The Other Half

Jacob Riis concludes his How the Other Half Lives by saying, "The gap between the classes in which it surges, unseen, unsuspected by the thoughtless, is widening day by day.  No tardy enactment of law, no political expedient, can close it.  Against all other dangers our system of government may offer defense and shelter; against this not.  I know of but one bridge that will carry us over safe, a bridge founded upon justice and built of human hearts"(229).  I believe that this quote is an excellent summation of the portions we read of his book.  While Riis argued against moral corruption in the tentaments, he was a firm believer that it was the tentaments that created the immorality, rather than the other way around.  He actively sought social change through his photographs, and the urging of three steps for change: law, remodeling old tenements, and building new tenaments.   Unfortunately, his goals, while important, have not yet been fully realized.  Terrible housing conditions still exist across America today, perhaps not to the extent of New York in the early 20th century, but still far, far more than what should be acceptable.  Despite over a hundred years of "progress," new laws, new buildings, and remodelings, the problems Riis illuminates still exist today.  My question becomes: what is the best way?   Is there really a solution, and if so, how do we reach it?  Class discussion today really complicated matters for me, especially with comments about how doing a small bit of help doesn't help anyone in the long run, and the fact that so much of American money goes to support foreign countries rather than our own poor.  Yet really, what do we do?  Is it enough to say, "Oh, what I do in the time I have cannot make a difference, and only gratifies me so I shouldn't do anything at all?"  Who would be left trying to make change?  Or do we really need everyone to dedicate their entire lives to creating social change?  Is that even realistic?  If that was what we believed necessary, none of us would be at college right now, reading expensive books and paying over $40,000 a year in tuition.  Clearly the law doesn't change everything.  It sets minimum standards, which, as standards of living rise, become more and more inadequate.  And without changes in the general wealth distribution in the country, people without good income will always be limited to what they can afford, and cheap housing simply is not going to be as nice as a million dollar penthouse.   Yet even if we were to begin changing the wealth distribution in the nation, where would we be left?  Perhaps I judge too soon, but I think that even if things became "more equal,"  people would still be angry at the disparity, no matter how small.  Constantly, there would be a push for more change, more equality.  And if income of the poorest goes up, it is more than likely that landlords will raise rents to compensate, yet again creating a disparity.  Yet this clearly shouldn't mean that we should do nothing.  There needs to be a standard of living that can be maintained by all people, so that life can be enjoyed rather than suffered through.  But once again, I come full circle in my contemplation of solutions. This may simply mean that I am not knowledgeable enough to see things more clearly, or to have a better answer, yet I am reminded of a quote from Ragtime.   To paraphrase, "We are composed and recomposed in an endless cycle of dissatisfaction."   Cynically, Riis' book makes me feel this sentiment anew, and at the same time, mentally search, through all the contradictions and dead ends, for an end to the cycle.