« "The Republic Party" | Main | Welcome Chris Bowers! »

February 10, 2007

Apathy is the Greatest Evil

by Stephen of the Thinkery

Thanks are due, of course, to our fine proprietor of this establishment for allowing me to post in this way.  I'll work hard at not messing the joint up.

Yesterday - Thursday - the LAPD received phone calls about a man crawling along the street in the infamous Skid Row, wearing nothing but a dirty hospital gown and a broken colostomy bag.  This man is a paraplegic.  The photo at the top of the linked webpage was taken last October in Skid Row.  It shows a man being transported from a hospital to a homeless shelter; the LAPD says that he "was one of five patients from the L.A. Metropolitan Medical Center who were photographed and videotaped by police being dropped off on skid row against their will."

That's some pretty bad stuff, there.  But like most news items, it only tells part of the story. 

I don't know about you, but I've worked in a couple of parachurch organizations devoted to helping the homeless - meals, shelter, clothes, medical care, job counseling/training, etc.  It's not easy work.  To be completely frank, homeless people are not the most appealing group.  I've been threatened, had personal property stolen and been told more lies than I could ever begin to catalog.

Perhaps, then, we should ask why a man who obviously would qualify for state and federal assistance because of his disability doesn't have a home or apartment to go to.  Homeless people can be erratic; maybe he demanded to leave AMA and to be taken to Skid Row.  Perhaps he was belligerent and threatening.

We should also consider the plight of the hospital in question.  Like any hospital that treats the indigent, we can be sure that this hospital is running under the tightest of budgets.  Doctors, nurses and orderlies are overworked.  Pressure is put on every level to do more with less, and people who make a habit of coming in and sucking up resources are making it more difficult for others to receive care they need.

Finally, there's the ambulance drivers themselves.  We can fairly safely assume that they were the ones tasked with finding a place for this man to go.  They were the final destination of this problem, and in a city like LA, we can be certain there were emergencies to which they could have responded had they not needed to deal with this problem.

If you are about to explode with righteous indignation at the way I've described this situation, good.  Perhaps you caught how I stopped referring to the unnamed homeless man as a person, instead describing him with the word "problem."  If this or any other part of my narrative bothered you, breathe a sigh of relief, because you have managed to avoid the trap that the hospital staff and ambulance drivers did not:  you maintained this man's humanity, and therefore your own.

There's a discussion in one of the myriad of posts on the "blogger scandal" about dehumanization.  It's easy to dehumanize one's political opponents, one's battlefield enemies, large groups of people who differ in some way.  But that's not the dehumanization that really concerns me.

The actors in this tragedy were face-to-face with a human being.  A man.  And as they worked with him, they transformed him from a human being to a burden, a problem that didn't need to be solved so much as simply disposed.  They succombed to the pressures of their jobs and responsibilities, and made a choice.  Perhaps this choice ensured that a sick kid got into the ER in time to avoid death.  Unfortunately, the reality is that they were pressured into this process by budgets, staff meetings, paperwork and this nation's continuing insistence upon not funding our healthcare system.

Eric Fair's heartrending article in the Washington Post is another example of this dehumanization process.  Thankfully he has been able to recover his own humanity through speaking out and admitting what he did and why.  He was just following orders, of course, just acting as he had been trained to act.  And perhaps the people he "interrogated" actually had valuable information.  Eric Fair, however, understands now that he was face-to-face with a human being.  A man.

Every day millions of law-abiding, tax-paying, good and decent Americans look one another in the eye and find ways to deny the humanity of the person standing before them.  "Whatever it is, it's not my responsibility," we say.  And I believe that nothing, not the Iraq War, not abortionists or abortion protestors, not illegal immigration or the Minutemen, not even George W. himself poses as great a threat to the continuation of our republic than this.

February 10, 2007 | Permalink

Comments

Perhaps, then, we should ask why a man who obviously would qualify for state and federal assistance because of his disability doesn't have a home or apartment to go to.

A disability check in California is very, very low -- much less in Los Angeles. I was able to get by in SoCal on a combination of disability and education grants; not having one or the other (even not paying the education costs) would have left me unable to pay either rent, food or medical care. I can see even someone who qualifies for disability becoming homeless in SoCal if they have no family to live with on the cheap.

Besides this: you make a good point. Everyday people have to try to reconcile the irreconcilable, to face the fact that they have to do harm, or fail to provide aid, to someone who desperately needs help, simply because they have no way to provide that help. The thing is, while dehumanization is saddening, everyday people cannot do the impossible. What we need is to fix the impossible situations.

This is of course easier said than done, but if I have learned one thing as a disabled person, it is that the disabled, the homeless, and the generally less-abled people in this world have no real representation in the political system, and so their needs are ignored. It IS the responsibility of those with privilege to do their due to fight back against this tendency, to try to represent those who cannot represent themselves, so that they are properly cared for.

Posted by: Amanda | Feb 10, 2007 2:09:38 AM

I worked with a woman, an alcoholic, with chronic osteomyelitis -- a bone infection that just wouldn't go away. She was pretty severely deep in Korsakoff's psychosis, and didn't remember much from day-to-day, but for the time I knew her, about five months, she was dry. That's a huge feat -- the only fact she knew about her history is that she had been a drummer in her high school band.

Her osteomyelitis would periodically flare up and take over her entire leg, which would break out in weeping sores. There wasn't anything to do but send her to the emergency room -- her SSI had been cut off (alcoholism) and, for that reason, she couldn't get Medicaid. They treated her with oral antibiotics (which aren't even a treatment for osteomyelitis, just the secondary cellulitis) and sent her back to the shelter.

Every time it happened, it would come back worse.
In the disease reservoirs in her bones, the bacteria were developing resistance. And every time she went in, she begged for someone to just take off her leg. Eventually, I started begging, too. If she didn't get the infected bone ablated or her leg amputated, she was going to die.

And no one would do it.

So she did.

Posted by: anon | Feb 10, 2007 2:44:00 AM

this is a very sad and heartbreaking story.from every point of view.
...your story reminded me of the news about the female astronaut the other day.
....with all of the commentary about her, there was mostly laughter that she was found in a diaper...who was thinking of the pressures she must have endured in the rigors of that program...who was thinking that she sounded like a person having a complete breakdown?
wasnt there any concern about her, as a human being...
what had transformed her?
just laughter and sensationalized comments.
i have never seen the show, "american idol"...but it sounds as though it is the same way.
there seems to be, beyond apathy, a sense of cruelty.
....have we become such an angry society?
one of the things that may not be so good on the internet, is that one does not have to confront in a direct and human way, the person that one is addressing, or reading about. it further distances us from interacting and "seeing" the whole human being.
.....and stephen,the thoughtfulness, perspective and humanity you will bring here, will only add enrichment and good sharings to this site. i think it is great that you will be creating commentary here.

Posted by: jacqueline | Feb 10, 2007 11:36:06 AM

and stephen,the thoughtfulness, perspective and humanity you will bring here, will only add enrichment and good sharings to this site. i think it is great that you will be creating commentary here.

I second that, jacqueline.

Until later, then.

Posted by: litbrit | Feb 10, 2007 12:16:19 PM

The actors in this tragedy were face-to-face with a human being. A man. And as they worked with him, they transformed him from a human being to a burden, a problem that didn't need to be solved so much as simply disposed. They succombed to the pressures of their jobs and responsibilities, and made a choice. Perhaps this choice ensured that a sick kid got into the ER in time to avoid death. Unfortunately, the reality is that they were pressured into this process by budgets, staff meetings, paperwork and this nation's continuing insistence upon not funding our healthcare system.

How this paragraph wounds with its terrible beauty. The truth: there it is. Bravo.

Posted by: litbrit | Feb 10, 2007 12:21:07 PM

Even though we are so good at it, deep down we know that to not acknowledge the humanity of others is a terrible thing. We are constantly "tempted" to compassion, to break the rules that prevent us from helping others, so much so that corporations and governments spend immense amounts of time and money trying to make us afraid of say, Palestinians or Mexicans so that we *don't* listen to our consciences, and don't demand change that *might* threaten the power and profits of those on top.

Our Malthusian, Protestant, fearful mindset insists that helping others will leave less for ourselves and our loved ones, that we are all on a lifeboat with only enough rations for ourselves, and that picking up the drowning will capsize us. Which is a ridiculously simplistic view that ignores both the costs of the loss of those people's productivity and the benefits they might bring if they were allowed back into society. Every lost soul on Skid Row is a lost contribution to our entire society.

We are a very fucked-up species.

Posted by: emjaybee | Feb 10, 2007 1:23:06 PM

This is a legitimately beautiful post. Well done, Stephen.

It makes me think of Levinas' notion of the infinite other - that our ethical lives should be organized by the notion that every person bears an infinity of value as human, and this infinity exceeds knowing. He was writing out the questions raised for a Jewish intellectual after the Holocaust, but his idea seems to fit onto the questions that Stephen raises here.

Posted by: DivGuy | Feb 10, 2007 1:29:42 PM

Congratulations Stephen on the new gig. Another testament to Ezra's good judgment. I hope you'll keep The Thinkery in good repair too.

This is such a difficult topic in some ways. My ideas about these things were first formed in connection with Christian teachings, which your thoughtful post reminds me of. Maybe you and others will forgive me for rambling through some religious ideas on this that might illustrate along the way some of the difficulties and, though they might seem abstract and theological, actually outline something personal. Though these ideas are in the context of Christianity, they are largely due to their Jewish roots and have analogues in other teachings, including secular ones.

The way I read the New Testament, there is a way of summing up the entire collection of Biblical commandments, a way that Jesus endorsed, that is more demanding than anyone can bear, if not for a promise that goes with it. The two Great Commandments are to love God with all your heart, soul and mind, and similarly, to love your neighbor as yourself. It has often been pointed out that the second commandment is just an elaboration of the first, which after all calls for total commitment, and would leave no room for a separate commandment that wasn't actually part of the first. The second commandment is the primary way in which the first is to be carried out.

That makes more sense when we consider the story Jesus told about the final Judgment of mankind, where some are received into heaven with these words:

'For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.'

Then the righteous will answer him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?'

And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.'

This idea is captured dramatically in the Christian hymn "A Poor Wayfaring Man of Grief," wherein a man does those things for a stranger, finally offering his own life to save that of the stranger, all because he saw something that moved him in the eye of the man, who at the end reveals himself to be Jesus. The challenge of every Christian would be to see God in the eye of every fellow, and to be moved by it. Our humanity is also our divine heritage, each of us the very image of God.

These beautiful ideas used to paralyze me as much as they moved me. I felt their obligations as a burden too great to even try to bear. How could I possibly even try to see in others the root of their humanity that would obligate me to treat their needs as my own, when there are so many whose needs are so much greater? Logically, it would seem to require that I give away my time and possessions until I was no better off than the global average, at least, since I was no more important that the rest. Actually, with the focus in Jesus teachings on "the least," the "lost sheep," and so on, one might easily conclude that one should just give everything away, until there is no one in need. And, in fact, Jesus tells one young man to do that, and implies in more than one way (I believe) that we should all do that, though perhaps not in the most obvious way. There's a promise that goes with that, that God will take care of our needs if we focus only on serving God. More generally, Jesus promises that his burden is light. Lacking the requisite faith in God, it was all way too much for me.

Though the obligation I felt to be Christian is no longer an issue for me, the basic problem remains. Is it a gift or a curse to be able to see the basic humanity of others? Sometimes I actually stop and think of each person as a universe all its own (DivGuy's post brings this to mind), with experiences and feelings and ideas as great as the understanding can reach and beyond, from the darkest sorrows to the lightest elations to the fullest joys, and it's baffling that any one of these should be neglected or lost, because they're each unspeakably valuable. Seeing a glimmer of such a thing pulls me to act differently towards them, and also gives me the natural impetus to do it, but that impetus is interfered with by so many other things that don't leave room for it. So I'm left conflicted. It's no wonder that we don't usually see more deeply into others--it might just make us crazy. Apathy is numbness, but maybe necessary numbness.

A similar point can be made in a very different way in terms of evolutionary theory, competition, and so on.

Still, for reasons that I probably don't need to explain, I can see rationally that it's best to see and do what we can. I don't know how to balance the needs of others with my own perceived needs. I just suppose I should do more, since I can. And when I do, I never feel robbed; I usually feel my own burdens lighter. Maybe there's more to the Christian promise than I credit.

Thanks for returning me to these ideas, Stephen.

Posted by: Sanpete | Feb 10, 2007 2:42:24 PM

"it's really a wonder that i haven't dropped all my ideals, because they seem so absurd and impossible to carry out. yet i keep them, because in spite of everything i still believe that people are really good at heart. i simply cant build up my hopes on a foundation consisting of confusion, misery, and death. i see the world gradually being turned into a wilderness, i hear the ever approaching thunder, which will destroy us too. i can feel the sufferings of millions and yet, if i look up into the heavens, i think that it will all come right, that this cruelty too will end, and that peace and tranquility will return again.
....in the meantime, i must uphold my ideals, for perhaps the time will come when i shall be able to carry them out."
~~~~~
anne frank
the diary of a young girl

she wrote this at the age of fifteen years.
may her memory be for a blessing.

Posted by: jacqueline | Feb 10, 2007 3:53:24 PM

"one should just give everything away, until there is no-one in need."

"is it a blessing or a curse to see the basic humanity of others."

sanpete, what a beautifully expressed commentary you wrote.
thinking about how much of ourselves can we give away...one thing i have learned...
in giving to others, we must not forget to care for ourselves as well.
if we give too much of ourselves away, we can no longer be "used" to create and heal others.
there is a balance that we must "feel" within ourselves, when we absorb too much of the world's suffering, when we lose too much of our own reservoir of spiritual and physical energy, we must find ways to stay whole and not become too fragile, too tired or we also will become too broken to help others.
..we must try to preserve our own blue flame, so that we can be "used", but not used up.

....regarding the second question, "is it a blessing or a curse to see the basic humanity of others..."
.......chekhov, i think, wrote a short story called "gooseberries", in which the thought was put forth, that as long as there is suffering in the world, we can never be truly happy.
and so it is....
and i think that it is a blessing...for the day we can forget the suffering of others, the day that we rejoice in our own happiness and forget the suffering of others, is the day we lose our own humanity.

also, i think it is important to note that one finds these teachings not just in the gospels of Jesus Christ, although they are so beautifully illumined there...but also in the Old Testament and in the teachings of Buddhism, especially in the visages of the Boddhisattvhas, who will not leave the earth until peace and happiness has come to every human being.
i think it is important to note this.
.......
i cannot remember where this passage is in the Torah:

"Therefore was a single human soul created
to teach you that to destroy a single human soul
is equivalent to destroying an entire world.
and to sustain a single human life
is equivalent to sustaining an entire world"

this is at the very heart and essence of Judaism, in its purest teaching...as so many great religions and cultures hold this as their most sacred teaching.

Posted by: jacqueline | Feb 10, 2007 4:24:38 PM

Thanks, everyone, for such great comments. The first post for something like this is always a bit nerve-wracking; one doesn't want to stink the place up.

Posted by: Stephen | Feb 10, 2007 11:06:31 PM

It was an excellent first post, Stephen. As you can see, it had a peculiar effect on me. I actually had twice as much written before I saw how much I had spilled out and cut the second half. Old struggles.

Jacqueline, I appreciated your quotes and thoughts. I try not to be cynical (in the current modern sense), but I only have to read your posts to see how cynical I am in comparison to some. The question raised by your quote from Chekhov and your comment is how much unhappiness we can manage in order to maintain our humanity, and how much we can manage while even maintaining our humanity, as too much erodes it. You also call for balance, which is where these difficult questions arise.

Posted by: Sanpete | Feb 11, 2007 12:13:07 PM

托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
钢托盘
木托盘
钢制托盘
托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
南京托盘
南京钢托盘
上海托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
南京托盘
南京钢托盘
上海托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
杭州托盘
成都托盘
武汉托盘
长沙托盘
合肥托盘
苏州托盘
无锡托盘
昆山托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
南京托盘
南京钢制托盘
南京钢托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘

托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
塑料托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹板托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
木托盘
塑料托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹板托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹板托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘


托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
托盘
塑料托盘

Posted by: judy | Sep 26, 2007 10:45:09 PM

pocket change/dollars
time/convienence
more for me/you are on your own

it all comes down to ----greed

Posted by: thom | Nov 6, 2007 2:29:32 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.