The Relationship between Culture and Structure - Essay Example

Critical Analysis Paper: Framing welfare recipients: The Relationship between Culture andStructure Introduction and Background Culture offers the empirical or theoretical explanation of the social issues such as race, poverty and ethnicity. Culture defines these issues demographically as it imputes them in relation to the social norms. Culture also treats the issues along residual category in trying to explain their statistical models accounting to their variance from one community to the other considering the difference in the cultures. Some people are against the cultural explanations of social issues as they claim that its explanation in some way shifts the blame to the victims as the main cause of the social issues. It considers the issues as the attitudes of different families and towards work or sometimes patterns of behavior. The structural explanation regards the social issues as to result from structural factors such as class systems and microeconomic policies, economic structure, gender discrimination as well as ethical discrimination. These different structural factors contribute differently to the each social issue. Hay regards the welfare reforms as to have ignored the cultural, political and economic systems that are responsible for the increasing number of children and women languishing in poverty in the modern days. She also states that the reform treat issues of low wages, poor working conditions, raising children, race and gender as private issues (Hays 36). She regards the culture of the systems in the society that results in most of the social issues in most communities especially affecting women and children. The structure of such system is in such a way that it fevers those who have the rich while discriminates the poor and unfortunate. Wilson is his book regards the structure of the United States to be in such a way that instead of helping the victims of social issues such as race and poverty it puts the blame on them. The system has come up with a framework which integrates the existing structural forces like discrimination, segregation and racial in relation to cultural forces and economic changes. He goes further to say that; it is the structural influences that expose the varying cultural influence in the environment in which the victims live in. Through the arguments put forward by both Hey and Wilson, the paper takes the position assumed by the two authors. The structural system of most societies are in such a way that they discriminate the less fortune members in the society faced with social issues like racial discrimination, poverty and segregation. The structural set up also influences the role played by culture in addressing social issues. The structural influence affects the role played by culture as the way structure framework blames the victims of the social issues that remains to be the culture of that society thus becomes normal. Though several welfares have come up in these societies to try to address these issues, some fail in their role as they neglect the important issues to be addressed like the poor working conditions, poverty among women and children, low wages and gender issues. Cultural Frames of Welfare Recipients Cultural frames such as cultural repertoires, cultural capital, symbolic boundaries and institutions have significantly shaped the welfare as well as its recipients. This is strongly associated with the cultural traits that are inherent like the Asian children work ethics and the meaning of marriage to black women. The racial disparities are in a way such that they their stereotypes are related to culture. The way individuals perceive their environment determines how they will react to the welfare and the people around them. The culture of individuals determines how they will interpret the welfares as being beneficial or bad to them. The different cultural frames that expose certain aspects while at the same time hiding others mostly filter the perception of individuals in the way the welfare addresses; class system, social relations, neighborhood, organizations and race. Most of the cultural frames are in such a way that they condense and simplify the world around them (Hays 65).. Some of the cultural framing examines the influence of culture to poor societies receiving welfare, other frameworks take a look at the individuals cultural frame on neighborhood receiving welfare, other focuses on disadvantaged children receiving welfare, while other frames considers the role played by culture on poor mother who are benefiting from welfare. The modern culture has resulted to the men having little regards to the fate of their children and mothers. Instead of taking the whole obligation of taking care of their children, most of the fathers have lost their sense of obligation and are even unable to take care of their families. This situation worsens when the mother left behind is poor yet she has to take the whole responsibility of taking care of the children and at times even the father. This culture frame has led to the reversal of roles leaving the mother receiving the welfare to bear the whole burden. Even in situations where the family is receiving welfare benefits, you can find a situation where a man earns less than $10,000 dollars annually yet he owes the child support more than $50,000. This means that the family cannot meet its obligation to take care of the children. In most cases, the men fail to meet the payments and what follows is the man behind bars leaving the poor mother to take care of the baby alone while the welfare withdraws the benefits. Most of the poor women are not able to meet the payments of the welfare since they are expensive. However, it is the culture of most of the Americans despite their norms to want to benefit from such welfare thus even the poor women will think that it will work for them. If the welfare letter for reform is followed, most of the poor women should be consigned to celibacy for life. The only working solution at this point is to have the reproductive organs of the poor women cut which is inhuman. Wilson considers culture framework in the United States as being a means of sharing the modes and outlooks of the individual behaviors who are facing similar circumstances such as poor neighborhood that is segregated. As the American culture believes that individual’s cultural sentiments are the major contributors to their poverty situation thus a clear explanation to the situation poor back Americans go through. The cultural arguments of Americans concentrates on the traits of individuals and their behaviors putting more attention on the situation than try to come up with possible solution. They blame the individuals for the situations thus don’t see the need of helping them. This is the reason why the welfares that come up to help such members of the society do not serve their role. They are always met with politics and criticism or some times redirected to other beneficiaries. The welfare comes with so many conditions that the poor cannot meet thus ever get the benefits. This is ironical as the welfares seem more –friendly to the rich than the poor whom they were meant to serve. Structural Frames of Welfare Recipients The structure frameworks against the poor especially the mother and the children. The type of pattern employed can be referred to as domino affect. It is out of the hardships that the poor women find themselves in the welfare offices. Taking an example of a situation where a child falls sick thus the mother has to stay back and take care of her now that she cannot afford to take the child in a day care. Consequently, the mother looses her job now that she did not report to work. The structure of the society is in away that it discriminates the poor and unfortunate while favors the rich and able. A similar situation is where a poor woman works very far from home as most of the jobs from the poor are always miles away. She has to take more than four hours on the bus going to work yet she has to meet her deadlines at work at the same time take care of her children. It will be unfortunate to find that such women work under bosses who do not understand thus cannot stomach any lateness in reporting to work or finishing up work. The laws to some extend are in favour of the poor women as they allow them to leave their children with their grandparents if they get too desperate. With their grandparents, the children will still benefit from the welfares. The laws also encourage the poor women to give their children in situations when they are not able to take care of them. The laws also have come tried to do away with the impending welfare cases as reported to the government. As a result, there has been a decreasing trend of the welfare rolls that had in the past been greater than it is now. The welfare need to be reformed so as to make inclusions of most cases so as not to live any needy mother or children out of the benefits. This is a restriction of the family idea morality in the society. Wilson regards the structural frames as to cover the demographic, economic as well as cultural forces which trigger the responses of the society. These structures determine the legislature’s voters and policy reforms in the enaction of laws governing the welfare. The demographic and economic changes in the structure of the society form boundaries of those benefiting from the welfare (Wilson 52). This is to mean that the laws are in such away that they enact laws to restrict the individuals who benefits from the welfare. Comparison, Analysis, and Conclusions The cultural and structural welfare address the issues is a more similar way. They both share the same perspective of criticizing the ways in which the welfare is being implemented. Cultural frame work states that the welfare does not meet its initial aim of formation as it does not address the needs of the poor women, poor working conditions, discrimination and segregation which are supposed to be the main issue it addresses. The frame work also shifts the blame to the individuals who fall victims such social issues. It is the culture that most people have that makes them fail to enjoy the benefits of the welfare. The structural frame also criticizes the way in which the welfare benefits help the victims of the social issues. Though it does not blame the victims for their failure to enjoy the benefits, it criticizes the legal system for not doing its best to ensure that the welfare benefits go to the intended victims thus both cultural and structural arguments criticize the welfare system. Hey and Wilson share the same view on the role of welfare in the society. As Hey takes her argument on the poor women and children, Wilson takes a general approach as he focuses on every individual that should benefit from the welfare. The public are better placed to understand the position taken by structural argument rather than cultural position. This is as a result of the varying cultures from society to society and also views the issue on individual basis while the structural argument tackles the issue as a national issue focusing on general’s issues and cases. As the cultural approach blames poverty on the victims, the structural argument shifts the blame on national issues. The two books thus consider poverty as a national issue which calls for the need of all the citizens to take part in trying to address the issue. The existing welfares need to be reformed in order to meet the demands of social issues such as poverty. Works cited Hays Sharon. Flat Broke with Children: Women in the Age of Welfare Reform. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. Print. Wilson Julius. More than just Race: Being Black and Poor in the Inner City. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2009. Print. Read More