The Deserving Poor

It seems to be increasingly common for socialists and social democrats to shrilly denounce the incumbent government for trying to reintroduce the distinction between the deserving and the undeserving poor. My point isn't to debate whether or not the government is actually trying to do so. Rather, it is to say this - that I can't, for the life of me I can't work out why this distinction is such a problem for some.

I suppose that part of it may well be that there is an element of judgement involved in deciding who should and who shouldn't be poor. Who makes that judgement? It's important because it gives the judge considerable power over the person being judged. In an ideal world, it could be argued, no-one would have the power to judge whether someone deserves their status in society or not. Then again, in an ideal world poverty wouldn't exist, surely?

Furthermore, socialists and social democrats have few qualms about judging who among the wealthy deserve their wealth and who does not - for example, those who have inherited their wealth. Indeed, there are some who are less discerning, and see all those who are rich as undeserving of their wealth and, following on from this, that the wealth should be redistributed to those who deserve/need it more.

Of course, someone judged to be as undeserving of their wealth is in rather an easier position to deal with it on the grounds of their wealth will mean they're faced with fewer problems than if they were living in poverty. But that doesn't change the fact that left or right, Labour or Conservative, rich or poor, the majority of us do make judgements as to the extent to which people deserve the circumstances in which they live.

Besides, might it not be helpful for someone living in relative poverty, (in part at least) through no fault of their own, but who has and is working hard to overcome that status to know that people see them as different to those who fail to do anything to alleviate their poverty? The tendency of socialists and social democrats to lump all people who could be considered to be poor together arguably damages the individuality of the poor and distorts the crucial reality that different people respond to being poor in different ways. Furthermore, surely the ways of dealing with people being poor differs depending on whether they are willing to work to change their circumstances or not? For example, someone who is poor and refuses to work is very different from someone who is poor and is desperately trying (successfully or otherwise) to find work, and the ways in which the wider community can help the different individuals must surely differ. Finally, it is worth noting that differentiating between the deserving and the undeserving poor does not necessarily condemn the latter to total deprivation and absolute rejection by society (even while acknowledging the fact that some who make the distinction want precisely that).

The point is that concepts of desert play a fundamental role in politics - and the poor represent no exception to this. To ignore this is to stick your head in the sand. So let's talk about the extent to which people might deserve to be poor or otherwise, and see where that leads political discourse.