Essay: Welfare dependency in America

“America, the greatest country in the world!” This statement has been said several times before and has been mentioned by many different people for numerous reasons. The fact that this statement has been said and heard by so many people living in America can only mean one thing. America is the greatest country in the world because fact is, it is considered as the “land of opportunity.” It is where people from diverse ethnicities and backgrounds come together, work hard and try to make a better living for themselves and their families. It does not matter what the individuals’ beliefs are, or what his or her age, gender, or race is; in the “land of opportunity” they have the chance of making something of themselves and becoming successful. However, regardless of economic or political advances, America; our “land of opportunity,” is being constantly being criticized and talked down about. Some may think it is an external issue, where other countries or non-Americans are talking bad about our country; however, some fail to realize that this issue is internal. Our own American citizens are attacking the “land of opportunities” and its American Dream. America’s ways are changing; what was once considered as a place to work hard and become successful, is now being considered as a place where people are lazy and become successful at someone else’s expense.
Welfare dependency is an ongoing controversial debate that has been talked about for several decades. Welfare as we know it now is a public aid program that provides some financial safety to those individuals whose salaries are not enough to maintain an average standard of living. For the most part, these programs usually include some type of financial aid to individuals, medical care for little to no costs, and food stamps to purchase food. Several decades ago, there was no specific race that was associated with welfare dependency. According to Fraser and Gordon (1994), dependency was referred to as poor women with children who did not have a male in their household with sufficient economic stability or women who were leaving an abusive relationship without worrying about losing their children as well. Although Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) helped these mothers, people still heavily criticized these programs. In current debates, welfare dependency “evokes the image of ‘the welfare mother,’ often figured as a young, unmarried black woman (perhaps even a teenager) of uncontrolled sexuality” (Fraser & Gordon, 1994, p.311).
According to Fraser and Gordon’s (1994) there are four different registers that analytically define dependency. In the economic register, it is believed that an individual relies solely on the support from welfare and different charities. In the sociolegal register, a socially approved condition thought to be proper for some classes was not deemed proper to others. The third states that “the evaluative connotations worsened because individual political rights and national sovereignty became the norm” (p.331). Lastly, the rise of a newer moral/ psychological register meant dependency pf emotional neediness or lack of will power. Throughout their argument, specific individuals have been stigmatized as “dependent personalities: firsts, housewives, paupers, natives, and slaves; poor, solo, black teenage mothers” (Fraser & Gordon, 1994, p.334). Ironically enough, it is quite obvious to see that throughout their article, men are never categorized as a part of any of these registers or dependencies. Because men are thought of being independent, strong, and superior to all women, society tends to undervalue the work of women as mothers and housewives.
Although dependency was not always gender specific, Fraser and Gordon (1994) noted the different types of dependency throughout history. Independence was considered when an individual owned a property of some sort and would work hard to become something of themselves. Therefore, dependency was considered as a part of society’s norm rather than gender specific. As welfare dependency in America began to emerge, gender and racial specific welfare “dependents” also began to emerge. Although the “face” of welfare became stigmatized as teenage black mothers, society began rebelling against programs like welfare because anyone individual; regardless of race who accepted the aid, was considered to be lazy.
Fraser and Gordon focus on the fact that it does not matter what the true definition or image of dependency is, all that matters is that in today’s society, it is seen as something negative. “A genealogy cannot tell us how to respond politically to today’s discourse about welfare dependency…the limits of any response that presupposes rather than challenges the definition of the problem that is implicit in that expression” (Fraser & Gordon, 1994, p.332). Fraser and Gordon argue that what was once considered being a political concern, has now become a social concern. Hence, the acceptance and continuation of sexual and racial division in today’s society has become a norm that has become a “…series of hierarchical positions and dichotomies that are central in modern culture: masculine/feminine, public/private, work/care, success/love, individual/community, economy/family, and competitive/self-sacrificing” (Fraser & Gordon, 1994, p.332). In other words, Fraser and Gordon argue that it does not matter what type of aid an individual receives because “most Americans today still distinguish between ‘welfare’ and ‘nonwelfare’ forms of public and see only the former as creating dependency” (Fraser & Gordon, 1994, p.322).