Rationalizing Poverty: Kozol

       While pieces like Kozol's are incredibly important, the purpose and intended audience of the author matters so much. The language that is chosen and the facts and details that are included can influence - both negatively and positively - what impacts the reader. I think Kozol toes this line very carefully. When many try so hard to dehumanize and demonize the idea of poverty - and what traits "land you" poverty - Kozol offers the argument that there is no way to rationalize poverty.

      The way that he presents the individuals he interviewed is powerful, and brings the human element of class struggles that is so often ignored. However, I was conflicted with the moments in which Kozol paints Mrs. Washington's anger or indignation as passing, moments. This feeling stayed with me throughout the rest of the article. Yes, society needs to be reminded of the parts of the population we have forgotten. Who have, quite literally, been lost in the system. But I don't know if painting away anger by highlighting sadness is the way to do it. The moments of anger are no less important. I don't think Kozol actively attempted to do anything other than present a powerful, moving piece. Yet, in the end, I don't think Kozol does anything to dissuade the idea of "bad poverty" - individuals who have ended up there due to their actions - versus the idea of "good poverty" - individuals who, like Mrs. Washington, ended up there at no fault of their own. Yes, one of Kozol's strongest points is that there is no way to rationalize poverty. Yet, there is a subtle contrast  between the story he paints of Mrs. Washington and her son and the individuals on the street - the ones who ultimately will represent the "bad poverty."

As a Social Work Major, this makes me uncomfortable. I cannot begin to understand the struggles  of Mrs. Washington, her son, or any other individual Kozol interacted with. However, I do not believe any of them are any less worthy of help. I can't help but feel like society has created a hierarchy within poverty itself. I fear that, there will still be a need to point fingers at other individuals who are not as saintly as we want them to be. Would this story be as powerful or moving, if it wasn't about someone a general audience could draw empathy to? As debates about welfare, and who deserves welfare, and what testing should be done to guarantee welfare, and what can be bought with welfare abounds, I think what Mrs. Washington's son said about the people in power, is the only explaining that needs to be done:

"'Evil exists,' he says, not flinching at the word. 'I believe that the rich have done to the poor in this city is something that a preacher could call evil. Somebody has power. Pretending that they don't so they don't need to use it to help people - that is my idea of evil."