the "tyranny of the moment" has all sorts of important ramifications that should be mulled over. Let's start with a common trope that is used to suggest things about why some people succeed in life, and some do not: the so-called "marshmallow test". When I searched for a video on YouTube that talked about it, I found a great many---here's the shortest one. 

It basically involves giving children an option involving a marshmallow: either eat it now or wait 15 minutes and get to eat two. The results were then compared to later life outcomes: Scholastic Aptitude Tests, body mass index, educational attainment, etc. This seemed to indicate that the ability to defer eating a piece of candy showed an innate ability to defer gratification that resulted in later life success. 

I suspect that the reason why this story is so popular---other than being an excuse to show videos of cute children fussing---is because it neatly fits into many people's preconceived notions about poverty. That is, that people are poor simply because they make bad choices. The problem with this idea---and many other similar ones---is that it is based on the flawed assumption that the world that each person inhabits is just like everyone else's. It is easy to look at these children from the vantage point of a safe, secure, dependable, middle-class life and see their behaviour as being the result of "poor will power". 

But what if you live in a world where nothing is safe, secure, or, dependable? In that world, things like marshmallows don't stay put if you leave them alone---they disappear. In that case, the old saying "the bird in the hand is worth more than two in the bush" kicks in. That's what the "tyranny of the moment" is all about. 

Abraham Maslow, from Wiki Commons.

Abraham Maslow  was a psychologist who posited that people have a set of needs that stack one on top of another like the blocks in a pyramid. One has to deal with the first layer before they can even think about dealing with what goes above. He called this the "hierarchy of needs", and it explains "the tyranny of the moment" that James is talking about. 

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.
Image by J. Finkelstein, c/o the Wiki Commons. 

Many people living in poverty are stuck on the first layer of the pyramid. They have day-to-day concerns about finding food, shelter, warm clothes, etc. This means that they have trouble even thinking about things like employment, safety, etc. And the idea that they would think about developing a connection in the community, self-confidence, etc, must just seem totally alien to people who are sleeping rough, begging on the streets, and, traveling from hand-out to hand-out. 

They can't reach any further up on the pyramid to deal with the other needs that are above them. But this creates enormous problems because this prevents them from dealing with the "5 dimensions of well-being" that James talked about in the last article on the subject.

• physical
• spiritual: that you are able to find meaning and purpose in your life, that you have a role in the world 
• emotional: that you're able to receive and deal with your emotions in a positive, healthy way---especially your negative emotions, how do you deal with them when you are really angry or frustrated, or ashamed
• relational: that you have a group of family or friends who would be "there" if you were to disappear or if something wrong was happening with you, and who would work with you, trying to get you back. encouraging, cheering you on 
• financial

Remember that James said 

If you are really strong in the other areas besides finance you're going to be OK because your community will take care of you. If you've got a really strong sense of what your purpose is, you will be out there pursuing opportunities. If you've got good emotional health, then you will be able to express yourself in a way that people can accept, or, at least can hear. 

The problem is, however, that the outrageously mean way we treat poor people in our society means that many people on Ontario Works or the Ontario Disability Support Program get stuck in the "tyranny of the moment", or, on the first floor of Maslow's hierarchy of values pyramid. Not only because the amount of money they receive is so paltry, or because the city hasn't been building social housing (or any for that matter) in sufficient quantities to keep people from "living rough", but also because of the ridiculous rules and regulations----plus the lack of sufficient front-line staff to help people negotiate it. Remember my quote from the Munk School of Public Affairs and Public Policy in my first article on poverty:

Social assistance recipients and their caseworkers spend a great deal of time filling out application forms and documenting their continued eligibility, rather than on activities that will help recipients move out of poverty. While accountability and program integrity are important, the current system understands accountability in terms of individuals completing paperwork, rather than in terms of accountability for producing results across the system.  

This sort of bureaucratic runaround goes a long way to maintain the sense of insecurity that leaves people on the ground floor of the hierarchy of needs, or, as James says, the tyranny of the moment. That keeps them from being able to work on whatever they lack in the five dimensions of well-being. Frankly, it's a testament to the resilience of the human spirit that anyone ever manages to claw themselves out of dire poverty.

&&&&

Hulet: I have to ask this---. What's your relationship to Lakeside Church?

James: In 2012 Lakeside Church created a separate legal entity, called "Lakeside Hope House". Definitely we were created by Lakeside Church. 

We just turned seven. Initially all the staff---it was just 2---and all the volunteers were from Lakeside Church. Separate legal entities, separate boards, but really from an influence perspective they were really, really, tightly tied.

Over time as they organization has grown there still have been people who have volunteered from Lakeside Church who volunteer and who financially support Hope House. And we still have a couple on the Board---we have a nine member Board---who attend Lakeside Church. 

Rather than completely controlling Hope House because that's where all the volunteers and board members came from, I'd say that now it's more of a "many stake-holder" in the work here. But we do have a separate board and have separate policies and procedures, and we are not a faith-based organization. That was the way they designed it.

Hulet: I thought I had to ask that.

James: To be honest I was completely confused when it was first explained to me. It took me several times hearing before I could understand the relationship.

Hulet: Thanks for explaining. I asked because that is an issue in this town. People are quite afraid of Lakeside Church because of what they see South of the boarder. The influence of evangelical churches on the life the nation. So I had to ask.

James: That's fair.

We're always afraid of the things we haven't had an experience with, or have had a negative experience with a specific group. One of the things I was surprised by---pleasantly surprised by---was the diversity of thought in the membership. Even on issues that I thought were very clearly defined in the evangelical tradition. That they don't all fall within the stereotype understanding of what that belief system should be. There is a real range of thought. 

That was eye-opening for me because I had always thought "they are one of those big churches"---I had always attended a small community church. In my mind "big ones" were always for show and they didn't have as much connection between people. And yet the individuals I met there impressed me so I thought that there was more to see and I shouldn't just paint them all with the same brush. 

Do they have some challenges and things that I don't agree with? Yup. But that's how it is with everything in life.

Hulet: It's been a problem in our modern society. People want to form into football teams and then smash heads at the scrimmage line. 

James: Yeah. We struggle with talking with each other and having real conversations. In general we all want to be with others that all think like us, which isn't healthy. 

If someone thinks different from us many folks think we have to vilify them---just because they think different from us---which gets back to my habit of saying to myself "just because they have a different though doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong". 

We do make values statements such as in general murder is wrong, but sometimes these ideas do different between cultures. 

For example, I have some friends who's way of dressing is different from the way that I think I need to dress. But we've found ways to communicate and have a relationship and talk through things like clothing without thinking "because you dress that way there must be something deficient about you".

We're never going to be able to deal with hard and big challenges of our world if we can't even have conversations about the simple things---like clothes.

Hulet: There's an idea I came across years ago that has stuck with me: "the community of the dialogue". The idea is that you can't have a community without an on-going conversation.

James: I like that. That may show up in something we do in the future. It's a beautiful idea. 

&&&&

This ends my conversation with Jaya James. If you think that these articles are worth reading, why not support the work I do? Of course, you can subscribe through Patreon or Paypal. If you have a business, or are on the board of a community group, union, etc, why not consider buying an advert? Contact me about rates. If you can't afford either, at least share a link over social media. 

&&&&

Furthermore, I say onto you the Climate Emergency must be dealt with!