Murrays Underclass Versus New Labors Social Exclusion - Literature review Example

Murray’s ‘Underclass’ Versus New Labor’s ‘Social Exclusion’ 2010 Introduction Charles Murray (1990), defined the ‘underclass’ in Britain from a behavioristic approach that considered the welfare-dependent population to be induced towards a life of crime, violence, single and early parenthood and a negative attitude towards employment. The New Right ideology, based on this thesis of the ‘underclass’ had a conservative approach towards welfare policies, marking a shift in approach from public funded welfare policies towards a neoliberal approach to economic and social policies. The Thatcherite policies of the 1990s based on such a New Right and neo-liberal approach aimed at reduction of public spending and shifting of many of the welfare provisions. New Labor’s ‘Social Exclusion’ thesis on which the Blair-Gordon administration has based welfare policies, on the other hand, calls for active citizenship in all realms, including social and welfare policies, so that responsibilities and obligations are necessary conditions for rights. While discarding both the liberal approach of state-funded welfare policies and the New Rights approach of dismantling the welfare policies altogether, New Labor’s welfare policies addressed socially excluded population like women, racial and ethnic minorities, immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers. Policies attempt not only to address poverty, as the New Right policies did, but also lack of empowerment, prejudice and discrimination (Dobrowowsky, 2005). This paper will discuss the differences between New Right welfare policies based on Murray’s underclass and New Labor’s “social exclusion” policies. Murray’s “Underclass” The term “underclass” was coined in the United States by journalist Ken Auletta in the 1980s to denote the behavioral patterns of the underprivileged people, without providing any value judgment, as a determinant of poverty. The concept was then used by American sociologists to develop a model that related the structural labor market inequalities to the plight of the “underclass” mainly comprising of the urban blacks. Charles Murray used the concept for Britain when he visited the country and wrote an article in The Sunday Times in 1989 and again four years later when he returned to Britain and found poverty and the “underclass’ to have deepened. Murray’s depiction of “underclass” as a combination of race and poverty that comprised of marginalized migrant workers, refugees, asylum seekers, inner city minority population, who collectively had little control over income generation or assets (Lister, 1996). This was despite the fact that Murray (1990) maintained that the “underclass” in Britain had a much less racial connotation than in the United States. Instead, he emphasized on the behavioral aspect of the poor by saying that it refers not to the “degree of poverty, but to a type of poverty”, which David Green in a Foreward to the first edition to Murray’s essay elaborated as “those distinguished by their undesirable behavior, including drug-taking, crime, illegitimacy, failure to hold down a job, truancy from school and casual violence” (quoted in Lister, 1996). At a more tangible level, the “underclass” usually comprised of those who were dependent on state welfare benefits. However, there were various operational problems with defining the underclass in terms of welfare receipts. For example, some people applied for welfare for short periods of time, which meant that they would qualify to be in this group only for the duration of the welfare receipts. Similarly, those who were engaged in low-paid jobs topped it up with benefits hence strictly defining underclass as welfare-recipients would overestimate the figure. The estimation became all the more unclear while considering those outside the labor market, for example the chronically ill or the aged (Lister, 1996). According to this theory, the creation of the “underclass” was considered to be related to welfare dependency which induced illegitimate births, lone parenthood, reluctance to find employment negative moral behavior. Depicted in the media as well as some scholarly literature, the underclass was not simply a set of marginalized people but also undesirable and threatening to the moral fabric of the society. This class challenged the middle class at a time when the gap between the high income and the low income was widening in both the United States and Britain. The entire definition of underclass as well as the policy prescriptions was loaded with stigmatization. In particular, women who had children out of wedlock were singled out as the welfare dependent and morally inferior. Murray (1990, cited in Lister, 1996) noted that “the sexual revolution of the 1960s” resulted in an erosion of morality that has in turn led to a growing number of illegitimate children. Effect of the “underclass” theory on New Rights welfare policies The moralizing attitude of Murray’s thesis and the movement towards “restoration of the two-parent family” had been the basic premise of the New Right agenda in the 1990s that directed towards conservative family values (Lister, 1996). According to critics of the theory, this diverted the issue from an economic one to a social one with wider political dimensions. Such a view, according to the view of the latter, focused on the victimized as the accused and turned the gaze of the social scientists on institutions that maintained and in fact even promoted social inequalities that, according to some scholars, even created an “overclass” comprising the elite of the society. Thus, while the behavioralists like Murray focused on the marginalized in a negative perspective, structuralists, like Alan Walker, criticized the view as one that blamed the victim and focused on the structural unemployment that led to the poor being left out of economic gains of the society (Lister, 1996). To Murray (1990), many of the social ills of urban Britain, like drug abuse, family instability, crime, school dropout, were all related to the dependence on welfare schemes, which acted as a deterrent towards work. On the other hand, the structuralist view was that most of the British urban poor were prevented from working either because there is not enough employment opportunities or because the labor market was distorted such that the poor were restricted to work as casual labor (Cox, 2003). Researchers also found evidence that contradicted the welfare dependency theory. The characteristics of welfare recipients varied significantly from the thesis proposed by the New Right thinkers. For example, Cox (2003), by studying a government agency that distributed welfare benefits found that the majority of recipients were not teenage mothers or lone mothers with abundant children, as the dependency theory seemed to imply. Typically, lone parents who claimed welfare were not teenage mothers and most of them had only one or two children. Besides, there was also no evidence of the thesis that welfare benefits attracted early parenthood as the thesis claimed. Also, the welfare-dependent population was not static but changing in composition. Very few of the recipients were continuous claimants of welfare, showing that they were not dependent on welfare. Social Exclusion Discourse The term is a much more amorphous and intangible concept than the “underclass”. It incorporates economic, social, political and spatial exclusion. In addition to poverty, it also includes lack of access to information, medical facilities, housing, security and other services. In contrast to the “underclass” it is a social and not an individual problem. Rather than the racial or ethnic classes formed as a result of welfare policies, social exclusion is global phenomenon arising out of a changes in the labor market in which the service sector has got fragmented and many segments of the manufacturing sector has shut down. It is therefore a systemic problem in which structural unemployment, and not voluntary unemployment that Murray postulated, is a result of global and local issues. In this theory, even though the socially excluded population is considered undesirable, people are thought to be unemployed not because they have lost the motivation to work but because they do not possess the capacity to find work in the absence of role models (Wilson, 1996). Hence, the theory of social exclusion does not directly dismiss the existence of what Murray called the underclass but the creation of this segment of the population is attributed to structural factors. However, this theory has been criticized for considering a homogenous group, without the distinctive features of various classes and for emphasizing on social immobility, that is, not allowing for the temporarily poor, the young, the old and those who migrate out of the socially excluded class over time. Typically, the social exclusion groups are taken in conjunction with fixed localities and separate morality in a manner that a group of outcast people are cut off from the rest of the society perhaps through an alternate set of values. However, in reality, such spatial segregation is not typical since people frequently move in and out of the ghetto and there are usually mixed populations in all localities. Besides, even those who are socially included within the mainstream also have economic and political problems. In the social exclusion discourse, the shift has been from a class system to a socially cohesive system in which some are left out of the process of globalization. John Andersn (1999) notes, “a change of focus in the poverty and inequality discourse from a vertical to a horizontal perspective. The shift of focus can to some extent also be described as a shift from Marxist and Weberian tradition of class and status analysis to a Durkheim “anomie-integration” discourse” (p 129, cited in Young, n.d). New Labor welfare policies Tony Blair’s Labor Party adopted the social exclusion principle after it got elected in 1997. The concept, originally mooted in France, became a buzzword in Britain as a direct response to the Thatcherite policies of market-driven policies that greatly increased inequities. The essential elements of Thatcherism were based on the virtues of market that believed in the efficiency of the market that was free from government intervention. This view in turn depended on the virtues of individualism as opposed to dependency that welfare was supposed to induce. The individual was seen to be self-reliant and responsible for his own actions. Hence, any interference into the development of individualism, which was thought to be typically the case for welfare dependency, was considered a hindrance to the advancement of society by the Conservative government (Dobrowolsky and Lister, 2007). When Tony Blair came into power, it was recognized that poverty and a host of social problems like homelessness, drug abuse and social exclusion were of prime importance. The government recognized that while traditional welfare policies failed to reduce inequalities, social inclusion rather than achievement of equality was adopted as the main aim. The Social Exclusion Unit was formed in December 1997 to develop policies that addressed “joined up problems” (Levitas, n.d). The Unit did not have any additional budget. Instead the aim was to develop indicators for social exclusion and develop policies that would use existing funds more effectively so that social exclusion could be reduced. In the official document, social exclusion was defined as 'a shorthand label for what can happen when individuals or areas suffer from a combination of linked problems such as unemployment, poor skills, low incomes, poor housing, high crime environments, bad health and family breakdown' (SEU 1997, cited in Levitas, n.d). The white paper “Opportunity for All: Tackling Poverty and Social Exclusion” (1999) noted that children needed to be in good health and living in good conditions. Besides, accommodation concentration was thought to be leading to social exclusion (Dixon and Scheurell, 2002). New Labor also proposed that individual responsibilities were as important as rights and Welfare-to-Work programs were dissociated from the state as a result. The problem of social exclusion is multi-faceted, as is the concept of poverty. Hence, various policies were needed to address the issue. Levitas (n.d) developed a model that incorporated three different approaches to social exclusion. The first approach – the redistributive approach – considered social exclusion as a result of poverty, not just in absolute terms for subsistence but in relative terms that allowed individuals and families to lead social lives. In this approach, raising benefit levels would reduce social exclusion. The second approach is through labor force attachment, or social integration. In this approach, it is assumed that the workless or those who are at risk of becoming so become socially excluded. In this case, the benefit system does not assist in reducing social exclusion. However, even paid work fails to address social exclusion if the pay is poor or if it involves long hours and prevents chances of social interaction. The third approach incorporates the “underclass” or the dependency theory that essentially leads to criminal or anti-social behavior through social exclusion. However, it is not easy to develop the relative weights of the various approaches nor is it easy to measure the various indicators of poverty and social exclusion. Various reports have tried to develop indicators for social exclusion since 1998. The New Policy Institute (NPI) report in 1998 developed 46 indicators including health, education, access to services and income categorized according to age (Levitas, n.d). But, even this report could not specify how poverty and social exclusion are different, acknowledging that 'Poverty and social exclusion are concerned with a lack of possessions, or an inability to do things, that are in some sense considered normal by society as a whole' (Howarth et al, 1998, cited in Levitas, n.d). The most crucial problem is thought to be workless households, particularly those headed by lone parents among non-pensioner households. However, unlike the “underclass” thesis, this approach does not posit a value judgment against divorced parents. The IPPR report of 1998 developed indicators for social exclusion in terms of income poverty, unemployment, education and health. The Breadline Britain surveys since 1998 also assumed that poverty leads to exclusion from participation in social relationships. The Social Exclusion Unit has produced various reports on social exclusion, like truancy and school exclusion, rough sleeping, neighborhood renewal and teenage pregnancies. Most of these reports approach the social exclusion problem in terms of the underclass, though not mentioning the term directly or passing value judgment. Nevertheless, the socially excluded population in these categories is considered as “dangerous classes” (Levitas, n.d). The Rowntree Foundation indicators of 2004 included income parameters that result in poverty and deprivation, parameters for children – like low birth weight, infant mortality, teenage pregnancies, school exclusion and low attainment at schools, child workers, concentration of poor children and young offenders – parameters for young adults – unemployment, low pay, drug abuse, lack of educational qualifications and criminal record – labor force parameters – like lack of paid work, low pay, insecurity, lack of training, premature death, obesity, chronic mental and physical illness or disability – for older people – lack of income, winter deaths, chronic mental and physical illness, access to help from social services and rural access to services – and for communities in terms of concentration of poverty, lack of transport and banking services, overcrowding and lack of heating, homelessness and so on. However, the Blair government has not applied the social exclusion principle to welfare policies exhaustively to racial and ethnic minorities, asylum seekers and immigrants. Nor has the government promoted active citizenship through membership in community groups (Dobrowolsky and Lister, 2007). The New Labor’s social exclusion budgets have been directed mainly to children and young people without differentiating between gender, race or ethnicity. Getting children out of poverty was the priority of the welfare policies of New Labor. As opposed to the Conservative Party attitude of considering children as the responsibility of parents and not the state, the New Labor government’s main preoccupation was children and youth (Dobrowolsky and Lister, 2007). Although women are the most socially excluded group and dependent on social services, the government does not focus on them under the social exclusion policies except for teenage pregnancies or domestic violence, the latter under pressure from feminist groups. Besides, employability of “lone mothers” has been a special focus of the New Labor government. Although the emphasis has been to get women into paid work, unpaid child care also affect women’s employability. The Blair government’s main agenda of welfare has been towards universal employment without a gender bias. But this does not consider the racial aspect since most immigrant non-white women have to work longer hours at lower pay. Besides, unpaid domestic work is devalued in this approach towards employment-centric social order (Palmer, et al, 2004). The New Labor welfare policies were dramatically different from traditional Labor policies of equality, social rights and provision of opportunity culture. Rather than equality – the main aim of Labor Party – was substituted by the stress on inclusion. Although the government now also attempted to improve the incomes of certain social groups, it focused less on the relationship between the guarantee of sufficient income and social inclusion. It harped on the Conservative approach of induce “passive citizenship” that was aimed to be substituted by active citizenship who would be responsible by gaining meaningful employment. It was more about communitarianism rather than citizenship rights. It was realized that social exclusion results primarily from lack of education. Therefore, education and employability have been overarching priorities of the government. Conclusion Lone parent families have greatly increased in number in Britain in the recent years, with as many as 20 percent of families being headed by lone mothers in the country, the highest in the European Union (Kushnicks and Jennings). Both Murray and the New Labor seem to assume that lone motherhood is the critical problem for welfare policies as well as poverty and social exclusion. However, the approaches to welfare systems in the two schemes are different. While Murray blatantly argued against divorces, lone parenthood and nuclear matriarchal families, New Labor approached the problem in a more subtle manner. Although the latter recognized that social exclusion is the result of a host of issues that include poverty as well as problems faced by women and children, it also disregarded the structural unemployment problems that are also associated with globalization, changes in employment structures, racial and immigration issues. Although both systems attempted to a market-driven welfare order, New Labor has a more humane face with a budget for social inclusion while the New Right only reduced welfare budgets. However, even the New Labor welfare system specifies that individuals will have to be involved in the communities as well as be savers with their resources mobilized for the purpose of paying for welfare schemes. Works Cited Anderson, John, Social and System Integration and the Underclass, I Gough and G Oloffson (ed.) Capitalism and Social Cohesion, New York, Palgrave, 1998 Cox, Melissa, Welfare Dependence and the Dynamics in Britain, Presented at “Women Working To Make a Difference” IWPR’s Seventh International Policy Research Conference, June 2003 Dixon, John and Scheurell, R P, The State of Social Welfare: The 20th Century in Cross-National Review, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2002 Dobrowolsky, A and Lister, R, Social Exclusion and Changes to Citizenship: Women, Children, Minorities and Migrants in Britain, http://www.cpsa-acsp.ca/papers-2005/Dobrowolsky.pdf Howarth, C. and Kenway, P., Palmer, G. and Street, C., Monitoring Poverty and Social Exclusion: Labour's Inheritance, York: New Policy Institute/Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 1998 Kushnick, L and J Jennings, A New Introduction to Poverty: The Role of Race, Power and Politics, NYU Press, 1999 Levitas, R., The Inclusive Society: Social Exclusion and New Labour, 1998 Basingstoke: Macmillan Levitas, R, Defining and Measuring Social Exclusion: A Critical Overview of Current Proposals, http://www.radstats.org.uk/no071/article2.htm Lister, Ruth (ed). Charles Murray and the Underclass: The Developing Debate, IEA Health and Welfare Unit, Choice in Welfare No 33, 1996 Murray, C, The Emerging British Underclass, London, IEA Health and Welfare Unit, 1990 Murray, C, Underclass: The Crisis Deepens, IEA Health and Welfare Unit/ Sunday Times, 1994 Palmer, G, Carr, J and Kenway, P, Monitoring Poverty and Social Exclusion, 2004, http://www.npi.org.uk/reports/mpse%202004.pdf Wilson, W J, When Works Disappears, New York: Knopf Young, Jack, Social Exclusion http://www.malcolmread.co.uk/JockYoung/social_exclusion.pdf Read More