Let’s not muddy the language of poverty

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/24/language-of-poverty-inequality-britain

Version 0 of 1.

It’s a cosy thought: the word “poverty” is nothing more than lazy nomenclature, unfair shorthand for helpless, naked babies with swollen bellies and xylophonic ribs. Sure, we have “the poor”, but our lot are not a patch on our global neighbours who are going to town on the word. We’re not hiking five miles for a jug of dirty water; we have good samaritans like the Trussell Trust handing out “golden tickets” to those in need. All things being relative, we have systems in place that, despite allowing us to dangle perilously close to the bottom, keep us from falling into third-world hell. Our social safety nets imbue the unarticulated assurance that the UK is OK.

In the wake of the Scottish referendum result, it was mooted in a BBC discussion that Britain has a “poverty of perspective” issue. John Lanchester recently mooted that the word “poverty” has distracting moral associations – that “no one really starves”. And Conservative councillor Liam Marshall-Ascough has argued against food banks in Crawley because he can’t book a restaurant most weekends. All this demonstrates a grisly trend of marginalising the deprived – not only in sentiment, but in slovenly language that denigrates a 21st century epidemic.

Regardless of locale or status, humans come primed with words and – if you’re particularly lucky – a pen and an audience. Given how many of them we squander on pleasantries, you’d be forgiven for forgetting their universal import. In syllables and scribbles we transmit feelings and meanings; utterances paint frescos in the minds of others. Soft synonyms ease consciences and incline us to consider things less problematic, making us feel better and unfairly shunting matters to the bottom of the priority pile.

When we discuss social exclusion, by interchanging “poverty” and “deprivation” with “inequality” we muddy the issue. We displace a word that conjures images of suffering for one with statistician-like sterility. We lose the juxtaposition of poor against rich and settle in a no man’s land of figures, studies and linguistic relief that frees us from facing a rather ugly reality: poverty exists in Britain.

While it may not be the levels of far-off destitution we’re most inclined to recall, the truth is that many go without the most basic of comforts we consider intrinsic to living. There is little dignity in regularly going hungry to feed your children, telling crying two-year-olds to put coats on in bed or being in such a bind that you pawn a dead parent’s wedding ring just to keep a roof over your head. This was my life – a life of being poor in a wealthy country. No amount of carefully considered thinktank or focus group terminology comforts when surviving on some tinned peaches and a Pot Noodle you can scarcely afford to heat.

It’s all too convenient to default to academic parlance that distances us from an issue, though in the hands of the influencers and policymakers this is an egregious oversight. Applying new labels to a timeless problem veils the jagged reality with woolly language – often used to justify actions that directly harm those most in need. Words are the catalyst for action, and in positions of power we must employ them conscientiously. In dialogue, whether for peace of mind or otherwise, we must stop rendering our social dysfunction invisible.

The phrase “out of sight, out of mind” has never been more pertinent than when we apply it to the poor. We owe it to them and ourselves to voice evocatively so we don’t forget their injustices, or that we have to fight against them.