Some Personal thoughts on Poor Families and Public Assistance

Late last year, the Census Bureau reported that during the economic recession from 2006 through 2009, the proportion of families who received cash assistance through the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program, increased to from 3.8% to 4.8%.  While an increase by one percentage point may not seem like a substantial increase, when digging deeper, according to the Bureau, the source of this increase was not the “stereotypical” welfare family (single-mother families or poor, unemployed, or lazy persons), but married-couple families whom have no history of welfare receipt.

Other recent reports have highlighted those populations who are the most affected by the current economic decline are those we often assume to be the most “secure”, including our elders and suburban neighbors.

This report on TANF participation also looked at the participation of families in other social welfare programs, such as SNAP (Food stamps) and free and reduced-priced school meals programs, and again, middle- and working-class families increasingly sought assistance.  Recently, this has proven true even for the community in my own back yard.

Often, even the poorest families in times of economic decline, as well as times of prosperity, are embarrassed to ask for and accept public assistance.  Living solely (and purposefully) on welfare assistance is illegal; a myth – and exception to the rule – which historically has served to reinforce privilege, independence and self-sufficiency, and deter people from seeking and obtaining relief.  For example, some reports, and critical appraisals of the media depictions of the poor, argue that most poor families suffer no deprivation, but live a comfortable life filled with many of the amenities of their middle- and working-class peers.

While many holes can be poked through these arguments (which will be excluded here), it is true that most poor families in the United States do have a higher standard of living than poor families in other industrial, developing, and third-world countries.  According to the Earth Institute at Columbia University, one-sixth of the world’s population lives in extreme poverty on less than $1 per day.  Extreme poverty in the United States, comparatively, is 50% of the Federal Poverty Line (about $10,000/year for a family of four, or about $28 per day for the family—about $7 per person). In 2010 this group was composed of nearly 20.5 million people, about 5.5% of all families and 9.5% of those families with children under 18 years of age.

However contrasting the consumption roles of families globally is an apples-to-oranges comparison.  Standards of living differ between countries, let alone between regions of countries.  Subsisting in Sub-Saharan Africa is much different from subsisting in inner-city or rural areas of the United States; the ability of persons and families to participate in each setting is determined locally, not globally.

This is not to minimize the plight of persons living in oppressive poverty around the globe—the conditions in which they are trying to survive are wrenching.

Rather the point here is to critique the harsh treatment of the poor in the United States.  When compared to the standards of living in this country, and not considering the quality of life, our poor populations are held too much higher standards without the means to participate at the same level…unless adequate help is provided.

The Federal Government released preliminary results from the construction of a supplemental poverty measure which includes an analysis of the impact of certain social safety net and assistance programs.  It turns out, without programs such as SNAP and the Earned Income Tax Credit, poverty rates would have been higher in 2009 and 2010.  Moreover, expenses for aid paid out-of-pocket, like medical care and costs associated with work and transportation increase the proportion of persons falling below the federal poverty line.

However, even as more “traditional” or “typical” working families seek assistance, the message is clear: rather than generate an atmosphere of support and guidance we reinforce unobtainable consumption norms, including the means to obtain these norms.

What We Buy. Is it Happiness?

National Public Radio recently posted an interesting article discussing the types of goods and services that typical Americans purchase.  They included many items of importance to families, including housing costs, health care, food, recreation, and clothing.

Of course there are many more things that families purchase in order to meet norms of social reproduction and socialization, such as goods and services for education and child care.  The NPR article states, that based on these data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average household spends about 3 percent of their income on tuition and child care, with the largest amount going toward housing – whether on mortgages or rent.

What families buy is important because it provides a lens on how families are able to participate in, and contribute to, a society that is essentially a consumer society.  As Schor (p.4) writes,

Our lives are suffused with consuming—of material objects, experiences, services, media.  There is increasingly little that we do which is not a consumption experience.  Material abundance has only intensified in recent years, with the booming economy of the 1990s, and early 21st century. Indeed, it is hard to describe our current consumer patterns in terms other than excess.

And these lives, stratified by income and social class, race and ethnicity, and gender roles, show how these dimensions of difference contextualize material wellbeing.  Consumerism, as defined by Wright and Rogers (p. 103),

“…is the belief that personal wellbeing and happiness depends largely on the level of personal consumption, particularly on the purchase of material goods.”

The types of materials that one can buy – and the amount that one can buy – says much about us and our families.  The result, Wright and Rogers contend,  is that the needs, attachments, and utilization of goods and services are just extensions of our happiness…or are they?

It turns out, it may not necessarily be the things we have that determines this happiness, but the things we have in relationship to what others have.  A story in Time Magazine seems to confirm this,

“…an individual’s rank, viewed this way, was a stronger predictor of happiness than absolute wealth. The higher a person ranked within his age group or neighborhood, the more status he had and the happier he was regardless of how much he made in dollars.”

Wright and Rogers, among others, refer to the status of our material possessions as “positional goods” – or “status-in-comparison to others’ ” goods – which, based on an unequal society, drives social, economic, and wellbeing inequalities.

Apparently, as long as we can rank ourselves higher using our goods and access to services than others within our immediate communities, circle of friends, or other social contexts, we will feel better, will be happier, and evaluate our lives in more positive ways.  And who says money does not buy happiness?!?!

Corporations to the rescue!

I always like poking at the media, especially advertisements.

Here is a post from the archives, on the advertising media’s affects on the family as an institution.

In doing some internet research, I came across this post:

Can Giant Corporations Save ‘The Family’?

A fellow sociologist, Phillip N. Cohen who also authors a blog on the sociology of the family, Family Inequality,  authored this post.

In thinking about socialization, as well as our next theme, consumption, consumerism, and the level at which standards of living are rising in the United States–and around the world–the family institution is always a viable target.  The question becomes, beyond the messages constructed around certain products, is there an additional message being transmitted, too?

Why Trayvon Matters

The tragedy of Trayvon Martin has been covered from a magnitude of angles the past two weeks.

The shooting and killing of this young man, who was determined (incorrectly) to be a threat is the next chapter in the long, sad saga of race in the United States.   This saga, still rearing its ugly head, determines personal and institutionalized practices throughout our society.

This tragedy, however, also proves the importance and impact for a certain race-based socialization of children.  Yes, it is how different races in general learn through symbolic interactions and the on-going social experiences that contextualize our lives.  But more important, it is the social and cultural history of race (and individual and shared sentiments of other races than one’s own) translates into a requirement for non-white parents to socialize their children to understand the importance of difference.

Brown and Lesane-Brown show that black parents play a vital role in socializing their children about the social and psychological implications of being Black.  In their article, “Race Socialization Messages Across Historical Time” racial attitudes are related to the messages we receive in childhood.  For Black children, these messages range from racial pride to receptions of prejudice, and all provide a context for raising and socializing children to understand the historically-contingent importance of difference.

Often, when non-White parents, especially Black parents broach the topic of race relations in the United States, it is coded as “the talk“.  That is, a talk that to prepare Black children, especially boys, for the potential prejudice they could encounter out on the streets.

It is a talk, as Donna Britt recalls, necessary to prepare people of color for the enduring racial divisions in the United States.  As stated in this recent interview in reaction to the Trayvon Martin tragedy,

Even if you have, you know, wonderfully prepared your child for what could possibly happen, so that he or she knows exactly what to say to the authority figure who may perceive him or her as threatening, well, what could they have said to him besides…don’t be black?

The importance of the Trayvon Martin story is not just to remind us that race matters, but to also remind us that socialization is both purposeful and active as well as the passive internalizing of the social world.

It is conditions of existence – the contradictory  system of relations – that necessitate the targeted socialization that many families have to use to prepare children for an unjust world.  It is an existence that not every one can simply take for granted.

Hegemonic Masculinity, Socialization, and Super Bowl Ads

Socialization – the lifelong social experience by which individuals develop their human potential and learn culture – is not just a means for us as individuals to “learn our proper roles” but also for others to learn what should be the expected behaviors of others.

For women and men, and children as well, the messages are everywhere.  Like Risman’s “Socialization into Gender” article proves, the social and cultural messages are powerful.

As such, I found this blog post on Hegemonic Masculinity from Sociology Focus that precisely makes these points through television advertisements during the Super Bowl.

This is an excellent discussion and diagnosis of the “accepted” masculinity (David Beckham), the aloof, foolish “wanna-be” masculinity (Fiat), and an exploitation of this sexualized / sex-driven “master status” masculinity (Go Daddy).

The message here is clear, idealized images of men and women shape our perceptions and expectations of others, whether we can actually accomplish (or only attempt try to meet) these standards.

For families, this is not just an issue of negotiating the social expectations for adults.  As Risman makes clear, this impacts how raising children, whether within or against these parameters, intersect with dominant female and male roles and passing on dominant and alternate expectations of others.

The (Constructed) Lego Girl Myth – Ms. Magazine’s Deconstruction of Gender Roles

Socialization is the life-long process through which we learn, relearn, and reflect the culture, structure, and institutions of our society.  Among social class, race, and gender, socialization has much more immediate and enduring impact on gender because, according UNICEF,

“…people learn to behave in a certain way, as dictated by societal beliefs, values, attitudes and examples.  Gender socialization begins as early as when a woman becomes pregnant and people start making judgments about the value of males over females.  These stereotypes are perpetuated by family members, teachers and others by having different expectations for males and females.”

Maybe this comic provides an example:  

The opportunity structures and gendered messages for women and men, girls and boys, coming from multiple directions and sources sustain socially-constructed and socially-functional gendered roles.

For women, this is most acute.

I came across this blog post from Ms. magazine on the new line of Lego toys.  In the blog, Lego reportedly used social science to determine the types of Legos with which young women and girls show some interest in playing, including the focus on “beauty”.

“The company is framing their new line for girls with “science.” Executives are going to great lengths to explain that the line is based on research, using anthropologists who spent time with girls in their homes. The frame gives the company an excuse for reproducing the same old gender stereotypes that we see throughout our culture. They can shrug their shoulders and say, “Well, what are we to do? This is what girls want.” In this way they are trying to make it clear that they shouldn’t be held accountable for the messages their products send.”

I doubt that girls are only interested in the fashion utility of Legos; in actuality, they did not have much interest in these types of toys because these toy companies were not interested in girls!  But the times have changed and the online Lego shop now includes a category for “girls” (but no separate category for “boys”).

Like Risman’s “Socialization into Gender” article suggests, even when these messages are purposefully and consciously rejected by parents, their children are presented with conflicting messages outside of their own home.  Risman concludes that the determination of gender-neutral families alone does not allow children to live beyond gender; effective social change requires collective action across families and communities.  It is, in effect, a project in and for massive social change.

Diverging Development: Blogs and School Boards

This news week provided many opportunities to explore the concept of “opportunity structures” as discussed by Furstenberg.  Especially in applying the basic definition that,

“Opportunity structures, made up of multiple and overlapping environments shaped by social position, are not accurately apprehended by individuals from different vantage points in the social system. They can only be understood by examining simultaneously what families see and respond to in their familiar settings, what they do not see but can be seen by other observers, and— most difficult of all— seeing what is not there.”  (Furstenberg 2006:288).

Last week’s focus on the birth-rate among unmarried women challenged the notion that social reproduction, and biological reproduction, is not engaged in evenly across different social groups.  The rise in non-marital child births shows how bearing children is important for women, but so is marriage; and being a spouse/domestic partner/or other legally sanctioned committed relation to the baby’s father is not a necessary prerequisite for being a parent.  As society changes, and new generations grow up (historical contingency), new norms, filters and constraints emerge.

There is more to the scenario than parenthood and marital status.  Social class, race, and gender – as social constructions – have much to do with opportunities across families and communities.  This is a “place-based” cultural capital, or the redundant patterns of influences from the family, school, community.

Furstenberg contends than there is a complex interplay between the family, schools, and communities that generate a “diverging development” between children of different social classes, races, and genders.  Often time, these divergences go unseen – or unknown – by people from different settings.

Building on Furstenberg, Hays introduces the concept of “intensive mothering” to describe the lengths at which mothers adopt and incorporate ideals of motherhood into their daily lives.  Focusing on mothers who balance the demands of the home and the workplace, Hays writes that “intensive mothering” techniques are,

“implicitly or explicitly, understood as the proper approach to the raising of a child by the majority of mothers…the dominant ideology of socially appropriate child rearing in the contemporary United States.” (p. 151)

Two example’s from the week’s news shows perfectly how diverging development and intensive mothering can manifest.  First, the website Sociological Images posted a report by the parenting resource website, Babble.com which ranked the Top 100 mothering blogs of 2011.  While seemingly harmless, the top 100 list is, according to Babble, the best of the best,

“…drawing not only the recommendations of our panel, but also paying close attention to…all of [our readers] to help us hear of the up-and-comers, the new debuts, and any other great blogger that isn’t already on our radar.”

It is, in essence, the top blogs as determined by experts and the general readership; which generated the critical contribution to Sociological Images.  By simply looking at these mom blogs,

“…reveals some other interesting issues related to social privilege and motherhood.  In addition to the lack of racial diversity, the blogs included in the list show very little variation in terms of class, sexuality, age, and marital status.   (The blogs were chosen by a panel of “experts” that took into consideration nominations from Babble readers, so it’s unclear how representative they are of mom blogs in general.)”

Parenting blogs are a complex, but important, venue for parents to be educated, to structure their lives according to the advice of these “experts”, and then confer this privilege on their children.

What is more, the privilege to access and use such blogs is in and of itself the ability to access a certain community – the digital community – and then have the savvy to navigate its contours for needed information.  The Sociological Images critique goes on,

“While there is the more obvious privilege of the “digital divide,” or the disparate access that people have to technology and the internet, there is also privilege in having the spare time to devote to intensive writing/blogging and the connections necessarily to draw sponsorship and advertising.”

Juxtapose this with recent happenings within the Chicago Public Schools (CPS).  According to a state law in Illinois, CPS was mandated to hold open and interactive meetings with the public when drafting and implementing school reforms, including the closing of public schools.  The final CPS agreement on school reform, reached recently and passed by the Board of Education, created a much different form of parental involvement in education.  Rather than building an interactive web-based system of support, parent groups came together in public to protest the lack of parent involvement and agency in the school-closing decisions.

The head of the Chicago Teacher’s Union, Karen Lewis stated that, the relationship between the parents, the community, and the schools, is strained:

“Part of the problem we have is establishing the kinds of relationships that are required for students to succeed,” Lewis said. But, she added, “when you have an agenda, nothing stands in your way.”

Like the critique from Sociological Images of the mom blogs, an opinion piece offered another view by taking each of these players to task,

“It would be good if the board and the mayor remember larger realities…like poverty, early education, stronger support for families and insisting on more social responsibility from all, be they poor, middle class or wealthy…Education reform alone can’t solve the problems that adults, acting like children, tend to sweep under the rug.”

Both of these examples show the complex interplay of the family (and who speaks for the family), the community (and how community is defined and accessed), and education (for whom, by whom, and with whom).  But most of all, they show a perspective from differing points of view and ideologies on how parents raise children in much different ways, through many different conditions, and with diverging sets of resources.

And once again, in the end, social reproduction functions to ensure the normative social formation.  I wonder if there is a parenting blog written by inner-city mothers on how to advocate for your child’s poverty-stricken neighborhood school, just as I wonder how many of the blogging parents, as an effort in intensive parenting, have to occupy school board meetings simply for recognition of their rights…