During class
the past couple of weeks we have been discussing the underclass. We have established that this is a term that
refers to those below the lower class.
Some people refuse to even use this term, finding other ways in which to
explain the poverty levels in which some people are living that typically minimize the issue. One of the better equivalents I found in an
article from October of 2015 describes the same population we are talking about
as those in “deep poverty.” This better
explains the serious ghetto underclass crisis in which many people are
experiencing.
According to
William Julius Wilson, there are two different ways to explain the ghetto
underclass crisis. He believes that the
Liberal argument of the underclass can be explained through a structural
(individual) lens and that the Conservative argument of the underclass can be
explained through a cultural lens.
Liberals tend to relate disadvantage to problems of society such as
discrimination, while Conservatives tend to relate disadvantage to differences
in group values and competitive resources.
While we cannot be sure that either of these outlooks are “correct,”
both views can certainly be viewed with an aspect of truth.
When poverty
is viewed with a Conservative outlook, people are in poverty because they are
lazy, uneducated, ignorant, or inferior in some way. According to one of the websites I found on
this topic, “If this theory were true, it would follow that impoverished people
are basically the same people every year.
And if that were true, we could whip poverty by helping that particular
15% of the population to figure things out and climb out of poverty.” This is a very logical argument that I never
thought of until I found the article.
Another argument supporting the Conservative side is that a child will
follow what he or she sees growing up and reproduce similar actions. This is saying that if a child sees his or
her parent(s) unemployed and receiving welfare, that child is more than likely
to produce the same outcome.
When viewing
poverty and the underclass with a Liberal outlook, people are in poverty because
of persistent issues within the economic system. Liberal critics argue that poverty is due to
segregation, limited opportunities, and external obstacles against
advancement. Mainly, the structural
argument is about restricted opportunities.
So which one is it? The Demos
website states that the easiest thing to do in order to figure out which theory
is “true” is to answer the following question: are impoverished people the same
people every year or different ones? If
the answer is yes, you could argue that the Conservative argument holds more
weight, whereas if the answer is no, you could argue that the Liberal argument
takes the win. No matter which side is
more correct, this is still a very large and pressing issue that needs to be
addressed.
I like the term “deep poverty” as stated in you article as a connection to the 2015 poverty. This goes to show how poverty hasn’t been alleviated over the years due to both idea of liberal and conservatives. It was interesting that conservative views were connected to the term “urbanism” and liberal views were leaning more toward the term “urbanization.” I wish you had tied James Wilson views on poverty as discussed in class. I agree with you on this issue needing to address, but we can only alleviate some poverty at this point, it would take decades for this nation to completely et rid of poverty. I personally agree with the liberal point of view because urban structures are those who create opportunities for jobs and opportunities to build our economy because ultimately with out a good economy, no poverty or low-income urban areas will be addressed.
ReplyDelete