Professional Documents
Culture Documents
New History of Social Welfare A Connecting Core Competencies 7Th Edition PDF Full Chapter PDF
New History of Social Welfare A Connecting Core Competencies 7Th Edition PDF Full Chapter PDF
https://ebookmass.com/product/dimensions-of-social-welfare-
policy-connecting-core-competencies-ebook-pdf-version/
https://ebookmass.com/product/human-behavior-and-the-social-
environment-social-systems-theory-connecting-core-
competencies-7th-edition-ebook-pdf-version/
https://ebookmass.com/product/trapped-brides-of-the-kindred-
book-29-faith-anderson/
https://ebookmass.com/product/social-welfare-a-history-of-the-
american-response-to-need-merrill-social-work-and-human-
services-9th-edition-ebook-pdf/
NLN Core Competencies for Nurse Educators: A Decade of
Influence 1st Edition
https://ebookmass.com/product/nln-core-competencies-for-nurse-
educators-a-decade-of-influence-1st-edition/
https://ebookmass.com/product/gifts-glamping-glocks-a-camper-
criminals-cozy-mystery-series-book-29-tonya-kappes/
https://ebookmass.com/product/understanding-social-welfare-a-
search-for-social-justice-ebook-pdf-version/
https://ebookmass.com/product/exploring-child-welfare-a-practice-
perspective-7th-edition-ebook-pdf/
https://ebookmass.com/product/a-history-of-asia-7th-edition-
ebook-pdf/
SEVENTH EDITION
A New History
of Social Welfare
Phyllis J. Day
with
Jerome H. Schiele
University of Georgia
Boston Columbus Indianapolis New York San Francisco Upper Saddle River
Amsterdam Cape Town Dubai London Madrid Milan Munich Paris Montreal Toronto
Delhi Mexico City Sao Paulo Sydney Hong Kong Seoul Singapore Taipei Tokyo
Editorial Director: Craig Campanella Creative Director: Jayne Conte
Executive Editor: Ashley Dodge Cover Designer: Karen Salzbach
Editorial Product Manager: Carly Czech Cover Image: ©Nito/Fotolia
Editorial Assistant: Nicole Suddeth Editorial Production and Composition Service:
VP/Director of Marketing: Brandy Dawson Sneha Pant/PreMediaGlobal
Executive Marketing Manager: Wendy Albert Interior Design: Joyce Weston Design
Marketing Assistant: Frank Alarcon Printer/Binder: Edwards Brothers
Senior Digital Media Editor: Paul Deluca Cover Printer: Lehigh-Phoenix Color
Production Manager: Meghan DeMaio
Credits appear on Page 511, which constitutes an extension of the copyright page.
Copyright © 2013, 2009, 2006, 2003 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of
America. This publication is protected by Copyright and permission should be obtained from the publisher prior to
any prohibited reproduction, storage in a retrieval system, or transmission in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording, or likewise. To obtain permission(s) to use material from this work, please
submit a written request to Pearson Education, Inc., Permissions Department, One Lake Street, Upper Saddle River,
New Jersey 07458 or you may fax your request to 201-236-3290.
Many of the designations by manufacturers and seller to distinguish their products are claimed as trademarks.
Where those designations appear in this book, and the publisher was aware of a trademark claim, the designations
have been printed in initial caps or all caps.
Student Edition
ISBN-10: 0-205-05273-8
ISBN-13: 978-0-205-05273-8
Instructor Edition
ISBN-10: 0-205-05365-3
ISBN-13: 978-0-205-05365-0
à la Carte Edition
ISBN-10: 0-205-05311-4
ISBN-13: 978-0-205-05311-7
Contents
Preface xix
ix
x Contents
10. Civil and Welfare Rights in the New Reform Era 295
The State of the Nation Under Eisenhower 298
Social Programs in the 1950s 299
Social Insurance 300
Public Assistance 300
Civil Rights Before Kennedy 303
African Americans 303
Native Americans 305
Hispanic Americans 306
Chinese Americans 307
Civil Rights in the Kennedy–Johnson Years 308
Johnson and the Great Society 309
The Civil Rights Act and Continued Protest 309
The Voting Rights Act and New Legal Rights 314
Social Programs in the Kennedy–Johnson Years 315
Kennedy’s Social Security Amendments 316
The Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 317
Programs Amended Under Johnson 320
Other Kennedy–Johnson Social Programs 322
Contents xv
Conclusion 425
PRACTICE TEST 427
MYSEARCHLAB CONNECTIONS 428
Notes 482
Photo Credits 511
Index 512
Preface
CHAPTER OUTLINE
Values in Social Welfare 4 Marriage and the Nuclear Family 13
What Are Values? 5 The “American Ideal”: “Looksism” and
Foundations of Charity and Control 5 “Otherism” 14
1
2 Chapter 1
when poverty continues, deviant behaviors rise, and clients remain ungrateful
and unrepentant. To understand this, we must begin to question the why of
social welfare and social work.
Why is a good question, one we should ask more often. Why have our wel-
fare rolls grown, and why is there hunger in America? Why is there more crime
and delinquency? Why are so many people homeless? Why are mental health
clinics doing a booming business? Why are there so many people with prob-
lems, and why are our prisons overflowing? Why do the costs of all forms of
social welfare continue to rise? The answers lie in understanding the values
that created society’s institutions, how social welfare evolves from the interac-
tions among these institutions, and what purposes social welfare really serves.
A New History will help us answer these questions. First, we must under-
stand that social welfare does not stand alone in any society. Across human
evolution, across societies, and across time, the dynamic, ever-changing inter-
actions of any society’s polity, economy, and dominant religion create societal
values. These, in turn, determine concepts of social problems and construct a
society’s social welfare institution to deal with them. In our society, social wel-
fare is comprised of and vies with aspects of religion, polity, and economy, and
may be carried out by social work, its action arm, or a variety of other agents
such as bureaucrats, clerks, religious bodies, and so on (Figure 1.1).
A New History considers the trends and choices that have shaped atti-
tudes toward those involved in social welfare—women with dependent chil-
dren, the poor, the aged; people of ethnic, cultural, or religious minorities;
those with physical, emotional, or mental disabilities; and anyone not some-
how in accord with current standards of behavior, such as people who are gay,
who are unmarried with children, who do not work. The book’s purpose is
descriptive rather than analytical and is not meant to provide policy analysis
guidelines, except that our major values and their pursuant ideologies always
underlie present and emergent policies. Looking at values, we can discover
the “why” of refusing financial aid to dependent children after two years in
the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program; the “why” of
denying marriage privileges to people of nontraditional sexual orientations;
the “why” of over-representation in prisons of people of ethnic minorities; the
“why” of denying adequate prescription financing for the elderly.
We lay the groundwork for answering questions by looking at the place
of social work and social welfare in society. First, we look at American social
values; second, at issues of poverty and classism; and finally, at institutional
discrimination in American society. In the process, we will discover the syner-
gistic sources and meanings of our values and their impact on perceptions and
practices of social welfare. To do this, we must place some of our own beliefs
Dynamic Interaction
Polity
Determination of Construction of
Religion
Figure 1.1
Society’s Creation of the Social Welfare Institution
4 Chapter 1
and values in abeyance, for much of what we “know” is, in fact, value. This is
not an easy task, but it is essential.
think they are facts rather than beliefs. A fact is the quality of being actual or
having objective reality,3 whereas a value is something intrinsically desirable.4
In more practical terms, a fact is the way things are, and a value is how we
wish they were.5 We “know” both facts and values, but we may confuse them
and base important judgments on what we wish rather than on what is. We
should always test what we “know” by remembering that fact is something
that has existed throughout history and in every culture. Everything else is
value.
society. The first is mutual aid; the second is protection from others and other-
ness. These characteristics are, respectively, the bases of values concerning so-
cial treatment and social control. Often contradictory, they have caused major
dilemmas in the way our social welfare institution works.
For early humankind, protection and aid included actions against preda-
tors (animal or human) and care for dependents (at first probably a mother–
child bond). The need for defense resulted in fears of outsiders and otherness,
whereas bonding was extrapolated into mutual aid in the wider society. As
families bonded together to share food and protection, mutual aid expanded to
include other cooperative efforts such as building, hunting, and farming. Care
of children expanded to include caring for the helpless or valued members of
the tribe, often the elders who had been instrumental in leadership or religious
activities. In tandem with mutual aid, the abhorrence of otherness and defense
against it meant protection of herds and homes from predators and, later, ag-
gression to win more land and wealth from others. Eventually, fear and hatred
of those outside the kin group were extended to in-group people who were
“different” or posed a threat to tribal solidarity. A reluctance to share with oth-
ers became firmly based, and today it is a reluctance to help those who do not
“fit in.”
The results of fear of otherness and a reluctance to share are not universal
cultural themes. Considerable variation exists in how human beings have in-
teracted with each other in relation to otherness and the distribution of mate-
rial resources. To explain this human diversity, historian Cheikh Anta Diop
offers a two cradle thesis of human societies.9 Diop suggests that in antiquity,
there were two distinct cultures or cradles: the northern and southern cradles.
The northern cradle was associated with what we now know is Europe, in-
cluding the middle east, and the southern cradle was associated with what we
now call Africa. Diop contends that the northern cradle was characterized by a
patrilineal and patriarchal social order, and an individualistic and xenophobic
cultural milieu. In contrast, the southern cradle was characterized by a matri-
lineal and matriarchal social order and a collectivistic and xenophilic cultural
environment. We posit that the American cultural value thrust appears to af-
firm more of the northern than southern cradle and that these attributes signifi-
cantly shape dominant social welfare values in the United States.
or program is this progression from values to ideology to policy, plan, and ac-
tion. In addition, at each step (policy, plan, and action) more values and their
derivative ideologies come into play.
The term dominant American social values is used to connote that al-
though the United States is a multicultural society, there are values that tend to
permeate the American social landscape. These values reflect the history, ex-
periences, and worldviews of those who control the major political, economic,
and religious institutions in the United States. We contend that those in power
not only control the material resources of a society, but they also regulate our
symbolic and internal lives that influence the values we endorse.
Among the most basic of these values are
• Judaeo-Christian charity values
• Democratic egalitarianism and individualism
• The Protestant work ethic and capitalism
• Social Darwinism
• The New Puritanism
• Patriarchy
• White Privilege
• Marriage and the nuclear family
• The “American Ideal.”
our clients cannot succeed despite our “good works.” Although we may have
chosen social work as our profession because of its ethical Judaeo-Christian
values, society’s goals for social welfare are more accurately based on more
restrictive values.
In the first decade of the twenty-first century, charity values continue to
evolve in at least three ways, though their finished forms will be difficult to
assess. First is a clear attempt to release the national government from the bur-
den of social welfare, moving it to local levels by “guilting” religions to take up
welfare responsibilities. President George H. W. Bush conceptualized this as
becoming a “thousand points of light.” “Faith-based initiatives” was the rally-
ing cry, with government support going to religious agencies rather than social
welfare or social work programs. Second is the movement of social welfare
tasks, such as public assistance, food stamp allotments, prisons, and hospitals,
to private enterprise, a trend championed by President George W. Bush. To
date, neither move has been as effective as government programs, since mas-
sive problems require much more than stop-gap local measures by religious
groups or profit-oriented corporations. The third is perhaps more interesting.
Not particularly religion-oriented, its genesis arises from the nascent global so-
ciety and has been conceptualized by individuals made spectacularly wealthy
by extra-national business, such as Bill and Melinda Gates or Warren Buffett.
This incipient movement, almost grass roots in nature, is oriented to globally-
inspired needs such as hunger or HIV/AIDS, where problems are recognized
and attacked with all weapons at hand, usually involving great sums of money.
ideas that there are frontiers of the mind and that education, technology, and
hard work can win wealth and success if only we try hard enough. We must be
self-reliant—in control of and responsible for our own lives—and sheer effort
will bring success. To ask for help from others is an admission of weakness,
and failure to achieve—money, happiness, status, whatever—is the fault of the
individual rather than society.
From this comes our tendency to blame the victim, to place the burden
of failure on personal lack of effort. We believe that people are poor because
they will not work rather than because of high unemployment. A person who
is robbed or raped should not have been where such crimes could happen, or
in some way “asked for it.” The aged poor should have planned better for re-
tirement, and poor children are hungry because their parents fail rather than
because society does not provide social insurance. Our “blanket value” of in-
dividual responsibility exonerates society and confirms personal failure for
those who cannot or do not reach “success.”
Success has many meanings. Our responsibility is to help clients to achieve
their own successes, not ours. Moreover, because American society is neither
fully egalitarian nor democratic, we realize that institutional discrimination
and class stratification keep some people from achieving success regardless of
their efforts. Opportunities do not accrue automatically with citizenship, and
blaming the victim does not overcome structural barriers to success.
aged or disabled, for example. However, people who can work should, even if
there is no work—they “can work if they want to” or “can support their fami-
lies if they work hard enough.” The doctrine of personal fault, then as now,
relieved the wealthy of the economic burden of supporting the poor and gave
them “religious credit” for not furthering the immorality of pauperism. We still
believe that poverty is the result of laziness or degeneracy. The work ethic is
so important a value in American society that we do not see who the poor
are: young children, mothers who care for them, the aged, and the disabled.
Although changing technologies and government programs create new unem-
ployment and underemployment, because of the work ethic we insist that any-
one who wants to work can earn enough to live on.
Social Darwinism
Darwinism, a biological theory never intended to become economic, says that
organisms unable to survive in an ecological niche will die out. In the nine-
teenth century, Malthus extrapolated the theory into a social and economic
one: Population trends predicted, to him, a future teeming with poor people
supported by “worthy” hard workers. This theory became known as social
Darwinism, which said that state support of the poor was against the laws of
“economic nature” and that the lives of people who were “economically unfit”
should not be saved by giving them public assistance. Moreover, it claimed
they were poor by choice because of moral degeneracy, and so should perish.
Any society continuing to aid them would be destroyed by their immorality.
Today, social Darwinist attitudes infect all of society’s institutions. Founded
on the economic issue of support for the poor, stigma spreads insidiously to
groups likely to be poor, legitimating discrimination and exploitation against
them regardless of their economic situations. Politically speaking, this main-
tains the status quo for the power elite. The idea that “they are not as good
as us” permeates society’s institutions and is directed against, among others,
people of color; those of “different” religions; homosexuals denied equal family
or job benefits; people differently abled physically, mentally, or emotionally;
elders neglected in nursing homes or abused by their caretakers; and, of course,
the poor, particularly mothers and their dependent children. Sadly, the TANF
program classes children in their parents’ economic status, and after two years
of public assistance, they too become “unfit” to receive society’s help.
Although rarely espoused openly today, social Darwinism exists covertly
in many welfare policies and programs and in the public idiom. Along with
the Protestant work ethic, it opposes Judaeo-Christian charity values and helps
to explain our society’s loathing of “reliefers.” Public assistance programs
demonstrate the value clearly in low grants, stigmatization of recipients, insen-
sitive and irrelevant eligibility testing, and attempts to put recipients to work
regardless of wage or personal situations. We still believe that supporting the
poor contributes to their immorality, although we are blind to the support we
give to the wealthy through tax breaks and government support of and invest-
ment in corporations.
enforce compliance to the patriarchal and Puritan values of the past. Puritan
values include chastity, particularly for women; honesty in dealing with oth-
ers; abstinence from things defined by religion and custom as immoral, such as
promiscuity, gambling, and the use of alcohol or drugs to excess; and “proper”
behavior (that is, behavior that will not offend others). Puritan morality also
emphasizes the sanctity of marriage and family and patriarchal authority in the
home and condemns lifestyles such as communal living and homosexuality.
The New Puritanism is somewhat analogous to what David Wagner calls
the “New Temperance,” a peculiarly American ideology that obsesses on sin
and vice. It particularly concerns substance abuse, sexual behaviors, food and
fitness, and suspect freedom of speech issues such as pornography, lewd lan-
guage, and the content of music, movies, and so forth.11 He contends that this
constitutes a culturally normative “consensus war . . . primarily against the
working class, ethnic and racial minorities, and poor people. . . .”12 The result
of this is to further the “otherization” of such groups and make them more sub-
ject to political control.
The Religious Right, made up primarily of Protestants with a sprinkling
of Catholics and Jews, uses modern technology in its battles: Television brings
the moral campaign into our homes and computer technology enables imme-
diate contact with adherents on action issues. This New Puritanism has cata-
pulted people from the radical Right into office, removed liberal incumbents,
and sponsored laws and movements that reinforce religious beliefs on wom-
en’s career and reproductive choices, prayer in school, and other moral issues.
Militant on the side of domestic law and order, it advocates national insularity
and military force to maintain it despite the interdependence of the world’s
nations.
Patriarchy
Patriarchy is a system in which power and authority are vested in men,
whereas women and other powerless groups, such as children, workers, and
slaves, are oppressed and often owned. More than the domination of women
by men, it arose early in history when patriarchs (male heads of families) took
absolute power over families and clans and began to conquer weaker groups.
Religious legitimation of conquest bonded with patriarchy to produce a new
kind of society, one based on male authority rights. Today, it is a worldwide
system of exploitation of women (sexism), the poor (classism), nonwhite peo-
ple (racism), and people and governments of developing countries (neocolo-
nialism or imperialism).
In a patriarchal society, male authority permeates every institution: In the
polity, men hold most appointed and elected offices and make laws, decisions,
and policies; in the economy, men have control of capital, resources, and the
production and distribution of goods and services; in religion, men hold the
highest offices, dictating moral standards of society; and in the family, men
make major decisions as “heads of the house.” Under patriarchy, women suffer
dual oppression: as women in male societies and as workers in patriarchal sys-
tems. They have been bought, sold, or married for political liaisons, and laws
control their sexuality, including reproduction, which is geared to produce
children as workers or to carry on men’s inheritances. In marriage, in the labor
force, and in systems of public assistance, they and their children are economi-
cally dependent, and ultimately their subsistence and well-being depends on
the largesse (or lack thereof) of men.
12 Chapter 1
White Privilege13
Despite the election of African-American president Barack Obama in 2008,
White Privilege is a value so pervasive and so insidious in our culture that
we are still nearly blind to its existence. Along with patriarchy’s oppression
of women (sexism) and the values that oppress the poor (classism), it is a key
element in the development and support of many other values, such as social
Darwinism, the work ethic, and capitalism. Endowed with an almost religious
fervor, this elusive/unrecognized value is the adamant belief in the superiority
of whiteness. According to Jerome Schiele, White Privilege is
. . . the belief that European American norms and mores are universal
and supreme to other cultural prescriptions and interpretations14
and that it
. . . characterizes the power advantages that people of European descent
collectively have over people of color.15
Joe E. Feagin calls White Privilege a “racialized hierarchy of power” 16 and
says it is
. . . the set of benefits and advantages inherited by . . . those defined as
“white” in the social process and structure of U.S. society. The actual
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ABRAHAM
LINCOLN ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also
govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most
countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the
United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms
of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying,
performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this
work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes
no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in
any country other than the United States.
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the
method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The
fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty
payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on
which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your
periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked
as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information
about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation.”
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.F.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in
paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of
other ways including checks, online payments and credit card
donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.