Laundry drama

How to resolve a civil conflict with Nochlezhka

The opposition and civil society are accustomed to discussing reality in black and white terms. We are, they are. We are on the side of good, they are on the side of evil. And when events occur that clash the system of values ​​within civil society itself, the intensity of passions refers to the works of Shakespeare.

The drama surrounding the "Cultural Laundry", designed for the homeless and low-income people who want to wash their clothes, unfolded, at first glance, unexpectedly. At least the organizers of the project from the charitable organizations Nochlezhka and Second Life did not prepare for anything like this.

They were looking for a room for their project for a long time: after all, it had to meet a complex system of criteria: be within walking distance of the station, have an appropriate area, and be located on the first floor. And most importantly, the owner must agree with the placement of such a social facility.

The city authorities refused to provide the premises, citing the fact that the city already has places to help the homeless. Although all experts unanimously say that these places are insufficient in terms of capacity and are located in inaccessible places for people without a travel card in their pocket.

Local residents, who are very active in the Savelovsky district, learned about the project from the media. The organizers of the laundry did not consider it necessary to first talk with the local community, and only then conclude an agreement.

They did not count, most likely, not out of malicious intent, but only because they had no idea that this should be done, had no experience and did not see the existing culture of such negotiations around.

After all, no one usually asks about anything. But it only puts before the fact and forces to resist: infill development, cutting down trees, property seizure, paid parking lots. Willingly or unwittingly, the leadership of charitable organizations acted in the same way as the city authorities. And received the same rebuff and distrust.

In response, from another part of civil society, local residents received accusations of inhumanity and mercilessness, and sometimes of fascism. The conflict from these accusations only intensified. Accusations of mercenary interest rained down on the side of the "philanthropists".

What to do in such a situation? First, it is important to understand that in this case, the last word should remain with the local community, because they live with the project, and the project - with it. And in the event of an open conflict, nothing good will come of the project. Second, take a step back and try again. It would be nice if the Moscow City Hall remembered its direct duties, which, in particular, include supporting the non-profit sector, and provided Nochlezhka with several premises to choose from.

After that, start again - with negotiations with local residents. From the search for allies among the leaders of public opinion. With more detailed and lengthy information and explanation. With demonstration examples. With the involvement of local residents and local self-government in project management (for example, the creation of a board of trustees).

We can talk at length about the unethical nature of segregation. However, many members of our society are not ready for this. Some see disease and violence as a threat to themselves and their children. Others show disgust and disgust. Still others refer to sanitary standards. The reasons may be related to insufficient awareness and understanding of the essence of the project (it is not for people who have completely descended, but, on the contrary, for those who do not want to completely descend), with the lack of such life practice.

It is possible and necessary to really criticize only thoughtful statements that refer us to anti-humanistic and anti-democratic ideas aimed at dehumanizing the homeless, dividing people into grades or castes. There are not many such statements. The majority of those who speak out are generally not against the project, they just want it to develop at someone else’s expense, not at their expense (which also does not correspond to the idea of ​​social responsibility, but which does not indicate “fascism” and “cannibalism”).

It is impossible to promote the ideas of humanism with violence and insults and force people to be more socially responsible. Good can only be chosen voluntarily, and humanism - consciously. For this, it is necessary that the bearers of these ideas be heard. Promote your values ​​by example, engagement and dialogue. This is a long way, but in the end the most effective.

Another aspect of the problem is the lack of institutions that ensure public dialogue, including at the local level. The practice of centralized decision-making, the lack of authority and ownership of local governments, the intricate regulation of land relations in Moscow - all this also does not contribute to dialogue and the resolution of social conflicts.

In this sense, the story of Nochlezhka has given us a lot: and I am sure that it will push all sound forces to find a compromise and change social practices.