This week in the world of Real-Life SuperHeroes, I became aware of a citizen-in-need who had accused an RLSH of not helping him enough, and that is something worth discussing. I think I'm going to offer a distinct opinion or two here, so please know I'll do my best to label them as such, to differentiate them from the more objective "things to think about" points I usually try to make.
When you or I see someone who is "down on their luck" or whatever term fits best, there are a number of factors that present themselves in that situation. First, I think most of us identify immediately that that person is having a problem and at least the "food and shelter" aspect of his or her life isn't where s/he would like it to be. There are then a number of split-second decisions your brain makes that determine how the rest of that moment will be handled. See, the first thought we have after seeing someone in a bad place already begins our classification: is this someone with whom we empathize, or is s/he a "tough shit; best of luck" scenario? If you see someone and simply say "Oh well - better him than me," that really is the end of that. You then likely move on with the rest of your day, which is your choice to make, and there's no more to say about it. I've found, though, there are indeed people who hesitate, even if just for a moment, to consider that person's misfortune, and their following actions are what I'd like to discuss.
There are those who pause at seeing a person who has fallen on hard times and decide how to act based on how much of that person's misfortune is "their own fault." Assuming we are taking people on a case-by-case basis, and not the "all homeless people are junkies/drunks" generalization, it is still a part of human nature to judge people based on what you see at a first impression and to subconsciously identify differences and barriers between you and that person. Here, some people will decide there are enough differences between them and the unfortunate citizen that they can blame him for his fate and they can move on guilt-free. "Well, he was drinking when I saw him; I'm sure he got himself into that mess so he can get himself out." Again, at this point, this is the end of the scenario for that person. Some others will not blame the person for his/her misfortune and they will continue on to the next step.
Next, there are those who see that person in bad shape (whether it's "their own fault" or not) and immediately, irreversibly empathize. So what does the person who empathizes do then? It is at this point that I offer an opinion. I often hear people in some kind of trouble say to others, "It's enough to know that you care." Now, that's interesting. Sometimes I agree with that; it boosts my spirits to know when I'm having a hardship that someone out there is pulling for me, made more aware of the situation through my example, etc. I like that I can help people lose their preconceptions about whatever crap I'm going through by seeing me go through it. However, it is of my opinion that people can start using that as a crutch. If someone gets laid off and loses their pension, their house, their car, simply saying to yourself "Man...too bad" is not only not helping that person, but it's not helping anyone else who has fallen or may fall into that same trap. Now, no law says that person is your responsibility (which I'll get into in a minute), but I don't understand that people feel better about themselves in regards to that person's life just because they shook their head and felt bad for a second. End opinion.
It may seem like splitting hairs, but the alternative option to that step in social empathy is actually a crucial one. When you empathize with someone's situation, we just discussed not doing anything for them besides feeling bad. Well, even then, the most indirect seed of helping has already been planted in your mind. It's a possibility that even if you don't help this person immediately, maybe they stick in your mind (and you decide in 10 or 20 years to advocate a law or elected official dedicated to helping people get back on their feet) - or maybe they don't. This step in your mental process is that of empowerment. We ask ourselves, "Can I do anything about this?" If not, see the previous paragraph. If so, maybe you take the "eventual assistance" route that you see enough hopelessness in the world that one day you do something about it.
And it is here that we must first ask the question of the day: Is that enough? Is it enough to see enough hunger, poverty, crime, whatever on the streets victimizing Persons A through C that eventually we help Persons D through F? In the general mindset that "helping your fellow person" is a good thing as opposed to a bad thing, then the first few people's plight leading up to your decision to support the next few people is certainly a step in the right direction. Up until this point, we discussed being willing or unwilling to help someone in need. Then we discussed believing ourselves to be able or unable to do the same. Now that we're looking at being willing and able, what then? How active is active? What responsibility does one have to his or her fellow human? Where does helping meet enabling?
Essentially...how much is enough?
That's a question that predates my research into the RLSH community and I don't have a simple answer for it. I will present all the philosophies of the argument I've heard, though, without taking a side. Some people, RLSH or not, believe the best way to help society at large is to ignore people down on their luck. This is, as close as I understand it, a pretty hardcore sense of Darwinism - only the strong survive; the weak ones will eventually just die off and society will be stronger without them. This closely parallels some hard calls that officers in the military have to make, as well: is it right or wrong to sacrifice one to save many?
Others seem to believe in the old proverb: "Give a man a fish and he eats for a day; teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime." The closest parallel for this in modern life is that these people believe it may be alright to bring food-and-supply packs to those homeless/unfortunate folks, which will help them in the short-term, but that by giving them their immediate needs, one is simply enabling them and teaching them to rely on others. These same people will either commit themselves to "teaching them how to fish," e.g. helping the downtrodden find jobs and low-rent housing and so on, or they will simply offer no alternative solution and resign themselves to decry those "giving a fish" as being "part of the problem."
A third group of people believe in helping others in any way they can. I've heard many RLSH look at the opposite side of the same coin as the previous group - that "I may not be able to turn their whole life around myself, but I was able to buy this family some more time with food and supplies." There are plenty of RLSH featured in Penny Cavalier and elsewhere who leave their homes with supply packs to hand out to the homeless, none of which are necessarily inexpensive.
The final group of people believe in attacking the problem at its earliest source - whether that source is an unfair employer, a bad economy, a drug dealer or whatever else put the misfortune into someone's life.
So who needs or deserves help? Whereas earlier we looked at the empowered side of the issue of responsibility for a stranger, here we have to decide that individual's sense of responsibility and ability for him/herself. It's the "willing and able" tool we used for our helpers, only with different qualifying circumstances - if someone is willing and able to take care of him/herself, s/he absolutely wouldn't need the assistance of another person or government agency.
Another common view of the needy, which is the stereotype of them, is that they are "able but unwilling" to take care of themselves - and thus undeserving of any help. If a particular person in need sees himself as "able but unwilling" to get back on his feet, he is saying that the rest of the world owes him a living, and for whatever reason, he shouldn't have to work for it. Again, this is only if the person is truly able but not interested in taking care of himself. It's harder to reconcile this school of thought with a logical gauge of mutually-beneficial life in the western world.
Finally, there are those who are "willing but unable" to be in the same productive place in society as most of us are. They suffer from some kind of disadvantage - be it physical, mental, economic or otherwise - that places them in the awkward position of wanting to lead a better life than they do but being helpless to make it happen. This is a very real scenario, one with which people live every day. It becomes difficult then to determine who is truly unable and who is truly unwilling to support themselves, which is a decision that everyone from their family members to social workers to RLSH must each make, one case at a time.
Once the decision is made, however, what can that person expect in terms of help, short- and long-term? Now that we've identified all the elements in the equation, we can address that question again: How much is enough? In the end it's not up to me to decide; there are as many variables as different cases. In all my research into the world of the RLSH I keep coming back to having to take everything at face value in their lives - a necessary practice, but one as exhausting as learning a new language in every instance. The only person legally responsible for each of us is ourselves. On the other hand, the volunteer has pledged to be A Person Who Helps - but whether you think the extent of their help is enough or not isn't up to them.
