Underclass Case

Should we understand underclass in terms of the inadequacies of the individual, as some commentators have suggested? What alternative explanations are possible?

Initially, before focusing on the arguments that surround the idea of 'the underclass', importance lies in explaining what is meant by this term and where the concept came from.

The underclass is not a new phenomenon. In the Communist Manifesto (1848) Marx and Engels referred to this group as the "lumpenproletariat" who are the "dangerous class" or the "social scum", who are "passively rotting mass thrown off by the lowest layers of old society" (Marx and Engels 1848: 6). In their writing, Marx and Engels made the distinction between the proletariat or working class and the underclass which is still used in sociological perspectives of class structure today.

Marx's thesis centred on the revolution of capitalist society into communism which would put an end to the hierarchical class structure of the time. Marx believed that a "universal class" where "former capitalists", (Chancer and Watkins 2006: 96) who have gone out of business and the existing working class merge into one boundary and therefore this would spell the end for poverty. However, instead of a movement into a communism epoch, it has been argued that capitalistic society has grown stronger, thus old class structures have evolved into the contemporary day.

Rigid social class structures are not the only thing to have evolved, two main theoretical perspectives surrounding the concept of the underclass are still present in sociological thinking today. Firstly I will discuss the understanding of individualistic or behavioural perspectives which are unsympathetic in blaming the underclass for their poverty on their inadequacies. I will evaluate the points made by looking at the other stance of structural thinkers, who look at poverty and the underclass as part of a wider social structure of society instead of on an individual basis.

Mentioned previously, individualistic perspectives blame members of the underclass for their poverty due to their personal inadequacies. They believe that this group of people have a distinct set of values that differ from everyone else, and if they acted and thought the same as the rest of the population which made up the working, middle and upper classes, they would be able to help themselves out of the vicious cycle of poverty and deprivation. These perspectives are mostly occupied by New Right thinkers, arguably, the most prominent of our time is Charles Murray.

Murray, an American New Right commentator and social scientist felt strongly about the emergence of the underclass in Britain. He feared that it would devastated cities like it had done in the USA. In his book 'The Emerging British Underclass' Murray firmly took an individualistic stance noting how there are "two kinds of poor people"(Murray 1990: 1), following the lead of previous right thinkers Murray asserted that those who made up the underclass were defined by their behaviour, which separated them from other poor people who just lacked money; it is a "type of poverty." (Murray 1990: 6) Three phenomena Murray claimed characterised the underclass' behaviour which "turned out to be the early warning signals in the United States: illegitimacy, violent crime, and drop-out from the labour force."

Illegitimacy and single mothers were regarded very much as inadequacies by Murray and were thought of as an underpinning issue of the underclass. Concentrated amongst the lowest social class districts, he insisted that issue "bespeaks an attitude" that suggests the parents do not believe that marriage is an "essential part" of childrearing. He noted that this attitude "distinguishes their mindset" from other peoples', suggesting that they don't have the same values as 'normal' people who have children after they get married. (Murray: 1990: 5) Illegitimacy for Murray came hand in hand with dependancy on the welfare state. Although he insisted that the underclass' problems were on the surface, caused by their own 'rational choices', for example, to fall pregnant before marriage, Murray ultimately put the blame on welfare provision. Murray noted how "it was wrong to impose rules that made it rational for adolescents to behave in ways that destroyed their futures", (Murray 1984: 219 in Morris 1994: 81) proposing that post-1964 social policy which aimed to help single mothers cope financially and independently from a man, encouraged illegitimacy within the young underclass.

Murray and others from a this perspective believed that the only way to prevent this type of deviant behaviour would be to address the social policy at the time. For example, by decreasing the amount of money and childcare that the state gave lone mothers, this would be more of an incentive for women to wait until they are married and financially secure before having children. Murray believed that an increase of two parent families, with two strong role models, could lessen the ongoing pattern of illegitimacy, unemployment and crime within the underclass. He noted that "boys and girls" could "grow into responsible parents and neighbours and workers because they are imitating the adults around them." (Murray 1990: 11) Therefore, social policy that encouraged a nuclear family, would be a good turning point for both the underclass and society as a whole.

The attention of Murray was also turned to the high rates of unemployment associated within the underclass. He claimed that young and healthy males would choose not to take jobs and even when offered training programmes, they wouldn't take them. Murray noted that "it is an irretrievable disaster for young men to grow up without being socialised into the world of work" (Murray 1990: 22) Murray insisted that work is more than just earning a living to survive, it is the means of supporting a family which is the "central means for a man to prove to himself that he is a 'mensch'." (Murray 1990: 22) Without this means, young men find other ways to prove their masculinity which are normally detrimental to their lives as well as those of in their community. Marriage is said to be a '"civilizing force" (Murray 1990: 23) and therefore without having to take responsibility for his wife and children, they will remain "barbarians." (Murray 1990: 23)

The main criticism of individualistic perspectives are their inability to place the explanation of poverty in any type of context. Instead of looking at the wider spectrum of society, these perspectives