South Africa needs to constantly examine the narratives and ideas on which we have built our society.
While good intent is almost always at the core of these ideas, good intent on its own is never enough.
One of these narratives has to do with how we relate to the “poor”.
The first problem is identification of the “poor”. Often in our case the “poor” are the majority and the majority are often African.
But even that identification is attached to a second point – the moment at which such an identification is made.
To identify Africans as “poor” may seem accurate, but in a setting where we are trying to build a nation, it is problematic. Identifying people as “poor” inadvertently also identifies them as somewhat incapable.
The idea of “poor people” is attached not only to their material conditions, but also somehow implies a state of mind, maturity and ability.
So by constantly identifying Africans as “poor”, we’re inadvertently sealing their, or …eh, our fate.
We do this by endorsing a view of how we regard ourselves, of how we regard other people, and also of how other people might regard us.
This shapes the kinds of relationships we then form among ourselves, but also with people of European, Eastern or Asiatic origin, for instance.
The relationship which forms between people who regard themselves as privileged and those who regard themselves as poor is fundamentally flawed, even when such the relationship is established with good intent.
It becomes a relationship in which the roleplayers see themselves as indebted benefactors or entitled beneficiaries.
Whilst this relationship may seem fair considering the African history of dispossession, it does not provide a good foundation for building a future.
This is because these two sides are then locked into a perpetually and fundamentally unequal relationship.
Together with this is a mistaken acceptance of inequality as an inevitable part of human society, as well as the also flawed notion that material wealth on its own can improve society.
In such a paradigm it seems fair to take from those who possess perceived wealth and give to the “poor”.
The problem is that since the “liberators” often perceive themselves as “poor”, they give to themselves, entrenching inequality and corruption instead.
My second point relates to the problem of identifying people as “poor” at any given moment of time.
This is because it often leads to the assumption that they will remain “poor”. Which is not true.
People develop, change and, with effort, get better over time.
This is often conveniently overlooked for a multitude of reasons and by people with all sorts of dubious agendas.
As a result we often relate to those labeled as “poor” in a condescending manner which not only presumes they will stay “poor” forever but continues to endorse the perceptions of their perpetual poverty.
Simultaneously, in a misguided subconscious attempt to maintain an advantage over the “poor”, we promote any notions we might have about our relative wealth.
These kinds of mindsets and social dynamics provide politicians, particularly populists – as well as crass capitalists – with the means to manipulate entire classes and get votes or quick profits.
Were we to challenge these kinds of stereotypes, populists and corporate bosses would have to start working hard for the betterment of society – something they should be doing, but frequently are not.
One way to make changes is to change the way we think.
For instance, our definition of “the poor” and the way we talk about and to such people.
We can start by dismantling the notion that being “poor” is one’s fate, and instead adopt an approach that says whoever is poor at one moment is not automatically destined to stay poor.
We can recognise that a happy and stable society does not maintain a broad stratum of “poor people”.
And we can adopt an attitude that wants to see all people moving towards wealth – and endeavour to find solutions and create mechanisms for constantly moving people from poverty to relative wealth.
With this approach interventions can then be implemented to help transform all citizens from being the “younger poor” to the “older wealthy”, where people can progressively develop societal wealth in all its forms.
This includes spiritual wealth, skills wealth, moral wealth, and social and financial wealth.
Everyone person who fits the term “poor” at any point in their life would then become part of a march towards a better life in an upwardly mobile society.
The arcane idea of people having to “fend for themselves” would disappear and policy would then built on ideas that will make us great...