Single-Loop and Double-Loop Learning and Homelessness – Part III – Capitalism

In Part II of this series, we wrote: “Nothing is preventing us from investing more in housing for those on the lower rungs of the economic scale, than we do for those on the upper rungs. Nothing is preventing us from enacting policies that will make all the investments we make, as a nation, in a more equitable manner. We can create a more equitable society, with much less income and wealth inequality.”

Implicitly, though, up until now, in this series, we have accepted capitalism, which undergirds our economy, as an unquestionable governing variable. The language we now use, across the country, that we will make homelessness rare, brief and nonrecurring, implicitly, if not explicitly, is based on the acceptance of this governing variable. We can make homelessness rare, brief and nonrecurring, but we can’t end homelessness in the absolute sense of the word, because in a capitalist society, there will always be economic churn. 

What if we were to question that governing variable? Double-loop learning compels us think about this. In a recent episode of the excellent KERA show, Think, Can Capitalism Work Forever? the host Krys Boyd interviewed Raj Patel and they considered this very question. Patel and Jason W. Moore recently published A History of the World in Seven Cheap Things: A Guide to Capitalism, Nature, and the Future of the Planet. The book is a marvelous example of broad and encompassing double-loop learning. 

As Bill McKibben writes, it, “helps us see the startling reality behind what we usually dismiss as the obvious and everyday.” It does this by looking back, and according to Kim Stanley Robinson, offering a, “compelling interpretation of how we got to where we are now.” More importantly, it offers some ideas for, “how we might go on to create a more just and sustainable civilization.” We highly recommend listening to this Think episode to learn more about what might replace the current system. 

Obviously, we don’t know if Patel and Moore’s ideas will work. It is thinking about the ideas we have raised in this series, and not being afraid to question the governing variables that undergird our society, which is important. Such thinking has particular urgency because the effects of our current way of life are, quite literally, killing us. 

Raj Patel

(Courtesy of Raj Patel and Sheila Menezes)

This is not hyperbole. Homelessness kills: As our President and CEO, Cindy J. Crain warned us, in a haunting piece about a year and a half ago, the life expectancy of chronically homeless individuals, in the United States, is in the mid-sixties. Inequality kills: As the World Bank tells us, “Crime rates and inequality are positively correlated (within each country and, particularly, between countries), and it appears that this correlation reflects causation from inequality to crime rates, even controlling for other crime determinants.” Capitalism, unfettered and unregulated, as it is practiced today, kills: As Patel and Moore remind us, it threatens to leave us all homeless, as it endangers, our very existence, as a species, in this, our home, Planet Earth.

Single-Loop Learning, Double-Loop Learning and Homelessness – Part II – Rethinking Our Investments

The idea of single-loop learning and double-loop learning can be further useful in thinking about how we, as a nation, have decided (implicitly and explicitly) to address the modern homelessness crisis.

All one needs to do is look at how much we spend on the main federal program to house the homeless, the Continuum of Care Program: $2 billion. That may sound like a lot of money, however, out of a budget of $4 trillion, it is a drop in the bucket. One aircraft carrier, for comparison, costs $13 billion.

Especially over the last decade, we have become extremely skillful at building systems that maximize the impact of these $2 billion. However, as a nation, we have not explored the idea of significantly adding to that funding. We have accepted the governing variable that around $2 billion, in 2017 dollars, is enough to defeat a social ill that has been with us for forty years and counting.

Underinvestment in housing for those who are in critical need of help is not confined to the fight to end homelessness. We see this also in what the federal government calls “worst case housing needs.” “Worst case needs are defined as renters with very low incomes – no more than 50 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI) – who do not receive government housing assistance and who pay more than one-half of their income for rent, live in severely inadequate conditions, or both.” While those experiencing homelessness at any one time, number around 554,000 persons, this other category includes around 8.3 million households! 

It’s not that we don’t invest in housing, in aggregate; it is just that federal support for housing is heavily skewed towards those on the upper rungs of the economic ladder. Will Fischer and Barbara Sard present this in a strikingly visual way. Here are just two of their charts:

 

 

They further clarify that, “The federal government spent $190 billion in 2015 to help Americans buy or rent homes, but little of that spending went to the families who struggle the most to afford housing… Federal housing expenditures are unbalanced in two respects: they target a disproportionate share of subsidies on higher-income households and they favor homeownership over renting. Lower-income renters are far likelier than homeowners or higher-income renters to pay very high shares of their income for housing and to experience problems such as homelessness, housing instability, and overcrowding. Federal rental assistance is highly effective at helping these vulnerable families, but rental assistance programs are deeply underfunded and as a result reach only about one in four eligible households.”

Of course, this is still only part of the story. Dr. Barbara DiPietro, who shared these charts with us, also shared this fascinating video, which clarifies the larger picture of income inequality in America, and how it is driven by policies we, as a nation, have put in place:  

 

Barbara urged us to think about all the policy decisions we have made as a nation. Nothing is preventing us, as a society, from investing more in ending homelessness. Nothing is preventing us from investing more in housing for those on the lower rungs of the economic scale, than we do for those on the upper rungs. Nothing is preventing us from enacting policies that will make all the investments we make, as a nation, in a more equitable manner. We can create a more equitable society, with much less income and wealth inequality.

 

 

However, there is only one way we will get there. We can’t just engage in single-loop learning. We can’t just adjust what we do. Different strategies and actions alone will not help. We need to break out of our current paradigms, and engage in double-loop learning. We need to question the values and beliefs that led to the current crises, in which we find our nation. We need to change the governing variables, and act upon them. Will we have the courage to do so?

Our Sin of Exclusion

On Sunday, I had the great privilege of participating in First United Methodist Church Dallas’ annual Service of Light and Remembrance, for the very first time. This moving event, led by Dr. Andrew Stoker, Senior Minister, is devoted to remembering our homeless friends who have passed during the preceding year.         


Dr. Andrew Stoker
(Courtesy of FUMC Dallas)

The event is held every All Saints Sunday, and is fashioned as an interfaith service, with ministers of other congregations and other faiths joining in offering prayers during the proceedings. One of the highlights of the event is the participation of the youth choir, who introduced the idea of this annual event to the congregation, having seen a similar event on a trip to Chicago a few years back.
 
The focal point of the service is the reading of the names of the departed by about twenty clergy and nonprofit leaders. After reading these names, we lit candles from a large candle held by Dr. Stoker, and walked through the pews lighting others’ candles from ours.
 
The language used in the service was deliberate. Reverend Andria Davis, of the Cathedral of Hope, led us in a confession: “We confess that the circle of love is repeatedly broken, because of our sin of exclusion… whenever there is insensitivity or a hardening of heart… whenever we allow inequality, whenever we permit inequity…”


Rev. Andria Davis
(Courtesy of COH)

Interestingly, this is reminiscent of a fascinating biblical passage and its subsequent rabbinic interpretation. Deuteronomy 21 prescribes as follows:

“If… someone slain is found lying in the open, the identity of the slayer not being known… The elders of the town nearest to the corpse… shall make this declaration: ‘Our hands did not shed this blood, nor did our eyes see it done. Absolve, O Lord, Your people Israel whom You redeemed, and do not let guilt for the blood of the innocent remain among Your people Israel.’”
 
The Ancient Rabbis ask what might seem like an obvious question: “Can it enter our minds that the elders… are shedders of blood?! [The meaning of their statement is], however, ‘[The man found dead] did not come to us [for help] and we dismissed him without supplying him with food, we did not see him and let him go without escort.’”
 
If we translate this into modern terms, what the elders are saying is that they, as leaders of the community, have set up a system of care, to ensure that everyone’s needs, regardless of their station in society, are taken care of.
 
The implication of this is obvious. If we take this interpretation at face value, the Deuteronomist is taking it as a given that the elders have done this work; they have set up this system of care. For if not so, how can they make that declaration?  

Indeed, the Ancient Rabbis clarify just this with a few haunting words, later in the text, “When murderers multiplied, the ceremony… was discontinued.” Once the system of care has broken down, the elders cannot claim innocence anymore. 

 

There is an underlying assumption, on the part of the Deuteronomist, that is worth dwelling on: The community is responsible for what happens in its midst. It is unacceptable for them to turn a blind eye, to avert their gaze from what is happening in their midst. It is unacceptable for them to disclaim responsibility and blame the powerless for their plight, regardless of how or why they think the powerless arrived at their station. It is even unacceptable for them to wait for the powerless to ask for help or just help them on an ad hoc basis.

 
They must set up a system of care, they must seek out those who need help, and they must proactively engage them. And even if they do all of this, if someone slips through the cracks, they must confess, they must take responsibility.
 
This is what the Deuteronomist reminds us. This is what Rev. Davis reminds us. This is what First United Methodist Church Dallas reminds us. Let us hope we will heed their message.