The purpose of this paper is to show comprehensive knowledge of Goldman’s Five Absolute Truths, and to demonstrate how these ideological perspectives influence policy development. I will define the absolute ideas as stated by Goldman, the impact on social policy development, my perspective on white privilege in policy development and finally the relevance in the social welfare today. According to Eric F. Goldman there are unchallengeable truths that exist (Evolutions of Medicare, n.d.). The truths posited by Goldman exist with no relationship to time, place, individual or group interest (Five Absolute, n.d.). They are true at all times, and simply exist as the body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of all people whom they affect. Laissez Faire Economics, White Man’s Burden, Manifest Destiny Protestant Ethic and Social Darwinism are mentioned as ideological “truths” by Goldman (Five Absolute, n.d.).
“The White Man’s Burden”: Kipling’s Hymn to U.S. Imperialism written in 1899, urged the United Stated to take up the
…show more content…
heavy load of the empire (Wikipedia, 2015). This 18th century discussion about the annexation of the Philippines by America encouraged imperialism. And, urged America as the moral and spiritual responsible people dominate non-white people (Five Absolute, n.d.). At the time, guiding and controlling of non-whites involved the superiority of skin color and being God’s chosen people over a deficient people (Five Absolute, n.d.). The overt dominance of non-white was thought for the good of the people. The burden was then the duty and responsibility of the United States. Closely tied to “White Man’s Burden” was the philosophy of Manifest Destiny suggesting the United States was destined by God to spread its supremely desirable form of government, and approach to society to the rest of the world (Axinn & Stern, 2005). Manifest Destiny fueled the momentum and determination of the United States to stretch from coast to coast. The United States which was firstly made up of 13 colonies-turned-states pushed west toward the Pacific in the 1840s (Robbins, Chatterjee & Canada, 1998). Its relentless expansion, most prominently with the Louisiana Purchase, the earliest manifestation of American expansionism, the westward movement of American settlers, supported through the growing military capabilities of the U.S. Army, entailed a continuous series of confrontations with Native American tribes (Robbins et al., 1998). There were significant and direct confrontations with Native populations and Mexicans (McIntosh, 1988). The Mexicans would eventually be forced to surrender tremendous territories to the Americans, including the temporarily independent and sovereign Republic of Texas (McIntosh, 1988). The Charity Organization Society (COS) of 1877 served as the backdrop for historical changes in social welfare in the United States (Axinn & Stern, 2005). Powerful bodies of knowledge were explored in the United Stated at the time COS in terms of poverty, pauperism, social policy and programs. COS followers were fearful that social welfare programs would create dependence on the government which would ultimately result in weakening of the human race (Chapin, 2011). Two economic theories emerged as the underpinning for the economy, the people and power. First, the Laissez-Faire economy supposed the government to govern as little as possible, and stay out of private matters between citizens to get the most results (Chapin, 2011). Economic progress is best achieved if competitive forces are given free play. The responsibility of government, accordingly, was only to ensure the maximum of freedom for private enterprise, which, of course, foreclosed government activity in the area of social welfare. The second theory was Social Darwinism--the application of Charles Darwin's theory of biological evolution to social relations (Axinn & Stern, 2005). Social Darwinism found in the theory of evolution a vision of life as a relentless struggle for "survival of the fittest." In effect, they saw in it a scientific justification for the doctrine of "every man for himself." While this was admittedly a harsh doctrine, its defenders claimed that it was nonetheless the mechanism by which society progressed. By implication, of course, government must not undertake to ameliorate hardship or protect the citizens against economic hazards for fear of frustrating the "natural" evolution of society (Five Absolute, n.d.). Finally, Protestant ethic combined work, thrift and financial independence (Axinn & Stern, 2005). Law for the poor at the time consisted of dreadful language and were rigorously administered. The poor received assistance by exclusion; and society as a whole embraced the “pleasure of work” later as “work ethic” (McIntosh, 1988). The need for any type of public welfare was determined only by an individual or family’s validated need; which was combined with public responsibility was admitted (Axinn & Stern, 2005). Following the Depression of 1930 societal needs were redefined. The conscious of social welfare organizers we thrust into understanding individuals could be out of work and in need of social services through no fault of their own. The impact of the depression era itself strained the entire family, and resonates with social welfare and policy development today. Why is this important now?
Because, many out-of-touch politician continue approach social policy development with antiquated belief systems and values a few of which are included in Goldman’s Five Absolute Truths. Social policy development is directly tied the economy today, no different than in the early 18th century. There are layers of separation from social class to the generational benefits of wealth that give out-of-touch politicians a dangerous divide the poor they purport to help with policy. Nothing has changed about white privilege, and the historical collection of benefits for groups perceived to be white (or higher social class), and denying the same to members of other groups (McIntosh, 1988). There are benefits to access to resources, social rewards, and the power to shape the norms and values of society that white people receive, unconsciously or consciously, by virtue of their skin color (McIntosh,
1988). Policymakers have yet to acknowledge that by the accident of history, they are in positions that give them advantages over others (Chapin, 2011). And then, they are being asked to advocate for changes that may disadvantage themselves or their family members. A few have dared to recognize their own potential power, and marshal their energies to seek correction in society’s processes (McIntosh, 1998). In my opinion this country has been reluctant to embrace in total the idea of “social welfare” as a redistribution of resources from between the have and have nots. It seems the political position of privilege has held instead to the power and control under the guise of a free enterprise system at the same time the non-whites are hindered by institutional racism. The political climate today fails to directly address; and may even contribute to the anti-public welfare issue, and the misunderstanding of the real meaning of intergenerational poverty.
“I repeatedly forgot each of the realizations on this list until I wrote it down. For me, white privilege has turned out to be an elusive and fugitive subject. The pressure to avoid it is great, for in facing it I must give up the myth of meritocracy. If these things are true, this is not such a free country; one’s life is not what one makes it; many doors open for certain people through no virtues of their own.”
This article was stimulating to me because it related with me on a personal level. I have been discriminated upon many times in my life and this article excellently explained how white privilege plays a role in determining which groups are in the high or low end of the hierarchy spectrum. In Sklar’s article, Imagine a Country, she explains the growing income inequality between individuals by using several statistics that show the rising wealth gap between the lower, middle, and upper class. Throughout her article, Sklar addresses the controversial topic of high government spending by pointing out that there is an unequal amount of resources that are distributed between large programs such as defense and social programs that help reduce poverty. Her critics have stated that because she is presenting statistical facts as it pertains to income inequality, that she is therefore obligated to include proposals that will address and solve this dilemma. The purpose of this article, contrary to what her critics have criticized her for, is not to present a solution to this
Carmichael views America as a system that refuses to acknowledge the issue of race in an honest fashion. Because the holders of the country’s power, Whites, have no sense of urgency in the matter, it is comfortable taking its time in addressing such “inconvenient” problems. When the current power structure leaves those at the top of it in a particularly comfortable state, the desire to make changes that would only allow for others to have equal chance to take such a seat is unlikely.
The American upper class controls our governing bodies, our social institutions, our policy-making process, and everything else in between. Ask yourself: when has a poor black woman from inner-city Houston ever navigated the detours and roadblocks that pervade the journey up the American class system? Contrarily, what proportion of American legislators, lobbyists, and lawyers come from upper-middle and upper class families? One element absent from Domhoff’s book was a discussion on social capital. I believe that an acknowledgement of how networking amongst members of the upper class increases the social capital of American elites, and how such a consequence can prove critical in maintaining class parameters and ensuring they remain in place for generations to come. Cutting off communication opportunities between classes is quite possibly the greatest cause of classism in America. It is not that Domhoff neglected a discussion on social capital as his ideas more or less all consummate the idea; I just wish he would have incorporated a discussion of the term directly in his
After long years of suffering, degradation, and different sorts of discrimination which the disadvantaged group of people had experienced, the “Affirmative Action Law” was finally passed and enforced for the very first time on September 24, 1965. The central purpose of the Affirmative Action Law is to combat racial inequality and to give equal civil rights for each citizen of the United States, most especially for the minorities. However, what does true equality mean? Is opportunity for everyone? In an article entitled, “None of this is fair”, the author, Mr. Richard Rodriguez explains how his ethnicity did not become a hindrance but instead, the law became beneficial. However, Mr. Richard Rodriguez realized the unfairness of the “Affirmative Action” to people who are more deserving of all the opportunities that were being offered to him. Through Mr. Rodriguez’s article, it will demonstrates to the reader both favorable, and adverse reaction of the people to the Affirmative Action, that even though the program was created with the intention to provide equality for each and every citizen, not everyone will be pleased, contented, and benefit from the law.
In the modern day, health care can be a sensitive subject. Politically, health care in America changes depending on whom is President. Obamacare and Trumpcare are different policies regarding health care, which many people have passionate feelings towards. However, not many Americans are informed about Norman Daniels’ view on health care. Throughout this paper I will be outlining Norman Daniels’ claims on the right to health care, and the fundamental principles in which he derives to construct his argument. By means of evaluating Daniels’ argument, I will then state my beliefs regarding the distributive justice of health care.
Bonilla assumes that the colorblind ideology is focus on four parts: abstract liberalism, naturalization, cultural racism, and minimization of racism. This gives people the false notion of racial equality. Abstract liberalism, is based on the use of backwards ideas of “equal opportunity” and “economic liberalism” to “rationalize racial inequalities” (Bonilla). By using what Bonilla-Silva describes as the “language of liberalism,” whites can resist any change in the racial status quo, while seeming ethical and reasonable (Bonilla).
In the 1980’s President Ronald Reagan and his staff implemented the largest economic transformation in the United States since President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal in the 1930’s (Niskanen 1993). The media labeled his economic agenda as “Reaganomics;” a term that the majority of Americans have since adopted to characterize President Reagan’s economic policies (ushistory.org 2014, White, Bay, and Martin 2012). Many Americans have contended that the policies of Reaganomics were disadvantageous to those who are dispossessed, the majority of whom were minorities (Pierre 1991). According to Jesse Jackson, the main tenant of Reaganomics, or “reverse Robin Hood[ism]” as he titled it, was that “the poor had too much money and the rich had too little” (Jackson 1988). Through his policies, President Reagan authorized extensive tax cuts for the upper income bracket and corporations, increased the military and defense budgets, and enacted extensive spending cuts to welfare programs, such as food stamps, child-care subsidies, job-training programs, and welfare assistance programs for the working poor (Mintz and McNeil 2013). In considering the implications of the various changes that President Reagan made to the economic system in the United States, it becomes evident that the policies had a positive effect on the rich whites and had negative consequences for the poor minorities. During both the 1984 and 1988 presidential nomination elections, many of the Americans who were negatively affected by President Reagan’s political policies were in search of a new hope—someone who would rescue them from the suffering that Reaganomics caused.
Prior to beginning my readings on white racial identity, I did not pay much attention to my white race. If someone had asked me to describe my appearance I would have said short blond hair, blue eyes, average stature, etc. One of the last things I would have noted was the color of my skin. Growing up in overwhelmingly white communities, I never thought to use the color of my skin to differentiate myself from others. Over the course of this dialogue I have learned that my white racial identity is one of the most defining aspects of my appearance in this society. There is a certain level of privilege that I am afforded based solely on the color of my skin. According to Peggy McIntosh, “White privilege is like an invisible weightless knapsack of special provisions, assurances, tools, maps, guides, codebooks, passports, visas, clothes, compass, emergency gear, and blank checks” (71). All these objects listed by McIntosh are things I have access to and certainly take for granted. Due to a history of non-white racial oppression, which transformed into decades of racial discrimination that still lingers today, the white race has dominated our society in terms of resources and prosperity. The ideas of wealth, higher-level education and ambition to succeed are all traits commonly linked to people of the white race that collectively define privilege. The aspect of privilege can also produce disadvantages for people of the white race as well. In the book Promoting Diversity and Justice, the author D. Goodman notes that people of advantage groups develop a sense of superiority, which will sometimes lead them to wonder if, “their achievements were based on privilege or merit” (107). Along with a diminished sense of accomplishment, the cost ...
Neoliberalism only results in increased policing, criminalization, and incarceration of these communities, which then results in redlining, gentrification, and white flight, with the skyrocketing prices within the real estate market, leaving those unable to afford this lifestyle, therefore reliant on the welfare state for survival. Recently neoliberalism has been decorated with the rhetoric of multiculturalism, not coincidentally by a black president, who is often mistakenly used as a token of racial inclusion and possible success, regardless of one’s race or class, as neoliberals continue to argue is the idea of meritocracy and “pulling one up by their bootstraps” to attain success, disregarding of their position within an oppressive economy. This new phenomenon was amplified by President Obama, to address some of the racial tensions in the country by adopting a colorblind ideology that disregards and dismisses the effects and influence of identity and privilege and faults those of color for their lack of success and assimilation into white culture that typically tends to
Martin Carnoy wanted to achieve one of the most difficult, emotional, and political topics in America’s history. Faded Dreams: The Politics and Economics of Race in America addresses the subject of economic inequalities among minorities. For the past century, material goods have posed as the symbol of success and worth in our nation’s society. Carnoy argues that efforts to improve technology have changed over the past century, but the social problems in our nation continue. Carnoy agrees improvements have been made in the lives of minorities in America, but they have fallen short or have been dismantled. He focuses on three reasons: “individuals responsibility,” “persuasive racism,” and “economic restructuring.”
Distributive justice requires the philosophical powers of reflection of the greatest theorists. In order to solve certain social issues, the most pragmatic solution must be concocted carefully to solve the biggest loopholes. Michael Walzer is no stranger to the complexity of social inequality. In his book A Defense of Pluralism and Equality, he argues that every society decides on the value of a social good and therefore should distribute those good according to the meanings they have. The social goods (healthcare, office, membership, money, politics, education) are divided into spheres each having their own distributive arguments. Walzer’s acceptance of the pluralistic nature of human group and ideology leads to his argument of a complex equality, one that contrasts the ideas of equality explicit in Rawlsian Liberalism.
In A Theory of Justice John Rawls presents his argument for justice and inequality. Rawls theorizes that in the original position, a hypothetical state where people reason without bias, they would agree to live in a society based on two principles of justice (Rawls 1971, 4). These two principles of justice are named the first and second principles. The first is the equal rights and liberties principle. The second is a combination of the difference principle and the fair equality of opportunity principle, or FEOP (Rawls 1971, 53). Rawls argues that inequality will always be inevitable in any society (Rawls 1971, 7). For example, there will always be a varied distribution of social and economic advantages. Some people will be wealthier than others and some will hold places of greater importance in society. Rawls’s argument is that to ensure the stability of society the two principles of justice are needed to govern the assignment of rights and regulate the inequality (Rawls 1971, 53). Any infringement of an individuals rights or inequality outside the parameters of the principles of justice are unjust.
Negotiating styles are grouped into five types; Competing, Collaborating, Comprising, Avoidance, and Accommodating (Colburn, 2010). Even though it is possible to exhibit different parts of the five types of negation styles in different situations, can see that my tendencies seem to default to, Compromise and Accommodating. In reviewing the course work and reviewing my answers for Questionnaire 1 and 5, I find that the data reflects the same assumption. The accommodating profile is one where relationship perseveration is everything and giving what the other side wants is the route to winning people over. Accommodators are well liked by their colleagues and opposite party negotiators (Colburn, 2010). When analyzing my accommodating tenancy in negations, I find often it is easier to give into the demands when they are within a reasonable range. I often consider it the part of providing a high level of customer service. It has been my experience that continued delaying and not coming to an agreement in a topic will only shorten the window in which you will have to meet the request since. The cons to this style are by accommodating highly competitive styles the accommodator can give up to much ground in the process. “Giving away value too easily too early can signal to your negotiation counterpart that you've very deep pockets, and your gift is just a taster of bigger and better gifts to come”. The other negations type I default to is compromising. Compromising “often involves splitting the difference; usually resulting in an end position of about half way between both parties’ opening positions” (Colburn, 2010). In the absence of a good rationale or balanced exchanged concessions, half way betwee...
In American society, there is a large disparity of wealth between the rich and the poor. This wealth disparity has far reaching effects into the areas of politics, education, culture, and more. By using their wealth to dominate politics, education, and culture, the rich perpetuate the exclusion of the poor into the substandard position of poverty.