Concept of the Underclass

The concept of the underclass

Access to humanities

The concept of the underclass

As a lone parent myself, I have quickly realised over the years that there seems to be a prejudice towards certain types of individuals within our social stratification. Views that if a person is from a specific background will therefore fall into a certain bracket, suggesting then he or she must therefore be a certain type of person, with a not so flavoursome outlook on life.
Facing lone parenthood is by far in my opinion, one the most hardest tasks anyone would have to face, but to then be labelled as well as a ‘scrounger’ or a ‘strain on society’ is it itself unfair, especially as early research shows there was initially very little evidence to sustain these allegations.
Why then without any hard evidence, or justification, did the larger proportion of society decide that the reason the country was in financial turmoil was because of a group of individuals that did not fit within their ideology of the working class?
History shows that there has always been a group of individuals that did not fit into any of the social structures; they were the homeless, the lone parent, the unemployed, the disadvantaged.
In the 1900’s there were the work houses, today there are the refuges places for the poor and homeless to take shelter and get back on their feet, yet how easy is to get out of the lower bracket of the social structure?
Charles Murray (1990,1994) stated that, * Single parents * Those who do not want to work or the unemployed * Those making a living from crime
Define the underclass, stating that these people lack morals such as honesty and the want to work hard, that the benefits system encourages people to become single parents and that their offspring lack a role model due to the lack of a farther.
Murray was supported in his argument by Dennis and Erdos (1992) whom stated that a ‘dismembered family’ exists because of increased cohabitation, relaxed attitudes to divorce,

and men being able to escape their obligations, they stated that this resulted in crime and substandard parenting skills.
Many of the people criticized by Murray (1990), Dennis and Erdos(1992), would in retrospect be happy to be able to free themselves from the poverty line, to be able to gain employment and labelling of single parenthood. Americans and the British struggling on the welfare system unable to see a light at the end of a very long tunnel (gawker.com/hellofromtheunderclass).
Murray also stated that, there is an ever increasing black underclass, predominately made up of single mothers and men unwilling to work and criminals. He argued that payments from welfare made lone parenting possible, and encouraged benefit dependency rather than promoting labour earned wages, although Morris (1994) stated that automatic entitlement for welfare did not exist for unemployed people in the United States.
Wilson (1997) argued that major shifts in the structure of the American, including the submersion of jobs and the decreasing demand for low skilled labour, contributed to a downward spiral for urban blacks (1987,1996). At the same time jobs where relocating away and the economic base shifted from manufacturing to the service sector, more jobs began requiring formal education and credentials that many inner – city residents lacked.
He says that those that have been successful have moved out of the ghetto’s, and leaving those that are unsuccessful behind, he also thought the term ‘underclass’ should be abandoned as it is used to blame disadvantaged individuals for their problems and be changed to the ‘ghetto poor’ (Holborn, Burrage and Langley, 2009).
Giddens had a more economic theory view of the underclass. He sees them as workers whom tend to find jobs within the secondary labour market (low paid, in – secure jobs, with few prospects). Employers tend to recruit women and ethnic minorities into such jobs partly because of discrimination and prejudice. The underclass have more radical views, than the working class individual in secure employment. This view was supported by Castles and Kosack (1973) whom studied migrant groups and found that this was mainly due to discrimination in Britain.
Murray has been heavily criticised for individualising and racialising the problems of poverty and pathologising the poor, and also demonising lone mothers.
The Neoliberal views advocated more private measures for tackling the ecomonomymoving towards a ‘free market’. Bartholomew (2004) argues that the welfare state has caused harm to Britain he stated it;

* Encourages unemployment by providing an income for individuals that don’t work * and that there are individuals that are working illegally whilst claiming benefit, incapacity benefit when the indidual is actually capable of work. * Creates incentives for those to commit fraud. * Creates instability by making lone parenthood affordable.
But he also agreed that there is a structural argument (Holborn, Burrage and Langley, 2009).
Murray argued that the benefit system should be changed to rid the disincentives of marriage and to discourage lone parenthood. Single mothers can easily live off benefits and according to Murray males whom farther children can easily get out or their responsibilities to family life, therefore pregnant women should be forced to marry and the benefits should be completely cut for unmarried women.
The New Right Solutions are as follows;
Reduce the welfare spend and move away from universal benefits to reduce the dependency culture (McLaughlin and Muncie, 2001).
(Jorden, 1989) argues that means tested benefits cause the underclass because if people take low paid jobs, they will lose jobs and will end worse off.
Morris (1993) examined poverty in Hartlepool and found that the attitudes of the unemployed were not different and they wanted to work. She argues that the concept of the ‘underclass’ is too simplistic to explain.
Blackman (1997) studied the homeless in Brighton and found that they did not reject society’s values, they needed homes and jobs, he stated that the so called ‘under class’ are victims of society whose behaviour will change when they are given genuine opportunities for change.
Feminists strongly challenge Murrays arguments, highlighting that his discourse is firmly embedded in a patriarchal and elitist construction of the family based on sexual stereotyping; unemployment and crime as primarily of concern among young males, while illegitimacy is seen as damaging because of perceived negative impacts on young male children raised without a farther figure (Murray, 1990 and 1994; Bullen and Kenway 2004).
Structural theorists state that poverty continue to exist because society does not share its wealth fairly, it states that poverty can be explained by a structural society rather than the attitudes and behaviour of certain groups. Some disagreement about the reasons why society has failed to erase poverty, some say it is the failings of the welfare state others say it is disadvantage within employment opportunities.

Sociologists have argued that the phrase ‘social exclusion’ should be used for those in poverty rather than ‘underclass’. They state that the name means disadvantaged rather than to blame. Thus including a broader range of people who are unable to take part in society because of multi disadvantage and not just poverty.
The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has identified the following factors; * Lack of resources * Lack of employment * Lack of learning opportunities * Experience of health inequality * Lack of decent housing * Disruption to family life * Living in a disadvantaged neighbourhood
(Downes and Rock, 2003)
To conclude, the argument that Wilson (1997) puts forward that rather than ethnic minorities making up the ‘underclass’ they are more disadvantaged due to lack of training, and employment opportunities. They are being held back, denying them economic success and reinforcing racial stereotypes, would be predominately the most convincing as this outlook could cross reference with a number of sociological theory’s, that it is not a matter of blaming an individual group, but more to find the solution to the problem as a whole issue, and that while Murray was using his theory to lay blame on a particular group rather than looking at the issue as a whole the issues were gradually getting worse.

Bibliography

* Katz, M.B (2009) Improving poor people. Princeton University Press * Hello from the underclasses: Unemployment stories Volume one Gawker.com/…/hello-from-the-underclass-unemployment-stories-vol-one * Murray, C.A, (1999) The underclass revisited. American Enterprise Institute * Barnes,J , Katz, B.I, Korbin, J.E, O’Brien, M (2006), Children and Families in Communities, Theory, Research, Policy and Practice. John Wiley &Sons LTD

Bibliography: * Katz, M.B (2009) Improving poor people. Princeton University Press * Hello from the underclasses: Unemployment stories Volume one Gawker.com/…/hello-from-the-underclass-unemployment-stories-vol-one * Murray, C.A, (1999) The underclass revisited. American Enterprise Institute * Barnes,J , Katz, B.I, Korbin, J.E, O’Brien, M (2006), Children and Families in Communities, Theory, Research, Policy and Practice. John Wiley &Sons LTD