Dependence is Not a Dirty Word
by C. L'Hirondelle, April 2005

Some of the most deeply and widely held values in our society are the ideas of "independence" and "self-reliance" which are continually espoused by opinion leaders, politicians and newspaper columnists. In an April 18th, 2005 column Paul MacRae defends his strong belief in these values: "Most people have more than enough intelligence and ability to meet most of the challenges they face, if they're given the chance. In other words, government should be a last resort for those who need help, but a last resort."

These statements would be understandable if all the "self-reliance" promoters had just swaggered into town wearing a Davy Crockett hat with a freshly killed deer slung over their shoulder. But they do not chop down trees to build their own houses, nor do they rassle up some grub from the back forty. They buy food in stores, use bank machines and public sewer systems. Most importantly, they don’t hatch from pods, fully grown. When they were born they were dependent on their mothers to keep them alive. Even Davy Crockett had to wait until he was three before he could kill his own bear. Independence is a total myth because of the economically invisible, but essential, work that mothers do. Many people have a problem with 'depending' on the government for anything, but they are fine with demanding free public services from women.

For example, newspapers are dependent on advertisers who are dependent on consumers to buy their products. No consumers means no money to pay newspaper pundits. And where do consumers come from? From mothers. However, because motherhood does not pay --in fact women face huge financial penalties for being so illogical as to have children-- there is now a dropping birth rate in almost all countries in the world. (2002 report, UN Population Division).

This is causing ripples of concern in the oddest places. "Unto Canada, too few children are born" was the title of a Dec. 22, 2004 David Frum column in the National Post. A recent Margaret Wente column in the Globe and Mail was headlined "The Great Baby Strike" (March 5, 05) and even the Times Colonist editors fretted "Until we can produce the labour force we need to remain competitive in the world we'll have to import it" (Sept. 9, 2003).

All industry is totally dependent on 1) women having babies and 2) access to those babies to consume products. Companies spend billions on advertising unnecessary and often harmful products to children. Billions of jobs 'depend' on new generations of consumers for these products. People are eager to take those jobs, no matter how destructive they are, because it is the only way they can meet their needs. In addition, the dogma of independence runs so deep that people want those jobs so they won't have to face the stigma of being "dependent" on welfare. Society then is complicit in allowing children's health and the health of the environment to be destroyed because of a delusional idea of independence.

Even the left glorifies being independent and productive. The documentary The Take, by Naomi Klein and Avi Lewis, is practically a paean to production, complete with a row of rugged autoparts workers triumphantly throwing their hardhats into the air. The non-profit micro loan agency associated with the film, even boasts that they want to "help workers who are already helping themselves."

This is similar to MacRae's idea that "most people have more than enough intelligence and ability to meet most of the challenges they face" which implies that people who are poor, those who can't face "challenges", are stupid and incompetent. The micro loan agency also implies a moral inferiority to poor people who are not "helping themselves." (April 18th Times Colonist)

Society is faced with problems so deep that most people don’t see them or want to talk about them. The on-going parasitism on the free work of mothers; economic decline from dropping birth rates, consumption related health problems, unemployment due to technological change and escalating social and health costs. These problems could be addressed with a simple solution: Guaranteed Livable Income (GLI).

James Hughes from Changesurfer Radio writes in his article "Embrace the End of Work" that "without a clear strategic goal of a humanity freed from work through the gradual expansion of automation and the social wage, all policies short of Luddite bans on new technology will have disappointing and perverse effects… In other words, it's time to make a choice: Luddism, barbarism or a universal basic income guarantee ." See Discussion Paper #81 (download as PDF) on the US BIG web site or read the article on Betterhumans.com.

However, most people find guaranteed income a bizarre idea because it goes against the oft stated goal of independence. Paradoxically, a GLI would give people the time to create *community* sufficiency and would increase people's ability to do the essential care work which is essential to the life and health of society and, most importantly to the young of our species.

As already stated, independence is a myth. If you want to prove this just call out to some of those big men in suits you sometimes see downtown. Ask them "who gave birth to you?" and "who changed your diaper?"

Cindy L'Hirondelle is a collective member of the Status of Women Action Group and a founding member of Livable Income For Everyone.

This article was submitted as an opinion submission to the Times Colonist and was published on May 31, 2005.