This week is Freedom to Read Week, an annual event that encourages Canadians to think about and reaffirm their commitment to freedom of expression and intellectual freedom, guaranteed under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Carleton University has a series of events planned throughout the week; As the author of a challenged book, Kathy will be kicking off Carleton’s ‘Readings from Banned and Challenged Materials’ event by reading from her book With a Closed Fist. Members of the Carleton community will also be reading from other challenged and/or banned books.
Check it out Feb 24th, in the Main Floor Reading Room (lvl 2) of Carleton’s MacOdrum Library Main Reading Room @ 12:00pm.
Hope to see you there!
People on welfare shouldn’t be allowed to buy booze, cigarettes or TVs. Why should we be paying for that kind of stuff?
If you spend any time on social media then you’ve probably seen these kinds of poor bashing memes that pop up on a regular basis, including those that demand welfare recipients be drug tested in order to keep receiving government assistance. They not only piss me off, they also make me cringe and make my blood pressure go up when they pop up in my own Facebook feed. After all, it means some of my own friends are perpetuating many of the worst myths about people who live in poverty.
These memes suggest that people on welfare shouldn’t be using any of their welfare check on alcohol, cigarettes or electronics. Some memes take it even further.
It’s not enough to claim that – apparently unlike the rest of us – welfare recipients should be banned from having electronics, booze, tattoos, cigarettes or lotteries, they should also have to undergo regular blood tests to make sure they’re not on drugs.
This kind of ignorance annoys the hell out of me. For one thing, moral panics concerning people on welfare have always blown the problem vastly out of proportion, with plenty of research finding that not only is welfare fraud rare, these tests actually waste millions of dollars in taxpayers’ money, while also adding to the shame and stigmatization of welfare recipients.
In fact, drug tests for welfare recipients are not only expensive and inefficient (What 7 States Discovered After Spending More than $1 Million Drug Testing Welfare Recipients), pilot studies have found virtually no evidence of any drug abuse. Of course, these are all rational, logical arguments for why this kind of thinking is flawed, never mind the questionable ethics of bashing marginalized people with a lack of power. So how come we don’t have more memes which highlight and mock all of the tax dollars and breaks going to large corporations? Why aren’t there more comments on Facebook about all of the taxpayers’ money going to rich corporations in the form of tax subsidies?
And why do we love bashing poor people on the Internet?
That’s just a few of the many questions I’ve been considering and plan to continue to explore over the next few years, as a PhD student in the School of Journalism and Communication at Carleton University.
I grew up in Point St. Charles, an industrial slum in Montréal that was then described in a documentary by the National Film Board as the “Toughest Neighbourhood in Canada.” Along with my five sisters, I was raised by a militant community activist single mom, Eileen Dobson, who didn’t hesitate to use guerilla style tactics while fighting for social justice in our neighbourhood. Although I grew up on welfare and dropped out of high school at the age of 15, I did eventually manage to go back to school and went on to complete an undergraduate and master’s degree.
A few years ago my book, With a Closed Fist: Growing Up In Canada’s Toughest Neighbourhood (Véhicule Press) was published. It shares the social history of some of the grassroots organizations that fought for healthcare and educational reform in Montréal during the 1960s and 1970s, leading to the development of Québec’s first Community based Healthcare Clinic (which went on to serve as a blueprint for the rest of the country’s socialized healthcare system). My book also shares an insider’s view of the culture of poverty and examines the impact and ripple effect it can have on all aspects of one’s life. Although she passed away nine years ago, my mother continues to be my inspiration and the reason I want to examine, and perhaps even challenge, some of the ‘official’ dominant discourses around poverty. I hope to continue my mother’s work.
My research at Carleton University is looking at the construction, circulation, and reinforcement of particular cultural narratives concerning poverty issues and those living in poverty. In other words, I’m examining how the poor are represented, including by social welfare and government agencies, media platforms (such as the news media and also social media such as Facebook and Twitter), etc., and how this perhaps reinforces certain self-conceptions of those living in poverty.
For instance, the idea that people living on welfare are lazy – is this narrative in part propagated by the actions of particular social agencies, programs and initiatives? How is this narrative constructed in the public consciousness? At the same time, is it a way of thinking that is internalized by people living in poverty themselves?
I think we need to stop blaming the poor for their own poverty.
Calling bullshit on some of those Facebook memes might be an important first step.
Next week I’ll be starting a PhD in the School of Journalism and Communication at Carleton University, and to be honest I still feel like I’m making that up.
I’m the same kid who dropped out of high school when I was fifteen years old, after failing grades seven, eight and nine. Flash forward about a million years, after going back to school at 17, graduating two years later with a high school diploma and a certificate in hairdressing, I eventually went on to do an undergraduate degree, though it took me forever to complete it. School and I hadn’t exactly clicked yet. But last year I completed a master’s in Communication Studies at Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo. And that’s when everything changed for me. While completing my master’s degree I made a shocking discovery.
I like school.
No one was more surprised than me to learn that I enjoy all the writing, readings and research. And perhaps even more, all of the classroom discussions and debates with professors and students who not only have strong opinions, but informed ones as well.
The professors would assign a mountain of readings, academic articles and texts which I admit I usually had to read at least twice (okay, I’m lying, I read everything more than twice) before I could even begin to understand the author’s point, never mind try to ‘unpack’ it with other students later in class.
Which reminds me, it was in grad school that I first heard the expression ‘unpack’ used in a context other than what you do after you move.
I learned in grad school that you could claim or argue anything; as long as you can relate it to the readings, then you can’t be wrong. And when the prof says gradschooly stuff like, “Let’s unpack this narrative together,” what they often mean is, “who can best paraphrase what the author- an established academic in the field with more credibility than your intuition, gut feelings, or opinions- of the reading has claimed?”
This isn’t a bad thing. This is part of the ‘developing an informed opinion’ process. Plus it helps you develop excellent skills in paraphrasing, and being able to demonstrate that you understand what you just read. I mean, if you can make the author’s arguments you’ve obviously understood them, right? I think.
So now, just days away from starting my PhD, I admit some of my old fears are resurfacing. Will I be able to keep up with the demands of the program? Will I be able to find the time to read everything 15 times in order to ensure I (mostly) understand what the hell I just read?
I hope I’ll be ready to unpack.