Intuitively, The Poor have relatively fewer monetary and physical resources than The Rich. But how does an economic-centric understanding of poverty affect our response? Vollman examines his experiences in light of economic definitions of poverty, from modern analyses published by governments, to historical social analyses by multitude of thinkers, including Rousseau, Smith, and Sinclair. At the center of of each of the economic analyses is the concept of quantitative (monetary or resource) normality, which Vollmann questions, given the relativity of markets in different economies (p 34). Therefore Vollmann attempts a more universal, qualitative, experiential normality through additional “dimensions of poverty” which include: Invisibility, Unwantedness, and Dependence (p 101). These additional dimensions are not in contrast to economic normality, rather they enable Vollmann to explore the impacts of economic poverty across cultures.
INVISIBILITY
Invisibility, as a characteristic of poverty, is the inability to evoke response, a form of powerlessness. As an example of invisibility, Vollmann explores how patriarchal Afghani and Pakistani societies dominate the definition of normality regarding the behavior of sexes. They create societal pressure that cause women to hide themselves from view. Vollmann interprets this as promoting a definition of normality which excuses the lack of response to women:
Everybody who passed could see them, and nobody saw them. They were beyond the pale. I took a stroll with one of them and people might have been disgusted, but they said nothing to us and we said nothing to them; we went our invisible ways. (Vollmann, 2007, p. 120).
While Vollmann expresses respect for the rights of men in these societies to make choices and to define the normality of behavior, he interprets the women’s situation as impoverished, and vows not to succumb to the temptation to ignore them (p. 122).
UNWANTEDNESS
Vollmann (2007) defines Unwantedness as the fear and possible self-loathing that results when one is seen as only a user of resources and not as a contributor to society (p. 127). Especially seen in migratory communities, the impoverished are those who fear being cast out if they fail to perform as dictated. Ultimately, unwantedness results in individuals and even groups of people believing that they are inferior and have nothing to offer society.
DEPENDENCE
Vollmann cites Dependence as another characteristic of poverty. The rich are able to afford independence. In contrast, the poor are needy. Yet Vollmann admits this definition is too simplistic. The rich are not really independent; they are not free. They are tied to their things. Vollmann is tied to his house (p. 133). So those who have more resources are not independent. If Adam Smith is to believed, the wealthy, if they are to maintain their quality of living, are ultimately dependent on others for labor. Adam Smith recognized that the harder the labor the shorter the duration a person can contribute the labor (p. 134). The individual, if his or her labor is misused, if not cared for, does not replenish. Thus, he or she is dependent on a responsible relationship to those who employ his or her services. The rich, in contrast, are not “used up” in the same sense as the poor. Therefore their dependence is of a different kind. The rich only risk becoming poor. But the poor risk pain and death. They take on jobs that are more dangerous and have greater risks. They perform tasks that are more taxing on health, like the Russian laborer who was forced to clean the accident at Chernobyl (Vollmann, 2007, p. 70).
The poor are not always forced into certain jobs. Poor People often willing pursue certain paths in an attempt to improve their state. However, because of their poverty, their choices play themselves out in arenas of highly calculated risks. Vollmann (2007) explores prostitution as an example of calculated risk, comparing the choices particular prostitutes have in America and in Japan. He discovers some, like Tiffany in America, who saw the practice as destructive to themselves and were desperate to escape (p. 169). While others, like Erica in Japan, entered freely into the practice, seeing it as the best route to a better life (p. 168). Vollman is disturbed by the amortization of the act, and cannot help making the monetary calculations. At what point will a person make enough money? In contrast, Vollmann share the story of Lotus, an middle-class American, who occasionally prostitutes herself (p. 166). Lotus does this not because of economic need, but because of economic want. She does not need the income to survive, although it has helped her survive better. She desires it, but is not dependent on it. Because of this Vollmann’s assessment is that Lotus is not, therefore, poor. (p. 166) Vollman concludes that all the women freely choose prostitution, and so are not to be condemned or pitied. However, those that are dependent on it, or who fail to see their risks are ill-conceived, are poor (p. 170).
Dimensions of Poverty
Vollmann, Poor People
Intuitively, The Poor have relatively fewer monetary and physical resources than The Rich. But how does an economic-centric understanding of poverty affect our response? Vollman examines his experiences in light of economic definitions of poverty, from modern analyses published by governments, to historical social analyses by multitude of thinkers, including Rousseau, Smith, and Sinclair. At the center of of each of the economic analyses is the concept of quantitative (monetary or resource) normality, which Vollmann questions, given the relativity of markets in different economies (p 34). Therefore Vollmann attempts a more universal, qualitative, experiential normality through additional “dimensions of poverty” which include: Invisibility, Unwantedness, and Dependence (p 101). These additional dimensions are not in contrast to economic normality, rather they enable Vollmann to explore the impacts of economic poverty across cultures.
INVISIBILITY
Invisibility, as a characteristic of poverty, is the inability to evoke response, a form of powerlessness. As an example of invisibility, Vollmann explores how patriarchal Afghani and Pakistani societies dominate the definition of normality regarding the behavior of sexes. They create societal pressure that cause women to hide themselves from view. Vollmann interprets this as promoting a definition of normality which excuses the lack of response to women:
While Vollmann expresses respect for the rights of men in these societies to make choices and to define the normality of behavior, he interprets the women’s situation as impoverished, and vows not to succumb to the temptation to ignore them (p. 122).
UNWANTEDNESS
Vollmann (2007) defines Unwantedness as the fear and possible self-loathing that results when one is seen as only a user of resources and not as a contributor to society (p. 127). Especially seen in migratory communities, the impoverished are those who fear being cast out if they fail to perform as dictated. Ultimately, unwantedness results in individuals and even groups of people believing that they are inferior and have nothing to offer society.
DEPENDENCE
Vollmann cites Dependence as another characteristic of poverty. The rich are able to afford independence. In contrast, the poor are needy. Yet Vollmann admits this definition is too simplistic. The rich are not really independent; they are not free. They are tied to their things. Vollmann is tied to his house (p. 133). So those who have more resources are not independent. If Adam Smith is to believed, the wealthy, if they are to maintain their quality of living, are ultimately dependent on others for labor. Adam Smith recognized that the harder the labor the shorter the duration a person can contribute the labor (p. 134). The individual, if his or her labor is misused, if not cared for, does not replenish. Thus, he or she is dependent on a responsible relationship to those who employ his or her services. The rich, in contrast, are not “used up” in the same sense as the poor. Therefore their dependence is of a different kind. The rich only risk becoming poor. But the poor risk pain and death. They take on jobs that are more dangerous and have greater risks. They perform tasks that are more taxing on health, like the Russian laborer who was forced to clean the accident at Chernobyl (Vollmann, 2007, p. 70).
The poor are not always forced into certain jobs. Poor People often willing pursue certain paths in an attempt to improve their state. However, because of their poverty, their choices play themselves out in arenas of highly calculated risks. Vollmann (2007) explores prostitution as an example of calculated risk, comparing the choices particular prostitutes have in America and in Japan. He discovers some, like Tiffany in America, who saw the practice as destructive to themselves and were desperate to escape (p. 169). While others, like Erica in Japan, entered freely into the practice, seeing it as the best route to a better life (p. 168). Vollman is disturbed by the amortization of the act, and cannot help making the monetary calculations. At what point will a person make enough money? In contrast, Vollmann share the story of Lotus, an middle-class American, who occasionally prostitutes herself (p. 166). Lotus does this not because of economic need, but because of economic want. She does not need the income to survive, although it has helped her survive better. She desires it, but is not dependent on it. Because of this Vollmann’s assessment is that Lotus is not, therefore, poor. (p. 166) Vollman concludes that all the women freely choose prostitution, and so are not to be condemned or pitied. However, those that are dependent on it, or who fail to see their risks are ill-conceived, are poor (p. 170).