While Children Go Hungry…….

Marcus Rashford gettyimages-1257626131

I love Marcus Rashford! His statement on child hunger is brilliant, but I don’t entirely agree with him. In his impassioned plea for us to take child hunger seriously (which I could not agree with more), especially through the school holidays, he says: “this is not politics, this is humanity.” The reality is that EVERYTHING IS POLITICAL. Politics is about how we see the world and how we live together. Economics is about how we share and manage the resources between us. Child hunger and child poverty IS a political and economic issue! We can’t hide away from this. We can call for political unity over the issue, we can appeal to the deep compassion of the human heart – but we cannot try and de-politicise the issue, however hard we try. Nor can we remain silent, in case it looks like we’re playing party politics. I am not associated with any political party. None the less this is a deeply political issue – political with both a small p and a very big one!

 

Listening to the debate in the House of Commons about whether or not children should be given meals, provided by the state, during the school break, there seemed to be four main objections to the idea proffered by some of the Conservative MPs.

 

  1. Rather than give children meals, thereby nationalising them, we should be actively promoting parents to take more responsibility, rather than being absent and encourage them to provide for their children properly. We need to deal with the causes of the causes.
  2. If the state were to intervene, it only encourages dependency and laziness by parents who can’t  be bothered to provide for their children properly
  3. The state is already giving out quite enough help already, thank you very much, via Universal Credit.
  4. We’ve all got to play our part in helping out. We’ve had ‘eat out to help out’ for the rich, now we need ‘eat nowt to help out’ for the poor…..(slight tongue in cheek point, perhaps….)

 

Let’s just examine these from both a population health and social justice perspective:

 

  1. Well….I don’t know of very many parents who don’t want to ‘take responsibility’ for their children’s wellbeing. In fact there is hugely weaponised stigma and societal shame (wrongly) applied to those who can’t. There is a massive difference between not wanting to and not being able to. I don’t disagree that we need to get to the causes of the causes of poverty and child hunger – absolutely right! But this will take a generational, focused, gargantuan and sustained effort and will involve us turning the tide on: Adverse Childhood Experiences, an unbalanced and unequal education system, spiritual and psychological degradation, ingrained and systemic racism, white privilege and abusive patriarchy, county lines, unaffordable land and housing (both to buy or rent), poorly paid work, a broken justice system (over 300000 children have at least one parent in prison) etc. We should definitely work on all of this! And as we do it will enable people to be able to take more responsibility and make more positive choices – I’m all for that. Unfortunately at present, the reality is that there are far fewer real choices available for people living in our most economically deprived communities. This is not about either/or – it’s about both/and. So, in the mean time, whilst we’re working on the causes of the causes, perhaps we could also guarantee that we don’t perpetuate the cycle further and ensure children are fed?
  2. The idea that by the state stepping in it encourages dependency, fecklessness and laziness is actually ridiculous. State intervention to provide for the hungry would actually show that we have a society and a government who care deeply for people who are struggling and having a hard time. It is one of the great debates about the role of the state, but the sad reality is that charity alone, simply won’t cut it. We need a state (be that city, regional or national – preferably all), that acts as a safety net for those who are finding life the hardest. Rashford puts it best: “……since March, 32% of families have suffered a drop in income. Nearly 1 million have fallen off the payroll. This is not dependency, this a cry for help. There are no jobs!! 250% increase in food poverty and rising. Nobody said this was simple…” Until we fix the causes of the causes, we are going to need to ensure we have appropriate interventions to the difficult realities so many in our communities face. Perhaps this might include children being fed through the holidays?
  3. Despite the ‘positive changes’ to the benefits system, with more people in work, we had rising poverty levels even before the pandemic, with more children in poverty, (worsening over the last ten years) and now we have massive job insecurity, higher
    Rise in use of Food Banks – Trussell Trust

    unemployment and we’re heading into a recession. At such a time, to imply those benefits are enough, when we know that the use of foodbanks (which are supposed to be a temporary measure) is rising, is somewhat short-sighted. I have heard so many testimonies of families who are on the ropes. Holiday food vouchers are a life line. However good you might think your benefit system is, when families are telling you they are having to choose between fuel and food as we head into winter, perhaps we might want to think about how we ensure children are fed? After all, nutrition is one of the key building blocks of a healthy and well child.

  4. It is simply inhumane to ask the poor to fit the bill of the ill thought through spending of public money over the previous several months. There have been some VAST pay outs (which will indebt the very children the government are refusing to feed) to many companies, with clauses protecting them should they not deliver on their contracts, (which is lucky for them, because they have failed, badly)….and yet we can’t find the money to ensure that children are fed. One might wonder whose side the government is on.

 

I make no secret of the fact that I am personally deeply motivated by the politics of Jesus. There are two really clear things that he had to say on the issue.

 

  1. “I have come to preach good news to the poor” (Luke 4v18-19) – and he backs this up by stating that He will restore ‘Jubilee’ – this is a radical economic redistribution of money and resources, to the poor, to combat greed and bring things back onto a level playing field.
  2. “Let the children come to me, for to such belongs the Kingdom of Heaven” (Luke 18v16) – Not only are we to care for children, because they are important – we’re supposed to become more like them (Matthew 18v3)!

 

In other words, if the politics of Jesus are to be taken seriously (and it seems that many conservative voters and MPs profess a ‘Christian’ faith), let it be noted that according to the Christian faith, the poor, the hungry and children really matter to God! And yes – there is space for the church, other faith organisations, charities, communities and local leaders to step into the gap and ensure children are fed, despite the government’s response – but there is also a ‘prophetic mandate’ to challenge injustice and hold leaders to account. The truth is that the need is great – 1 million children across the UK will be hungry over October half-term – they don’t want this to be ‘relooked at for Christmas‘ – they want their bellies fed now. The national government’s arguments fall flat. While children go hungry, they find themselves defending their senseless ideologies and punishing the defenceless. They urgently need to change their minds!

 

 

Share This:

Share

How Does Change Happen? – Part 3

In the last two blog posts on this subject, I’ve looked at the work of John Paul Lederach and Valerie Fournier in thinking about how change occurs in society. I’m returning to Lederach in this blog, to think about the next phase in social change – something, he calls “anchor points”.

 

Anchor points are people, places or communities to whom change has happened and who are on with the journey of starting alternative moral economies/experiments. They become anchors when they are rooted in a geography or set of relationships, which gives them a sense of longevity and consistency. Once infected with the virus that things cannot remain as they are, an anchor becomes a place where people dig deep, willing to make mistakes, to try new things, to fail early, to learn and to try again. This mixture of humility, bravery and innovation is vital if change is really going to begin to embed.

 

It begins to become really exciting, when anchor points connect. When a few people or communities within a given geography or inspired by the same hopes begin to connect, then the anchoring becomes even stronger. The space between the anchors, which some call transitional space or liminal space, becomes the place for strengthening and encouragement, but also the substantial reality in which the change begins to take place. My friend, Michael Schiffman sees it this way: “It’s like the emergent social change is of a particular colour. The hope of the social movement is not to take over the current institutions and try and lead them differently. Rather, the colour of the movement begins to flow into everything around it – communities, institutions, all facets of society. As it does, it begins to transform those spheres by infusing and diffusing its colour into and through them.” The change begins to happen almost unconsciously – and this is where one of two things can begin to occur: transformation or resistance.

Hitting against resistance is tiring and can feel intimidating. This is why anchor points need each other so much. They must hold each other, have each other’s backs, speak well of one another, believe the best and hold onto hope. They must continue to do their own inner work and stay true to the values which they hold. AND importantly (as Hilary Cottam taught me), they must learn what they are saying no to, as much as what they are saying yes to. As they do this, they will find fresh opportunities to bring change. My friend Roger MItchell talks about this around the concept of ‘Kenarchy’, which literally means the emptying out of power, or self-giving, others-empowering love. In his work, ‘church, gospel and empire’, he looks at love as an antidote to power. Social change, he argues, happens through a three-fold pattern of subversion, submission and substantiation. In other words, social change happens, as per Fournier, through outrage and challenging the inevitability of current social norms (subversion); creating moral alternative economies – but situated in the current realities – not somewhere or somehow separately (submission); and then making those things real in that context and thereby giving them grit/substance in every day life – anchoring them in communities (substantiation).

Once a social movement becomes substantiated it really begins to effect wider change. It has found enough momentum to begin to saturate it’s context with a new possibility that is no longer a dream on the horizon but a truly alternative way of being in the here and now. At this point it will either be resisted more forcefully, in which case, it has to become even more resilient and anchored, or it will begin to change and effect every level of society, including the very important arena of policy and governance. The biggest danger to the movement at this point is that it becomes subsumed, commodified and severely compromised by those powers who do not really want it  bring about radical change and therefore alter it enough to still look a bit like radical change, but in actual fact simply ensure it serves the status quo, but in another guise! Resist and keep on loving!

Share This:

Share

How Does Change Happen?

Tweet How does change happen? This has become an incredibly important question to me over the last few years, and I am still on a big learning journey in discovering some answers. There is so much that needs to change – so much that is currently going on in our communities that simply doesn’t work [Continue Reading …]

Share