The Greek language of the New Testament had two words that are normally translated “poor.” One (πένης) was used for those who had to work in order to have the bare necessities of life. Philosophical ideals could tend toward disdain for work (better to be idle rich — uh, let’s call that contemplative and philosophical), but the necessity for work that most of us know well imposes a lesser life.
The other word (πτωχός) was for those who had to beg, those for whom even work was not an option. It carried a sense of humility, even of cringing. It is the Greek word representing what Jesus said, probably in Aramaic, in “Blessed are the poor . . .” (Matthew 5:3; Luke 6:20).
A similar distinction, but one of our own time, is captured in the term “precarity.” The “precariate” are not people who never work and must always beg. They are, rather, those with no job security, no permanent employment. They include, where I live, the large number of people available to be hired and fired by, for instance, fast food outlets and some factories, who can seldom save money, and whose cars don’t always get fixed when fixing is needed. What is a small crisis for people who are luckier or more employable or more educated can be nearly disastrous for such people. Things are more precarious, and, along the way, the clothes don’t always get washed right away.
“The Precariat economic (and usually, social) existence is precarious. It is an existence characterised by a lack of predictability and stability. . . . It is a wide and diverse group of people, who are characterised by lack of job security and intermittent work. . . . However, by and large, the precariat are employed in work that would be classed as the customer service / retail sector e.g. in cafes, call centres etc. . . . Socially, the precariat, are likely to have an existence that lacks predictability and security. For example, due to the precarious nature of their income, they are likely to find getting a mortgage difficult, and likely to be part of the generation of renters.” “Labour’s Missed Opportunity: The Precariat,” Blasting News.
I think “precarity” referred to people closer to the poor blessed by Jesus when the term was invented by Léonce Crenier (if, in fact, he coined it). Crenier spoke of “precarity” as something beyond what most of us call “poverty,” as a condition of life nearly always characterized by disaster. But it is a matter of degree, and you and I are far more likely to know the underemployed than the perennially starving, though the immigrant-heavy town I live in has many people who have been among the latter. And some of those fast food and “unskilled” workers spend some time living on the street.
Another related distinction is heard in a conversation that has gone on among Catholic Christians for at least a millennium. The voluntary poverty of monks (if voluntary poverty is not an oxymoron, which I’ll address in a later post) has often been balanced by the security one can have living in some monasteries, and that has been a point of criticism. In other words, personal poverty within community affluence or at least within security, what is called “poverty” but is quite the opposite of precarity. The monk might own only one suit, but the roof (or car) always gets fixed promptly.
What Jesus said, of course, was “Blessed are the poor in spirit” (according to Matthew but not Luke). I’ll say more about “in spirit” later, with this hint now: whatever “in spirit” can mean, it is not intended (this is Jesus talking, after all) as an escape clause, as, that is, a aid for preachers needing to escape possible unpleasant applications of Jesus’s words.
-
I should have learned about Crenier and “precarity” earlier since Dorothy Day referred to him and it. I guess I missed it. At any rate, the word has gained a meaning in current economic talk different from what he gave it.
The One Story 