Last week I went to the library for the first time in ages. Nothing terribly significant about that, I just tend not to bother these days. There stock is limited thanks to cuts. That they are open at all is however impressive, and so I support libraries in principle. I've also spent the first half of the year buying a LOT of books that I am still wading through!
What I don't support are fines. This is an iniquitous principle that only serves to punish the poorest for wanting to take advantage of the vital service libraries provide. Clearly if you're wealthy enough being fined for a late return is no punishment at all and thus the idea of enforcing correct library behaviour - fair use of books - is not the issue.
But people, by which I mean me, forget to return stuff. It happens. If you're me you take a lot of books out at a time - because going to the library requires a trip into town and so not worth it for just one or two books. So if you forget to return one thing, you forget to return all. Fines increase on a daily basis, so if you don't get the opportunity to return before long you end up with a significant enough penalty that you can't take out more books.
Now a lot of people are going to have no problem with this. The argument will be that it's not fair for me to keep books and that it's my fault for not returning them.
This is true, but it isn't actually the point.
Firstly I don't seek to keep books unfairly, but - and this is key - our system tells people that's what's happening because our system can't process this any other way. It cannot accept that I haven't returned the books due to common human oversight. I don't intend for the books to be kept, but this happens in life. Why should it be an issue?
Secondly yes of course it's my fault. Why does that require scapegoating and punishment? If something gets returned late, well, quite frankly, so what? Again it's not intentional. Books get returned early (and late) all the time. People borrow, others don't. That's how this works.
These fines are also unnecessary; it's a paradigm not a requirement for the maintenance of the service. Think about it: if the library's income depended on fines and fees it would fail because the service would require people broke the rules. Does that make sense as a way to run things?
It's like the congestion charge. The stated aim - to try and reduce traffic and gridlock and ease pollution - is great. But in practise that's not really the aim because that's not what the charge actually does. Without an alternative it just penalises people who have no choice and need to make those journeys. It might encourage a few, in the same way that bedroom tax victims might actually find somewhere (if they are lucky) better suited to live. In reality those outcomes are a happy accident of a punitive principle that is applied to situations because capitalism cannot address the needs of the situation. In many cases it's the cause: we have environment-warping pollution because we have profit driven industry.
In the end it would be better to have a society where libraries - communal troves of mass media - could be accessed by members whenever. It would be better if we raised people just to be responsible and so return the book in their own good time. If they need a couple weeks longer to finish reading, so what. If they return it early, so what. We only assume people will be greedy and lazy (which is not the same as forgetful) because that's what capitalism, ultimately, teaches us. I hear this argument all the time, we need capitalism because our nature as humans is such. It's tedious and unfounded. Let's stop infantilising ourselves
Tuesday 24 July 2018
Friday 6 July 2018
Another Pointless DWP Interview
Which, truth to tell, has left me angry and upset. I don't need wankers from the DWP to feel bad about my life. I have plenty of signs all around me to remind me of how far short I've fallen of the accepted standards. I'm not marriyoued, I don't own a nice home, and I don't have a successful career. I certainly don't need to be probed - with the same fucking questions - by the DWP again.
Why do they ask me how long I've been claiming? They have this information in front of them. they know this. Yet every time they ask me this; they do the guilt dance where you have to explain again how long you've been out of the labour market and what shitty useless jobs you did before. It feels like I'm having to justify myself to them - and in return what do I get? Nothing. No help is offered, none will ever be forthcoming from this system. It cannot help; it is structurally incapable of doing so.
But the worst aspect was the five minute inquisition at the start where I had to justify why I should be favoured with a telephone interview - unlike all the other people who also suffer from stress but still manage to turn up in person.
Like this is some physical contest.
This language; the use of argument by comparison is horseshit. It has no relevance nor validity other than to shame you. What makes YOU so special? But I'm not arguing that I am special, and I don't consider a reasonable degree of flexibility, a meeting of the minds halfway as a compromise, to be remotely privileged. They demand of you, but you cannot ask for concessions. You are given them where and when without question and the notion that you, the subject they are supposed to be helping, should maybe want to make things a little bit easier; well we can't have that can we. There are a million ways to compromise. None of them are unreasonable.
And I'm not asking in ignorance of anyone else. I can only speak for myself. If other people, when they deal with the DWP, feel they need to ask for concessions then that's a matter for them. Why use that against me - or indeed anyone? It's childish. Yet he tried to imply (very heavily) that he couldn't properly help me without my presence physically across the desk. What difference does it make? A phone conversation serves exactly the same purpose: we are having a conversation. My physical presence isn't required, we aren't getting married ffs!
So it just feels like tactics intended to wear you down, to force you into submission.
But the stupidest part of all is, at the end, he conceded that, because I'd already tried all the resources he could suggest, that he had nothing to offer anyway! So the whole thing, which comprised of nothing more than him asking me details about my claim to which he already knew the answer, was a a waste of time!
The problem with these resources, I maintain, is that they are separate; they are apart from the society we live in. What mental health requires is integrated services that don't just deal with a narrow purview or focus and then expect you to function. That's like expecting a recovering alcoholic, after keeping himself clean and away from beer for six months, to be OK with popping down the pub with his mates.
Our whole problem is that society creates mental distress and marginalises the methods of treatment. You are expected to journey to the fringe of society, down a long lonely path, where the treatment resources are kept, and then, after a suitable time, return and pick up as you were. This does not address the structural causes of mental distress (of course some mental health issues arise from different means, to be clear) and, like the alcoholic, will only serve to reinvigorate those pressures.
I find the alcoholic analogy to be relevant because I believe that this kind of mental distress is not a temporary thing, like a cut or a broken bone. Alcoholism (I'm given to believe) is viewed by many sufferers as something they will have to live with forever. I feel the same way about mental health.
Unfortunately society, with its focus on production and subsequent alienation (work is alienating, see under Marx), isn't changing fast enough to not just integrate better ways of coping and dealing with mental health and, particularly, neuro-diversity, but to fundamentally change so as to prevent these problems in the first place. Cure society, cure the people in it.
In the meantime expect more pointless phone conversations from people who lack the resources to offer, paid to gaslight the people they talk to.
Why do they ask me how long I've been claiming? They have this information in front of them. they know this. Yet every time they ask me this; they do the guilt dance where you have to explain again how long you've been out of the labour market and what shitty useless jobs you did before. It feels like I'm having to justify myself to them - and in return what do I get? Nothing. No help is offered, none will ever be forthcoming from this system. It cannot help; it is structurally incapable of doing so.
But the worst aspect was the five minute inquisition at the start where I had to justify why I should be favoured with a telephone interview - unlike all the other people who also suffer from stress but still manage to turn up in person.
Like this is some physical contest.
This language; the use of argument by comparison is horseshit. It has no relevance nor validity other than to shame you. What makes YOU so special? But I'm not arguing that I am special, and I don't consider a reasonable degree of flexibility, a meeting of the minds halfway as a compromise, to be remotely privileged. They demand of you, but you cannot ask for concessions. You are given them where and when without question and the notion that you, the subject they are supposed to be helping, should maybe want to make things a little bit easier; well we can't have that can we. There are a million ways to compromise. None of them are unreasonable.
And I'm not asking in ignorance of anyone else. I can only speak for myself. If other people, when they deal with the DWP, feel they need to ask for concessions then that's a matter for them. Why use that against me - or indeed anyone? It's childish. Yet he tried to imply (very heavily) that he couldn't properly help me without my presence physically across the desk. What difference does it make? A phone conversation serves exactly the same purpose: we are having a conversation. My physical presence isn't required, we aren't getting married ffs!
So it just feels like tactics intended to wear you down, to force you into submission.
But the stupidest part of all is, at the end, he conceded that, because I'd already tried all the resources he could suggest, that he had nothing to offer anyway! So the whole thing, which comprised of nothing more than him asking me details about my claim to which he already knew the answer, was a a waste of time!
The problem with these resources, I maintain, is that they are separate; they are apart from the society we live in. What mental health requires is integrated services that don't just deal with a narrow purview or focus and then expect you to function. That's like expecting a recovering alcoholic, after keeping himself clean and away from beer for six months, to be OK with popping down the pub with his mates.
Our whole problem is that society creates mental distress and marginalises the methods of treatment. You are expected to journey to the fringe of society, down a long lonely path, where the treatment resources are kept, and then, after a suitable time, return and pick up as you were. This does not address the structural causes of mental distress (of course some mental health issues arise from different means, to be clear) and, like the alcoholic, will only serve to reinvigorate those pressures.
I find the alcoholic analogy to be relevant because I believe that this kind of mental distress is not a temporary thing, like a cut or a broken bone. Alcoholism (I'm given to believe) is viewed by many sufferers as something they will have to live with forever. I feel the same way about mental health.
Unfortunately society, with its focus on production and subsequent alienation (work is alienating, see under Marx), isn't changing fast enough to not just integrate better ways of coping and dealing with mental health and, particularly, neuro-diversity, but to fundamentally change so as to prevent these problems in the first place. Cure society, cure the people in it.
In the meantime expect more pointless phone conversations from people who lack the resources to offer, paid to gaslight the people they talk to.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)