Berkley Center

The stereotype of hyperurbanized London is that of an alienated, unemotional, individualistic society—a stereotype reinforced by the burgeoning amount of statistics that speak of growing inequalities between the “very rich” and the “very poor.” Economic inequalities were doubtlessly apparent in the streets I traversed in London. Every morning, on my way from the Tube station to the university, I witness a most heartbreaking scene: a homeless person in rags begging for kindness as hoards of middle-class students and professionals pass by without lending her the slightest attention. The situation is made more discomforting by the fact that this melancholy is witnessed against a landscape that consists of multiple universities, two hospitals, and a major charitable foundation—institutions that exist for the betterment of humanity.

What is at play here? Are the British really too “cool” and “unemotional” to assist the less privileged, as the stereotypical construction of the typical Briton would have us believe? Not necessarily. If my three-week experience in London’s streets is any indicator of Londoners’ attitudes toward strangers in distress, I would reply in the negative. Being geographically challenged, and with my lectures taking place in different buildings scattered in two separate campuses, I almost always walk around university with a map in my hand. As I gaze back and forth from my map to the street, I will, most of the time, hear a “Can I help you?” or “Where would you like to go?” from a random passerby.

Britons’ helpfulness is not limited to small-scale personal interactions. Volunteerism is an example of a broader help-giving activity that many Britons engage in. According to the NCVO (National Council for Voluntary Organisations) UK Civil Society Almanac, in 2010 and 2011, 39 percent of adults in England volunteered formally at least once in the last 12 months, and 25 percent volunteer formally at least once a month. A regional breakdown of this statistic reveals that volunteering may not be Londoners’ cup of tea. A study done in 2011 showed that people are less likely to volunteer in London (32 percent) than in South West (49 percent) and South East (49 percent) England.

The distribution of volunteer activities across different sectors can tell a lot about the priorities of a society. A quick glance at my university’s Volunteer Service Unit website suggests that most volunteering in London is aimed toward enhancing the social inclusion of disadvantaged and vulnerable people, such as the elderly, the blind, and women with relatives in prison. The activities that volunteers are asked to do include befriending, chatting to, and arranging fun outings with people from these groups—all of which foster a feeling of belonging and prevent loneliness and alienation.

One thing that the targeted groups have in common is that, financially speaking, they are relatively well-off. The homeless and the poor, on the other hand, seem to be completely absent from the list of volunteer opportunities. Coming from a country that economists classify as a lower middle income economy, I could not help but compare my homeland, Egypt, to the United Kingdom. In Egypt, where income poverty prevails, NGOs and charity organizations tend to focus not on social inclusion, but on provision of the most basic means of subsistence, such as food, clothes, blankets, et cetera. The main beneficiaries of volunteerism in Egypt, in other words, are the segments of society most overlooked by the volunteer sector in the United Kingdom: the homeless and the poor.

One might argue that the proportion of charities dedicated to the homeless in London is low because homelessness is almost nonexistent in a materially prosperous, high-income city. However, as statistics have shown, the fact remains that the government support offered to these communities is insufficient. Moreover, the overall negative attitude of the community towards homeless individuals is most disconcerting.

One possible explanation for the relative public indifference to the homeless may be, paradoxically, London’s perceived prosperity and the middle class’ perception of the British welfare state. The rationale could go as follows. If the needs of the underprivileged are catered to by the welfare state, and if the economy is faring well, one would expect, optimally, that no hardworking citizen would be “left out.” This rationale may foster a perception of the homeless as lazy individuals, who would rather live on government benefits than seek a job. This could lead to a general derision of homeless people. Whether this attitude towards the homeless would diminish or persist will depend in part on the voters’ choices in the upcoming elections this May.