Hegel on Poverty

A while back the Young Hegelian had a post that reminded me of Hegel's passages on poverty in  the Philosophy of Right.  While these passages have been commented on extensively, I think it is worth noting that they reveal a great insight about our current situation. 

With all the recent self righteous indignation directed at the plight of the poor, it seems Hegel's discussion touches on something staring us in the face: The unfettered activity of a market economic system produces a group of people unable to participate in the benefits of that system.  While this may seem self evident to many Marxists, Hegel lays out the logic of this phenomenon without identifying a revolutionary alternative.  What is unique concerning the issue of poverty is that Hegel is unable to find a solution immanent within the system itself.  The larger implication is that the poor represent a certain blind spot for civil society, one that cannot be accounted for or incorporated into its regular functioning.  This presents a seemingly insurmountable problem for Hegel's dialectic, one that neither the mediating structures of Civil Society, nor those of the State, are able to accomadate.

Hegel does, however, discuss various mechanisms through which the lot of the poor could be alleviated:

When the masses begin. to decline into poverty, (a) the burden of maintaining them at their ordinary standard of living might be directly laid on the wealthier classes, or they might receive the means of livelihood directly from other public sources of wealth (e.g. from the endowments, of rich hospitals, monasteries, and other foundations). In either case, however, the needy would receive subsistence directly, not by means of their work, and this would violate the principle of civil society and the feeling of individual independence and self-respect in its individual members. (b) As an alternative, they might be given subsistence directly through being given work, i.e. the opportunity to work. In this event the volume of production would be increased, but the evil consists precisely in an excess of production and in the lack of a proportionate number of consumers who are themselves also producers, and thus it is simply intensified by both of the methods (a) and (b) by which it is sought to alleviate it. It hence becomes apparent that despite an excess of wealth civil society is not rich enough, i.e. its own resources are insufficient to check excessive poverty and the creation of a penurious rabble. {Philosophy of Right,245}

After rejecting the various possible solutions, Hegel concludes with an account of what has happened in England: "In Britain, particularly in Scotland, the most direct measure against poverty and especially against the loss of shame and self-respect — the subjective bases of society — as well as against laziness and extravagance, &c., the begetters of the rabble, has turned out to be to leave the poor to their fate and instruct them to beg in the streets."

It would seem that the only "solution" that respects the poor's autonomy is panhandling.  Though his theory of the modern State is aimed at integrating the various interests of civil society, on the problem of poverty, Hegel offers nothing more than to say: "The most important question of how poverty is to be abolished is one of the most disturbing problems which agitate modern society."

To Be Continued...

Comments

[Ben]

What about the idea of reducing poverty to a transitory phase in people's lives in concert with trying to stop repeated generations of families living the majority of their lives in poverty? I have heard smatterings of discussion (on public radio, mostly) of approaching poverty by seeing the poor as two somewhat distinctive populations: one population being comprised of those who move in and out of poverty and the other as being a more permanent "underclass", economically speaking, who live the vast majority of their lives in poverty.
I must stick in a qualifier here that I am wary of going too far down this road as it holds the possibility of being used as a convenient excuse for those who would do nothing to help the poor, i. e., someone really pressing the idea that there are few persistently poor people in society so they probably are getting what they deserve or some other trash argument like that. However, I don't have much of a problem with the idea of a system that allows for termporary stints of poverty as people transition between institutions and organizations. I think that could be a serviceable goal.
Does this make sense to anyone? Does it provide a more pragmatic alternative to the honorable yet lofty goal of eliminating poverty altogether?

[chuk]

there is a difference between financial ups and downs, and being hungry and unable to adequately cloth and shelter one's self intermittently. I doubt the former is really poverty, or at least the kind we think of when we think of a poverty that needs to be done away with. I would challenge any demographer to find widespread examples of the latter, in that it's hard to conceive of such a desperate poverty as being anything less than unremitting within the current system. this raises the question: "what kind of poverty are we talking about here?"

[Alain]

Ben, I appreciate what you are saying. Realistically, poverty (however it is defined) is an issue that must be faced pragmatically. We ought to aim at the amelioration of its most serious effects, as well as address the issue of the "permanent underclass."

But my thought in bringing up Hegel is that he saw poverty in terms of its systematic inevitablility. In my next post I will quote from some of the passages where he makes the case that a market based economy necessarily produces an underclass, fosters a "culture of poverty," and has no satisfactory means of solving it. While I am not a big fan of the culture of poverty argument, made prominent in the 1960's by Pat Moynihan, Hegel makes the case that the helplessness of abject poverty is structural. This is the part of the argument that I am focusing on.

[Alain]

Chuk, I agree that there is a distinction between economic ups and downs and abject poverty. But I will disagree with you that there is no widespread examples in our country, let alone the world at large. But without getting into the debate of how widespread "true poverty" is in the United States, I generally agree with Hegel that the "historicity of needs" turn the minimum standard of living into a measure that is always relative: "The lowest subsistence level, that of a rabble of paupers, is fixed automatically, but the minimum varies considerably in different countries." The main problem of the poor is that they cannot attain what is considered the minimum necessities in their particular society, but they still have the felt need to achieve this level. Civil society thus succeeds in internalizing its norms into people's consciousness while denying them the ability of meeting these norms.

Now you might say that is not a big deal, but for Hegel it is. His political philosophy requires that the modern State is able to integrate the various social and political conflicts into a self-differentiated organic whole. But when he addresses the issue of poverty, particularly that of a permanent underclass ("a rabble of paupers"), he is unable to find a solution that is logically consistent with the assumptions of modern society. The effect of this is to produce a large disenfranchised population that is systematically kept outside of the economy. This raises the questions of legitimacy, as well as economic and social stability. And whether you find Hegel's account convincing, it certainly seems to anticipate many contemporary discussions on the topic.

[Ben]

Alain,

My sociology background leads me to believe that structure and culture always live in a symbiotic relationship, feeding off each other and influencing each other. That being said, it is necessary to try and parse the extent to which causes of social phenomena stem from structure and to what extent they stem from culture. The ruling parties in our country have pretty much each staked a claim to one side setting up the two positions as adversarial thus distorting much of America's view of poverty and reducing much of the discourse of poverty in the mainstream to believing one side or the other and just another partisan pissing match rather than a pragmatic effort to try and do something about the problem.

So focusing on the structure, I take it that the theory is that any market-based structure runs on the assumption that there will be losers and willingly accepts the idea of rolling on while leaving the losers behind. My thought is that there can certaily be civic, public, or even private structures that focus on the left behind and these structures can and do function alongside markets. Obviously these structures have not eliminated poverty. So I arrive at the question is this failure due to innadequate size or funding? Does the structure in place hold the capacity to solve the problem but there is just a lack of will to use the structures? Or is it something bigger; is poverty inevitable in such a market-driven economy as ours?

[Amie]

Alain, thanks for posting this. It might be worth nothing that the word Hegel uses for the poor is die Standeslosen.

[Alain]

Thanks Amie. Doesn't he also use Pobel - which gets translated at the rabble - when he is talking specifically about the hardened underclass? At least that is my memory. The point being that he distinguishes those that are merely poor from the rabble as a class distinct from every one else.

[Alain]

Ben, I am in general agreement with your assessment of how the two parties use structural and cultural arguments. And I agree more resources and a greater will can make a difference. But Hegel's argument is that there is a structural feature within a market economy that necessarily produces an underclass. If he is right (and I am not sure but I tend to think he is) then what does this suggest for the legitimacy of the system as a whole? At least that is one of the key questions that I would like to raise.

[Jodi]

Alain,
I also thought he used Poebel. And, without going back to the text, I thought that he had two 'solutions' to poverty: the police (which have a role in social welfare) and military service (foreign wars). Now, you might say that these are not 'immanent' or internal solutions. But I would respond that you are stopping arbitrarily at the boundaries of the State when Hegel does not.

What do you think?

[Amie]

Alain, you're right, Hegel does use Pobel, often translated as rabble -- which does probably capture the dual sense of the word: poverty-stricken and malcontent (or rebellious).
(BTW, please excuse the typo in my previous comment, I meant "worth noting", not "worth nothing"!)
"Unless he is a member of an authorized Corporation (and it is only by being authorized that an association becomes a Corporation), an individual is without Standesehre" and such an individual "cannot live according to his estate because this estate does not exist (da der Stand nicht existiert)." [#253]
Which is to say, die Standeslosen are a non-estate, are not "really" members of civil society, and in a sense do not even "really" exist.
A spectral existence?

[Alain]

Jodi

You are right that I am limiting my discussion to Hegel's treatment in Civil Society. But if you look at the larger context, including his discussion of the Police, and Foreign Wars (which he actually attaches to colonialism), Hegel can not find a means for dealing with the rabble. In the sections immediately following his discussion of poverty he talks about colonialism as a necessary expansion to accomodate industrial over production. He even points out that it is a good means of getting rid of some overpopulation domestically (including the poor). But he never suggests that this provides a solution, nor can he find a way for accounting for them. I even wonder if someone like Zizek (who is a close reader of Hegel) is not inspired by these passages when he talks about the urban slum dwellers in developing countries?

So while you are right that I am limiting my analysis, I think a broader study would come to the same conclusion: the State, even in the robust sense Hegel provides, is not adequate to the problem of abject poverty. In fact Hegel makes a convincing case, by going through each of the solutions offered in his time, that there is not a response adequate to the challenge.

And thank you Amie for finding the passage on the Corporations, which function for Hegel much like the midevil guild system. The Rabble do not have a place in civil society and thus cannot look to any corporation for support. In fact, this just highlights the fact that there are no institutions available for integrating the Pobel into the larger whole.

But I will admit that I am an amateur and not a Hegel scholar. But I think it is striking that even for the master of reconciliation, it is difficult to see how this group of people have no place, and as Amie says, may not even really exist?

[Jodi]

Alain, well argued. You convinced me.

[Alain]

Jodi, I am not BSing when I say I am very flatered. And even if I am right, I am not sure that Hegel is a good source for what is to come next. When I read Hegel when I was younger, I hoped to find Marxist insight with different conclusions. And looking back at his work now, I find Marxist insight without any workable conclusion. Perhaps this is where Zizek (or Badiou's notion of the Truth Event) develop as a response to this blind spot?

[Ben]

Alain,

I had an feeling we were mostly in agreement. The last vestiges of my youthfully exuberant idealism rest in a belief that it is possible to have a combination of a market economy working in tandem with/alongside a socailist safety-net that raises the floor so the possibly inevitable underclass doesn't have it so bad and that poverty as a systemic, generational problem manifesting itself in certain populations' basic needs not being met can possibly be eliminated. America certainly has the means.

[ricia]

"..market based economy necessarily produces an underclass, fosters a "culture of poverty," and has no satisfactory means of solving it."

There is no doubt in my mind that this is true. In fact the theories of Capitalist economics are all bent on solving this
problem whilst they all clearly outline the necessity of the
class structure (that which motivates the Market). So it would seem, that it is impossible to sustain this particular flavour (structure) of the Market without a long spanning class gap.

The supporting theory is that you cannot eliminate poverty without limiting free will (the assumed benefits of the existing Market). All this really means is that it would terribly horrible to interfere with the liberties of the wealthy.

Poverty is often defined in a manner that is irrelevant and
misleading. One certainly does not have to be unemployed
nor homeless to be stuck in a cycle of real poverty. What is
required to achieve an acceptable standard of living within
an environment, is where the barriers are and what defines
poverty. The prefered measurement at the moment is one
that looks at broad-spanning income levels and median
household expenses from WITHIN the underclass. But does
not factor in, in anyway, real quality of life factors. From environmental, to educational, to something as easy to overlook as ones ability to purchase the right clothes for the right job. A family of two working adults is considered immediately above the poverty line due to these measurements, though both adults may be working twice to three times as many hours, with no coverage or security, in poor or risky working conditions, whom can't get their kids to the dentist let alone on a community soccor or swim team.

Research has shown consistently that families composing the underclasses have remained as such throughout the generations. Despite the overall "GDP" improvements in "successful nations". The most of these people have various
forms of work and somewhere to sleep.

There are even records of family names that
have consistently composed the uppermost classes in each of our nations. How is it possible that such a record could exist and be accurate while only tracking the family name? But it is accurate and in Canada the family lines date back to British rule and elitism. The current system prefers capitalists with capital and prioritizes them. Thus even after dramatic social, cultural, and technological changes - wherever you started in the class structure is where you are (unfortunately) most likely to remain.

[Alain]

Ricia, thank you for the insights, particularly the bits about Canada. My interest in this "theoretical question" is what it suggests about individual social and economic experience. As it is often said in the United States, most people are one medical catastrophe away from bankruptcy - evidenced by the fact that more than half of all bankruptcies are caused by medical debt. And of those, more than half those people had health insurance when their medical problems started. It seems that this should have resonance with more people, but doesn't for fear of embracing some abstraction called "socialism," or even worse, "communism."

[jason]

Hegelianism is part of the problem: any system of philosophy or bureaucracy generally will not be attentive to individual needs. The leftist bureaucrat may have some grand plans for a sort of society wide-elimination of poverty (never to be realized until the revolution, man), but each day he stiffs the bum in the Starbucks parking lot where he buys his latte. The whole problem of where do obligations extend to--to the few homeless in your own city or town, to your state, nation etc.--is never decided by hegel or marxist means either. Katrina aid is now chic--but why did that supercede say some starving laid-off IT workers in the Silicon valley or substitute teachers.

IN many ways the really destitute are better helped by philanthropists or charity groups rather than the State Mother. New Deal types of things--WPA--would be swell but bringing about anything like that will not occur with the Pelosi or Feinstein type of dem, who generally could care less about starving vets or working men in the street: the bums are better off practicing ID theft techniques, or maybe just robbing that academic liberal when he or she pulls up in his/her SUV to get his Latte.

[ricia]

Yes, I agree Alain.... "most people are one medical catastrophe away from bankruptcy.." Or a car accident (rendering them incapable of working), a death in the family, or a divorce for that matter. The illness and accident can be 'written off' in debate as a matter of 'chance' but the latter two eg's are inevitabilities. The fortunate have good fiscal timing to thank. The rest do / will not.

Jason, in a manner of speaking, I also agree with what you are saying. But only because I do not believe the existing system is functional thus should not be relied upon. From within it what you have described would work well in the context of the organisational seperation of communities (from dependency upon the nation state). Not the creation of more nation states, I should note - but organisational independence, as a first objective. This is too big a concept to describe in a comment post... sorry...

In short, I mean to say that we (the people) have to start organising and prioritizing and investing (time, effort, materials, or money). Even in Canada (where non-profits have awhile thrived by relative terms), community org's are not well enough supported to do what they are good at doing. With public involvement and personal investment, the so-called Volunteer Sector becomes hostage to gov't funding, regulation, beaurocracy, and neglect/starvation. Many of us (much of my history is in this sector) have started loosing charitable status etc., due to state dependancy and gov't value judgements (whose worthy of investment and who isn't) - which are expectedly politically and ideologically motivated.

[ricia]

oops... WITHOUT participation / investment we are hostage...

Also I wanted to comment on this wee divergent concept that I find fascinating about Hagel... The art of arguement. His theories are highly utilized in gov't today but especially in the rhetoric we catch (originating) from the USA. Have y'all read any of that stuff? I see it daily in the news and one could almost use the two big parties (up here and down south) as symbols representing his theory: their debates are based upon two positions that support the same outcome. Thus avoiding having the real debate in anyway and misleading the nature of the issue and / or problem entirely. Blah, blah... It's just a bit of Hagel that has really struck me and stayed with me for a long time now....

[Alain]

ricia

Thanks for the insights. You are absolutely right that the political parties focus their "debates" around positions that support the same outcome.

I very am curious if you think the volunteer sector can gain more independence from central government funding given the ideological constrictions you mention (gov't funding, regulation, beaurocracy, neglect)? Within the current distribution of power can independent, more local institutions provide a means toward an alternative?

[Ben]

Not to get overly cynical, but what do you all see as being most likely to occur?
Ricia, you said you don't believe the current system is functional. I'm not going to argue against that right now but I would like to point out Michels' Iron Law of Bureaucracy: once an organization exists its first and foremost goal is to continue its ongoing existence. This brings up a problem in my mind concerning what to expect as likely or probable to happen. It makes me see efforts by existing organizations as the most likely route any change/resistance-to-change will take. If the current system is non-functional, what is the most probable way of changing the system? What will it take to break through this conservative organizational culture that values the status quo?
I don't think it's impossible nor do I personally believe it will take vast, systemic change. I do wonder what you all think, though.

[Alain]

Ben, short of an economic collapse (which seems like a possibility) I do not see things changing any time soon. The fact that the current system isn't functional does not ensure its immanent collapse. In fact, I would say that the status quo benefits from short term "crises" to ensure the rallying affect - we are in a "state of emergency" and need to circle the wagons, "fighting them over there so we do not have to fight them over here," blah, blah, blah.

Having said that, I think the current legal problems of the White House and Republican leadership could provide the impetus for a general change in leadership, if not a change in policy. But the democrats seem absolutely clueless (with a few exceptions), lacking the will or vision to propose a true alternative. Without a strong opposition, there does not seem to be anyone in a position to take advantage of the current republican vulnerabilities.

[ricia]

oops... took me awhile to check back...

Alain, I think that communities (whether geographic or otherwise) need take up initiative. Ultimately, there is no purpose for the organisation that has no one to benefit nor understand its value. Most NGO's are severely under-staffed and rely largely upon volunteerism (though at the same time this sector actually comprises a huge "industry" monetarily, in Canada anyway). Org's are 'overseen' by volunteers on the Board of Directors, whom keep an eye on the vision and use of funds. Org's recruit persons of specialization as much as members from the communities they serve. Up here, the NGO will not survive without equalling grant funding with donor investment. The heart, spine, hands and feet and spirit of each org is its people - all those whom keep it operating. I've seen long term problems result, however, from B.O.D. convictions that the org must slave to attain funding (altering its commitment to the mandate through the process) - above and beyond its efforts to further link up to the broader community.

To generate a further move away from state dependency, further investment and participation is required, from larger swaths of the surrounding population. These org's are extremely educational for participants, but due to administration efforts (to secure funding and donors) the community outreach capacity is limited. Org's are not empowered enough to contribute to larger degrees to cultural education - that which would encourage much further support / involvement. 'Round and 'round we go... The only opportunity for growth and further independence in this cycle, is people. But without awareness, how to more folks become involved?

So the heart of all matters (in my view) is cultural education. How we achieve this? Every effort counts; from formal education to parenting, to community experiences and collective projects.
But ultimately, in the current atmosphere, commencement relies upon the few committed to excert effort with these objectives in mind. Building a 'unified' counter culture contributes greatly to these objectives - so long as it does not remain on the fringe and does penetrate popular culture. I think this has and will take generations to nurture - but only because so few have so little to work with and we are up against so much (prominate cultural influences).

On that note, Ben... " once an organization exists its first and foremost goal is to continue its ongoing existence." I believe that this is true because we allow the (selective) logic of conventional culture to organise our organisations! Once we turn mandates into charts and figures, equations and (most importantly) specialized labour - we destroy an org's reliance upon and inspiration from people, instead of encouraging integration with community. At that time we begin to nurture new influences, barometers, and thus objectives. In my view, the adaptation of typical market measures, processes and expectations seperates the human intentions and purposes from the existance of the org - this in turn, creates a form of institution that has a life of its own and its survival becomes its only priority.

The more inseperable an org is from its human community, the more flexible, imaginative, purposeful, effective and impactful that org will be. Organisations with high community participation and personal investment remain relevant and sustain the values that which drive its purpose. Once the 'way it is run' begins to contradict the communities (human) values or leave them out in their charts and equations, the org is but a structure wherein all participants work for its sake. As opposed to the other way around.

Resistance to change is only a problem wherein there is a predisposition to measuring values on a hierachal scale (in my opinionated wee head). Where religion, for example, takes precidence over human elements. Where capital gain or influence takes precidence, where a singular event or circumstance takes precidence... The bottom line has make humanist qualities and values equal to all other concerns and /or ventures.

In my experience, structural or operational decisions that do not uphold those values are the downfall of the benefit of any org. Just as specific structural / operational methods can serve to intentionally distort the org's purpose and benefit. Gov't could be seen this way. Universities can be seen this way. Etc. Etc.

Gee, its super early in the morning and I've barely suceeded in my coffee quota. Not sure how susinct or even readable this great long comment is! Spelling is bad.. sorry 'bout that...

But I thank y'all for your patience with my indulgence. I am hoping to embark upon a blog post series that addresses "solutions" sometime in the near future. So as to invite more detailed analysis and inspection on such matters. Perhaps some of you would be inspired to contribute?

I'm up to my eyebrows at present, and it's all just too hard to put down conclusively in responding comments (which doesn't seem to stop me from trying)... but perhaps in a month or so... I'd like to devote a series of posts to it all...

[Alain]

Ricia, I really appreciate your insights. It sounds like you have a lot of first hand experience working in NGO's trying to do good work. The only institutions I have ever worked in are Universities and larger for profit financial companies. I have seen little in either place to give me much hope but I can see that my experiences are limited. The following comment is what most interests me:

"Once the 'way it is run' begins to contradict the communities (human) values or leave them out in their charts and equations, the org is but a structure wherein all participants work for its sake. As opposed to the other way around."

This points to one of the biggest obstacles to effective institutions: they become vehicles for their own survival or for some special interests agenda. My hope is that these issues are not insurmountable and I look forward to seeing how you address them.

And please keep engaging over here - you really bring a much appreciated "real world" perspective to the discussion.

[ricia]

Awe shucks... Thanks Alain, for the kind words...

Yes, I think I can understand what you refer to as I have recently started working for an art college. I was immediately (and continue to be) shocked by the differences in thought processes and approaches in this environment. Perhaps I am most surprised because it's an art institution, and is nearly entirely staffed by artists. Not nearly as bad as it gets at the local university of course - but really a whole different world to live in.

There is hope. Whether that adds up to change... In our lifetime...? That will definately take a whole lot o' work by a whole lot 'o folks... And might initially require a leap of faith.

; )