In “Changing the Face of Poverty: Nonprofits and the Problem of Representation,” the author, Diana George, is responding to Habitat for Humanity’s public representation of what they believe to be poverty. This issue is relevant because poverty is a global problem that is drastically increasing with time. George’s main argument is that “[the Habitat for Humanity’s] representation of poverty is a narrow one and functions to narrow the ways we might respond to the poor who do not fit this representation” (6). Habitat for Humanity, a nonprofit organization, narrows down the term poverty to mean a lack of housing. As a result, their campaign almost solely focuses on encouraging their audience to either donate funds or volunteer in building housing for the poor. However, there are legitimate limitations with this representation of poverty.
One limitation that the author underscores is the difficult decision of how to choose which poor people should receive access to housing that the organization sets up. There are a countless amount of poor people in the world, and no organization has the means to provide housing for everyone, so Habitat for Humanity must come to a consensus as to who is more deserving of their housing and who isn’t. To further exacerbate this point, another limitation is that many people who are in poverty don’t necessarily believe themselves to be. George cites Stanley Aronowitz’s The Politics of Identity, and explains that social class has become fluid as a result of consumerism and buying things on credit (5); this makes it harder to discern who deserves the housing and who doesn’t. Finally, this representation of poverty makes those in poverty more susceptible to being blamed for their economic situation as well as decreases the chance of establishing laws or policies that permanently address poverty.
I definitely agree with a lot of the points George makes. For instance, I don’t think there is a set example of what poverty looks like. I think poverty manifests itself in different ways that doesn’t necessarily have to be lack of housing. A person in poverty could have housing, but can still be lacking basic needs. For instance, many people in poverty have housing, but don’t have access to healthcare or adequate hospitals and clinical facilities. For others, poverty can mean not having a sufficient amount of funds to cook nutritious food. Poverty can also mean not having access to proper or working public transportation, which would inevitably inhibit access to education or jobs. Additionally, I agree with George’s point that Habitat for Humanity’s solution to poverty is problematic. Because they are narrowing their representation of poverty to lack of housing, most of their funding and volunteer work is going to building houses, which I don’t think gets to the root cause of poverty. George writes, “...it suggests that one of the most serious results of poverty (inadequate shelter) can be addressed quickly with volunteer efforts to bring individuals up and out of the poverty cycle” (5). Their solution masks the root cause, what George claims is capitalism, and makes it harder for their audience to realize that poverty is a cyclical problem and building housing for proportionally very little of those in need is merely a band-aid solution (4).
A challenge that this article has brought up for me is how exactly to quantify or explain poverty. For Habitat for Humanity, poverty is mainly a lack of housing. For another non-profit organization, poverty can mean something else. I think that before a non-profit organization tries to come up with a solution, they have to identify both the cause and it’s manifestations. For instance, the critically acclaimed Merriam-Webster defines poverty as a state of being poor, but no non-profit or policymaker is going to hand poor people wads of cash and consider that a solution. Thus, a better definition and explanation of poverty must be thought up of first.
One limitation that the author underscores is the difficult decision of how to choose which poor people should receive access to housing that the organization sets up. There are a countless amount of poor people in the world, and no organization has the means to provide housing for everyone, so Habitat for Humanity must come to a consensus as to who is more deserving of their housing and who isn’t. To further exacerbate this point, another limitation is that many people who are in poverty don’t necessarily believe themselves to be. George cites Stanley Aronowitz’s The Politics of Identity, and explains that social class has become fluid as a result of consumerism and buying things on credit (5); this makes it harder to discern who deserves the housing and who doesn’t. Finally, this representation of poverty makes those in poverty more susceptible to being blamed for their economic situation as well as decreases the chance of establishing laws or policies that permanently address poverty.
I definitely agree with a lot of the points George makes. For instance, I don’t think there is a set example of what poverty looks like. I think poverty manifests itself in different ways that doesn’t necessarily have to be lack of housing. A person in poverty could have housing, but can still be lacking basic needs. For instance, many people in poverty have housing, but don’t have access to healthcare or adequate hospitals and clinical facilities. For others, poverty can mean not having a sufficient amount of funds to cook nutritious food. Poverty can also mean not having access to proper or working public transportation, which would inevitably inhibit access to education or jobs. Additionally, I agree with George’s point that Habitat for Humanity’s solution to poverty is problematic. Because they are narrowing their representation of poverty to lack of housing, most of their funding and volunteer work is going to building houses, which I don’t think gets to the root cause of poverty. George writes, “...it suggests that one of the most serious results of poverty (inadequate shelter) can be addressed quickly with volunteer efforts to bring individuals up and out of the poverty cycle” (5). Their solution masks the root cause, what George claims is capitalism, and makes it harder for their audience to realize that poverty is a cyclical problem and building housing for proportionally very little of those in need is merely a band-aid solution (4).
A challenge that this article has brought up for me is how exactly to quantify or explain poverty. For Habitat for Humanity, poverty is mainly a lack of housing. For another non-profit organization, poverty can mean something else. I think that before a non-profit organization tries to come up with a solution, they have to identify both the cause and it’s manifestations. For instance, the critically acclaimed Merriam-Webster defines poverty as a state of being poor, but no non-profit or policymaker is going to hand poor people wads of cash and consider that a solution. Thus, a better definition and explanation of poverty must be thought up of first.