One peculiar aspect of New Zealand life is the reaction to homeless people and beggars in Auckland’s central business district. It is particularly interesting that the way Aucklanders act toward them does not reflect how they say they feel. Many people identified feeling sympathetic toward those less fortunate but the manner in which they actively avoided them contradicts this. It would appear as though there is a level of hostility regarding the situation. This influenced me to discover why many Aucklanders do not to act upon their sympathy. Observation and consideration of anthropological concepts such as the gift, classifications and pollution create an understanding of this paradox.
The majority of Aucklanders I observed did not act upon their supposed sympathy and ignored the homeless people instead of helping them. I expected people to feel sympathetic and I was correct as upon being asked how they felt about the issue, everyone I talked to told me that they “felt sorry” for those less fortunate. Many Aucklanders seem to take basic necessities such as food and shelter for granted and when it is brought to their attention that some people may be deprived of them, they appear relatively concerned and compassionate. It is a thought provoking issue that received an emotional response from many of the people I spoke to. When the Aucklanders claimed to be sensitive about the issue, they appeared sincere as only the mention of homeless and beggars evoked emotion. I was perplexed because despite the overwhelming sympathy, very few people actually appeared to help the situation. Many people said that “they wish they could do something to help”; however during lunchtime on a busy weekday I observed a mere two Aucklanders provide homeless people with food and money. The majority of people were ignorant and walked around them to not come in close proximity, suggesting that they felt uncomfortable in their presence. Almost everyone continued to walk by without a second thought, even though the beggars were attempting to talk to them. This behaviour seems odd for those who claim to be touched by the problematic reality of poverty in New Zealand.
Anthropological concepts such as ‘the gift’ and classifications can aid in explaining the differences I observed between Aucklanders’ claims and actions. Aucklanders’ response to homeless people can begin to be understood when Marcel Mauss’ exploration of ‘the gift’, exchange and reciprocity,(Molloy 2014) is considered. Citizens are giving a ‘gift’ to beggars when they provide them with food or money. Gifting is considered a reciprocal action in which there is an unspoken expectation to reciprocate and return the gift. People may therefore not want to give to homeless people with the knowledge that they will not receive anything in return. Whilst observing how people behaved around homeless people, I noticed that people paid more attention to buskers. There seems to be a considerable contrast between how Aucklanders perceive beggars and buskers. When buskers are given money, an exchange takes place as the public is ultimately paying for a commodity in the form of their talent and entertainment. This suggests that people are more willing to trade money for something in return. The fact that I witnessed a few people giving to those less fortunate demonstrates that this does not reflect all Aucklanders because some may be content with the satisfaction of helping. Whilst questioning the public, I deduced that classifications effect how they view homeless people because ‘classification concerns the way people perceive the world’ (Shore 2014). Rubbish bins are generally classified as somewhere to discard consumed items rather than somewhere to retrieve items to consume. I asked bystanders how they felt about homeless people looking through rubbish and they responded by saying that it is “unhygienic”, “disgusting” and “wrong”. This perception explains why Aucklanders may not want to approach homeless people, as they are sometimes witnessed encroaching their classifications of appropriate behaviour.
The behaviour I observed suggests that most Aucklanders are essentially selfish because they are sympathetic and aware of homeless people’s undesirable living situations but continue to actively avoid helping. It appears as though many Aucklanders are using an ‘out of sight, out of mind’ approach, in which ignoring homeless people will disable them to give in to the sympathy. During several discussions it became clear that there was an ‘us and them’ complex taking place; in which the public would refer to homeless people in a way that ostracised them. My discussion with Aucklanders revealed sympathy, whereas my observation of their reactions to homeless people suggested there was hostility toward them. Mary Douglas’ concept of pollution (Shore 2014) can aid in creating an understanding of this contradiction. Pollution is relevant as it refers to ‘matter out of place’ (Shore 2014), and Aucklanders may feel as though homeless people should not belong in Auckland’s central business district. Most people I talked to commute to Auckland City for work, education or shopping, which suggests that the area is associated with wealth and prestige. Poverty does not fit this scheme, therefore those less fortunate could be perceived as a form of pollution. This concept suggests that Aucklanders may avoid homeless people merely because they are unnerved by their presence and believe that they do not belong in the city.
Having spent a considerable amount of time observing how Aucklanders react to homeless people I became very interested in discovering more about why many seem to be uncomfortable around them. During discussions with people, most responded to the subject with sympathy whereas the way they would avoid and ignore homeless people would suggest this was not sincere. Due to the emotional nature of many of my discussions, I believe the sympathy is real; this only makes the public’s contradicting actions more difficult to comprehend. Several anthropological concepts such as the gift, classifications and pollution helped me to understand the contrast between what Aucklanders say and do. These notions demonstrate how a number of factors could have contributed to why Aucklanders do not appear to act upon their sympathy.
Reference List
Molloy, Maureen. 2014. “The Gift: Gift Exchange and Commodities”. University of Auckland. Lecture for Anthropology 100. Mar. 20.
Shore, Cris. 2014. “Cultures as systems of classification: Pollution and Taboo”. University of Auckland. Lecture for Anthropology 100. Mar. 13.
