There is a perception amongst much of the public and many policy makers that the poor are in their predicament based on merit- that if they would only “pull themselves up by their bootstraps,” they could remove themselves from their dire situation. The allowance in the public mind made for the very old and the completely disabled exemplifies the distinction acted upon by policy makers for two centuries or more- those “worthy poor” and the “unworthy poor.”
The “us and them” mentality that shades the issue of poverty can be said to trace its roots back to the enlightenment era of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The notions of individualism, freedom, and property rights were tied closely together by thinkers such as Locke, Hobbes, and the American revolutionaries[1]. This notion of individual freedom and responsibility led in no small part to a decline in the sense of social unity. As industrialization pushed greater numbers of people into large cities, community ties dissolved, disparate and unfamiliar groups crowded together. When poverty inevitably struck, citizens felt no social ties to the poor, and governments felt little social obligation. The poor were seen not as wards of the society, but as malignancies to be controlled, shiftless losers to be sanctioned.
This led directly to the “reforms” of Jeremy Bentham and his followers. (Piven & Cloward, 12) From Bentham derives the concept of the “house of industry”- best known as a “work house” or “poor house.” These were tenements where the poor, criminals, the physically and mentally disabled, were all forced to live. These work houses were dangerous- poorly built, overcrowded, and breeding grounds for disease. The relief these work houses offered wasn’t a desirable alternative to even the wretched conditions of eighteenth century factories. It was a deliberate sanction on poverty.
We see a modern descendent of the work house policy in “welfare to work” and “workfare” legislation. Not only do “workfare” programs force the poor to work for the lowest possible wages, there are correlating negative consequences for the working class- the loss of wage and job security and bargaining power. (Piven & Cloward 24-5) As living-wage careers evaporate, working class and downsized workers are forced to take lower and lower paying jobs. (Katz 349-52) A product of the public’s contempt for the poor which resembles the draconian nature of the work houses, as Katz was apt to point out, is the ever increasing expansion of the American prison system, which so often locks up the poor. (Katz 343)
The crux of much of Katz’s argument is that in denying relief to the poor we deny and commodify citizenship in our country- full citizenship is conceptually attached to employment. This is a logical continuation of the notion that the vast majority of the poor are simply lazy.
Racial attitudes in this country do not have a particularly rosy history. There are no shortage of examples of americans of all classes and in all eras describing minority groups- Native Americans, African Americans, the Chinese, Latinos, and so on in the same unfavorable light as the poor: shiftless, lazy, prone to crime, untrustworthy. Thus, as the landscape of urban America became more diverse, and the problems of poverty besieged the American city, Poverty was not merely seen as a reprehensible defect of character, it was/is often seen as a racial trait, or racial problem. This plays into, and helps to generate negative racial attitudes and cognitively distances white America from the problem. In following Katz’s argument, it also excuses exclusion from full citizenship for minorities- based not on their race (overtly), but on their unemployment, a more broadly acceptable reason for sanction.
Gender inequalities cut both ways for Americans. Women, as pointed out by Piven and Cloward throughout “Sources of the Contemporary Relief Debate” often work seven days a week in non paying jobs as housewives and child rearers. When the time comes that these women require aid, they have trouble meeting eligibility or receiving sufficient aid because they have little or no history in the commercial work force. The additional hardships of seeking childcare in order to work, as well as lower wages due to existing gender inequalities exacerbates the problem for women. Katz, on the other hand points out the problems that males face when seeking assistance: Outside of food stamps and Supplementary Security Income, there exist no significant aid programs for men until they reach the age of 65. This puts men who lose their jobs in a very tough position. There is also an immense social stigma attached to a man receiving relief. If a man cannot find a job, or find one which pays a living wage, he may be forced into the “underground economy” (crime), and will often end up a statistic in the criminal justice system.
This writer is not convinced that there is a significant connection between economic conditions and attempts by employers, capitalists, politicians, and policymakers to eliminate or drastically reduce relief programs. The major connection appears only to be the mode of justification for these cuts. In hard times, employers and politicians will employ the rhetoric of Reagan, that prosperity must trickle down, that people must earn their keep, and that there are simply not enough resources to spread around, especially for those who don’t want to work. The resulting cuts in spending will be applauded as fiscally responsible, meanwhile wages and job security plummet and poverty and wealth divides grow. In more prosperous times, the Clinton route will be used: the poor will be funneled off the dole and into a dead-end, no benefit, sub-subsistence wage job. Less people will be wards of the welfare state, but more people will be poorer, and the working class will see another dip in wages. “Pimping” the poor as untapped markets will seem a charitable, honorable sentiment, but as Katz notes- is working at a McDonald’s for minimum wage really time better spent than at time at home, on welfare, raising your children? (Katz 349)
And this speaks directly to the question of citizenship and social responsibility. Is a citizen nothing more than a consumer? A worker? If a citizen is merely a tool for the production and consumption of cheap goods, what good is he? What choice has he really? The choice between several types of soda? But neither consumption nor labor will protect the citizen from the possible loss of his work, and thus his citizenship.
Resources
Piven & Cloward: “Sources of the Contemporary Relief Debate”
Katz “Democracy, Work, and Citizenship”
Gruber, James [lecture Notes] 1/5/11-1/19/11
[1] Piven and Cloward site peers (Burke, Townsend, Bentham) of my examples on pg 26 of “Sources of the Contemporary Relief Debate.” As Locke and others came first, I posit that it is fair to site them as originators.
No comments:
Post a Comment