Four women profiled by Sharon Hays:

• Teresa–Has 3 children, worked nights as prostitute, selling marijuana (working in the underground economy—never paying taxes)—welfare check kept them off the streets, though;
• Darla–3 kids by age 21 (teenage years spent partying with soldiers on local military base); on and off welfare for 17 years;
• Joanne–4 kids, crack addict (this was discovered during a routine reporting required by TANF rules); youngest two kids going into foster care; oldest two taken in by her parents;
• Tanya–First child at 15 yrs; three kids, two fathers, second relationship ended in divorce and violence

Hays says such cases may make up 1/4 to 1/3 of welfare cases at any given time. We have discussed in class the so-called ‘culture of poverty.’ These women’s cases would seem to make them poster children for that view. On the surface, their stories might reinforce conservative notions that welfare creates dependency and reinforces ‘immoral’ behavior. At the least, they are not sympathetic characters that most Americans would identify with and seek to full support with their tax dollars.

How should a government respond?

The culture of poverty thesis suggests that being in poverty is a learned and passed-down set of beliefs and values. Children are socialized into it. From a social science perspective, the culture of poverty is difficult to ‘find’—Are we seeing the results of a learned and transmitted set of beliefs, or the results of economic hardship and gross structural inequities? Is this another example of blaming the victims of poverty for their plight? It is easy to focus on the ‘good’ mothers who ‘mainstream’ American can identify with, says Hays, and ignore the minority of cases with ‘bad’ mothers.

Hays identifies four common ‘syndromes,’ or profiles, of ‘deviance’:

‘Burger-barn syndrome’ (Nadia)—hopeless job prospects—these individuals may rationalize that staying at home on welfare, caring for the family, is the best use of time. Some characteristics include:

• Early mothers, ambivalence about birth control;
• Children and familial responsibility serve as checks on wild, irresponsible behavior;
• Go for the benefits—food stamps, housing subsidies, health insurance–to support children;
• Hopeless future in the job market—no human capital, no aspirations to work, lousy options;
• Child-rearing may be the one bright spot in a women’s life—they are her connection to world, to hopes (for her kids);
• Lack of faith, trust in men in their lives (but not necessarily total rejection)—about fatherhood

‘Candy-store syndrome’ (Joy) —drugs, sex for pleasure, dulling pain of life on the bottom, at least some form of membership. Characteristics include:

• Active sex life, multiple partners (sometimes multiple abortions), rocky relationships;
• Drug user/abuser (and in one case, a thief);
• Inept with finances;
• May have some human capital, but it hasn’t paid off;
• Unstable upbringing—lots of turmoil, breakups;
• Like a kid in a candy store (remember the ‘instant gratification’from Lewis’ thesis)—self-absorbed, aimless consumption—lots of Americans do this (some can afford it …)
• Drug abuse is probably only the # 3 problem among welfare recipients (behind domestic violence, disability)

‘System screwed me syndrome’ (Sandra) —the government has no sympathy for the poor, and they have no sympathy or respect for, or compliance to, government. Traits include:

• Multiple children;
• Working the welfare system (getting money under the table, not reporting cohabitation);
• Able to work, but not willing or interested;
• Sense of entitlement–to receive welfare—it’s a bankrupt system, full of hoops, and you should get what you can–this is that ‘moral economy‘ argument again;
• Men are for providing support—that’s all they’re good for (not relationships);
• Proud of their ability to work system (unlike most others);
• Somewhat more independent (as long as she can work the system)

‘Lorena Bobbit syndrome’—men are an afterthought—pattern of relationship problems with the opposite sex—they reject the presence of men in their lives

• How does this stereotype fit with marriage promotion as conceptualized by supporters of welfare ‘reform?’

So, again, what role is there for government? Hays spends some time discussing disability, both physical and mental, and the strain it places on many who can least afford it, are unlikely to have a support system or insurance to seek the proper care, etc.

Deviant Values?

But then Hays asks whether these women really represent profiles of deviance.

• Child-rearing–versus what, low wage labor? Isn’t this the embodiment of family values? This is back to the fundamental contradiction she points out between ‘work ethic’ and ‘family values’–how can you have both at the low end of the socioeconomic spectrum? Without government support or some sort of network of social capital?
• Independence–Isn’t self-sufficiency, rugged individualism part of the American psyche? In many ways isn’t making one’s way, by hook or by crook, using public resources or not, about surviving without help?
• Consumption–What society in the world consumes more than Americans? Shouldn’t everyone in American society aspire to this? Isn’t the American Dream often couched in terms of materialism? Marx refers to the power of ‘commodity fetishism,’ the power of things to distract us from inequities and social injustices. Would wealthy families with some of the dysfunctions Hays describes be so stigmatized? Are these women guilty of anything but being poor?
• ‘Moral economy,’ skepticism of government—The founding fathers were very skeptical of public leaders’ tendencies to use government in ways that didn’t serve the public’s best interests. How many people vote in elections? Or don’t vote? Who gets the democracy, the free speech, the tax cuts? If government doesn’t help us, shouldn’t we take whatever we can?
• Independence from violent relationships (Lorena Bobbit)—Yes, we live in a patriarchal society. We have seen the feminization of poverty (and stigmatization of single motherhood), and there is no denying the prevalence of domestic violence against women. Is seeking independence from such circumstances something Americans couldn’t identify with?

Hays asks: Is there hope for the least sympathetic among the welfare recipients??

These are our cultures, but defined as deviant when we see them in people who draw on the public social welfare system – where would these women have ended up had they not had severe physical, economic, emotional setbacks?