(JAI: Wilson lays out the economic base for the rise of the anti-social behavior to be found in contemporary black society in America. The below is a review, not totally favorable, but which lays out most, if not all, of the key propositions in his study. This is a most important book)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Julius_Wilson Date: Tue, 12 Apr 1994 14:09:47 -0500 From: "Laura Long" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (by way of [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gary Klass)) Subject: Review of William Julius Wilson (Long) Review of William Julius Wilson, THE TRULY DISADVANTAGED Reviewed by Laura Long, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Illinois State University 4/12/94 When was the last time you were in a ghetto? The answer for most of us is probably a resounding "Never!" The closest contact the majority of us have with the urban underclass occurs when we make a wrong turn into East St. Louis or the like. Even then, we don't stop to browse. In THE TRULY DISADVANTAGED, William Julius Wilson makes the case that this increasing "social isolation" of the poor, especially the black poor, has greatly contributed to their poverty. "Out of sight, out of mind" allows most of us to either deny or forget the conditions in the ghetto. Ironically, we expect the poor to live just like us while at the same time cutting them off from the examples and institutions necessary for them to do so. Wilson does not simply lay all the black poor's problems at the feet of racism and walk away. He also makes a thoughtful distinction between historic racism and current racism. While current racism undoubtedly contributes to poverty, in Wilson's view, the lingering effect of historical racism is the real culprit. Blacks have historically been relegated to low skill jobs through discrimination in education and employment practices. With the mechanization of Southern agriculture, such low skill jobs were to be found mostly in the industrial centers of the Northeast. Now that industries are abandoning cities for suburbs and even other countries, many blacks are stranded in the cities and have neither job opportunities nor the money to leave the city to go where the jobs are. The resulting unemployment has created an environment filled with crime, poverty, and has contributed to the breakdown in the two parent family in that black women have a hard time finding someone to marry because so many black males are in jail or unemployed. Nor has the civil rights movement done much to address the concerns of poor blacks. Both the individual opportunity programs of the 1960s and the race based programs of the 1970s and 1980s had a disproportionate effect on the black upper and middle classes. The early civil rights movement focused on removing barriers for equal participation and competition by blacks. But, as Wilson points out, inequalities remain after bias is diminished. While desegregation allowed blacks to move into white suburbs, only wealthy blacks could actually afford a house there. Race based programs aimed at remedying past injustices, like affirmative action, are also often only relevant to wealthier blacks. Poor blacks are less likely to apply for college, so they do not directly benefit from equal opportunity in higher education regulations. Worse than simply ignoring the special problems of poor blacks, civil rights programs exacerbated poor blacks' problems by providing avenues of escape for better off blacks. Urban black communities were left without this class of "social buffers" who comprised the main support for institutions like churches and schools and who provided role models for poor and wealthy black children alike. Today, poor black children are less likely to know two-parent families or people who have steady work. The link between hard work and success is not made. As Cornel West has said, without these buffers, poor children are left at the mercy of a consumption-oriented society. Movies and television are quick to show the glamour of the rich, but they fail to show the hard work which accompanies becoming, say, a doctor. Wilson is correct in attributing much of black poverty to isolation. Where are teenagers going to get work if the only business in the neighborhood is the corner drug dealer? But he writes off the negative effects of welfare benefits on poverty too quickly. In criticizing Charles Murray's thesis that welfare benefits have actually contributed to the decline in the family because they make it economically more attractive to have children out of wedlock, Wilson points to studies which have found only a modest relationship between welfare benefits and decisions about separation, divorce, and out of wedlock babies. These findings are not surprising considering that Wilson admits there is little incentive to stop poor teenagers from getting pregnant to begin with. Wilson quotes Kenneth Clark as saying "In lower-class families...the girl loses only some of her already limited options by having an illegitimate child; she is not going to make a 'better marriage' or improve her economic and social status either way." (p. 74) It is not so much that teenage girls think they can rely on AFDC benefits as that they seem themselves as living in poverty whether they have a child or not, so why not have the child? But the same studies also found welfare benefits had a substantial impact on living arrangements. Most welfare benefits are so arranged that it is more profitable for a teenage mother to live alone than with her own family. And as Wilson mentions, teenage daughters of single mothers are less likely to get pregnant if grandparents reside in the home. To address this problem, Illinois Governor Jim Edgar recently proposed a new law which would require most pregnant women under 18 years of age to live with their parents in order to receive AFDC benefits. So while welfare may not directly influence teenagers to get pregnant, it helps to create situations in which the family stability necessary for proper parental, or in this case, grandparental oversight and care is lacking. While Wilson's analysis of the problem is generally thoughtful and well-reasoned, most of his solutions to poverty are just too pat. He correctly wants to provide the poor, of all races, with the resources necessary to compete for jobs, what Wilson calls "equality of life chances." But part of his solution is to create a national strategy to make the workforce more adaptable to change. This emphasis on job training and flexibility does not generate new jobs, it just creates well-trained people who still live in poverty. He does call for the creation of more jobs as part of a federal government macroeconomic policy which strives for a tight labor market and noninflationary economic growth. Of course the government is always trying to avoid unemployment and inflation, but often the two goals are incompatible. The Federal Reserve Board's current tight economic policy is committed to preventing inflationary growth even at the risk of increasing unemployment. It is just too simplistic to say that if there were enough jobs for everyone, poverty could be eradicated. A more specific aspect of Wilson's plan is his call for universal benefits, such as child care and medical care. These benefits would apply to all economic levels but would have their strongest impact on the poor of all races, who do not already have things like adequate medical care. Universal benefits would level the playing field so that everyone would have equal resources to compete. Wilson suggests universal benefits rather than benefits targeted to the poor in order to get widespread support for such programs. But universalizing the benefits would not necessarily significantly reduce opposition to them. Today in the United States, there is already a debate raging over paying the wealthy their Social Security benefits, despite the fact they presumably contributed that money to the fund to begin with. Wilson also wants to shrink the deficit to adjust the value of the American dollar. The societal costs of our current poverty rate are very high, but wouldn't the imposition of universal benefits make shrinking the deficit even harder? Wilson uses Sweden as an example of a country's successful implementation of universal child care and family allowance programs. But Sweden is now facing great difficulties in paying for these same programs. Wilson deserves much praise for his ability to recognize that poverty comes in all colors, and that we as a society have abandoned the poor. But universal benefits and job training would not necessarily bridge the gulf between rich and poor. Wilson would give the poor more money, but it probably would not be enough to allow them to buy a house outside of the ghetto or lure businesses in. One of Wilson's better suggestions is to promote geographic, and thus social, mobility of the poor. Scattered site housing instead of concentrated public housing would allow the poor to live in an environment where people work and where jobs exist; poorer families would have a better chance of getting a good education and tapping into the job network. And while getting money to the poor is important, so is ending their isolation. Organizations like Habitat for Humanity, which go into the ghetto, try to get to know the poor as individuals rather than "the poor." Actually knowing people in the ghetto can mean the formation of community ties and feelings of mutual responsibility. An urban peace corps such as President Clinton has proposed might be a step in the right direction. A sense of community should be the goal not just for rich and poor but for all of our fragmenting society. ! http://lilt.ilstu.edu/gmklass/pos334/archive/wilson.htm [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Digest: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
