Content deleted Content added
→Underclass and Journalism Section: new section |
No edit summary |
||
| (24 intermediate revisions by 18 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{notice|{{Graph:PageViews|90}}|heading=Daily page views |center=y |image=Open data small color.png}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Socialism|importance=mid}}
}}
== Definitions and US-centrism ==
I think the accusations of racism and the US centrism are part of the same issue. The underclass is only mostly black in the US. When I use the word "underclass" as a British person, I'm referring to the poor who make their living off welfare and crime, who spend their money on luxuries, who have children out of wedlock, and so on; it is a moral, not racial distinction. They'd be mostly white in the UK. I see it used as a synonym for [[chavs]].
I think the article needs to make it clear that while the word can sometimes have the implication, or even be a codeword for, race (especially in the US), that this is not necessarily what people mean by the term. That the connection to race often depends on the country, since in various countries various groups might tend to occupy different social strata.
[[User:J1812|J1812]] ([[User talk:J1812|talk]]) 15:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
A more international perspective would also note of a Muslim underclass in Paris and other cities on the Continent, perhaps an "indian" (non-european) underclass in Mexico City, Dalit and regional (e.g. Bihari) underclasses in Calcutta and other Indian cities, perhaps a racially undifferentiated underclass in Brazilian cities. Also a White underclass in rural parts of Appalachia and ethnic Russians, where again there is no racial component yet there is discrimination and class identity based on rural origins. [[User:LADave|LADave]] ([[User talk:LADave|talk]]) 00:07, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
==Work?==
The underclass don't work for a living, they [[scrounge]], [[Theft|steal]] and [[Fraud|swindle]], [[working class]] people work for a living.
:While it is true that underclass persons do not work, most are not scoundrels or criminals. Many are disabled and for one reason or another are not able to participate in the labor force. Sociologist Leonard Beeghley at the University of Florida actually made a point in stating that "suprisingly few use guns to alter their economic position." (Beeghley, 2004) <b>[[User:BrendelSignature|<
::It all depends on which of the four groups of the underclass is being referred to.
Line 14 ⟶ 27:
==Popularized the term underclass?==
I don't think so [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=underclass&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=any&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=1983&as_allsubj=all&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&client=firefox-a a quick google scholar search] shows that there are MANY articles using this term in their title and text before Murray's book. [[User:Futurebird|futurebird]] 19:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Line 22 ⟶ 34:
== Equating the Underclass with the Poor? ==
I'm writing in reference to the following statement included in the "Defining the Underclass" section, "The notion of a social underclass in contemporary American societies is widely disputed among social scientists and philosophers. The size of this underclass depends on how it is defined. Defined simply as the “Poor”, the underclass grew from 29.3 million people in 1980 to 36 million in 1997, with non-Hispanic white-poor dropping from 19.7 million to 16.5 million people, blacks growing from 8.6 to 9 million, and Hispanics growing from 3.5 to 9 million poor."
Who defines the underclass simply as the poor? The underclass concept is distinct from general notions of the "poor." I suggest the statement I quoted above be removed from this article unless somebody can cite a scholar or journalist who actually equates these terms. [[User:Joshseim|Joshseim]] ([[User talk:Joshseim|talk]]) 15:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
:On a related topic, equating the underclass with the lumpenproletariat doesn't seem quite right either. Marx's original conception of lumpenproletariat conflates two related concepts: 1. the distinction between skilled and semi-skilled labor, and 2) the difference between politically aware are not politically aware workers. Members of the petite bourgeouisie who get demoted to working class are proletariat. Those who were born into the working class are lumpenproletariat. Or something like that. Since I'm not a Marxist, maybe we could get someone who is (and has actually studied Marx) to look at the article. [[User:Zyxwv99|Zyxwv99]] ([[User talk:Zyxwv99|talk]]) 14:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
== Advancing this Article ==
Greetings,
Line 51 ⟶ 63:
[[User:Joshseim|Joshseim]] ([[User talk:Joshseim|talk]]) 17:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
===First Review===
Hi Josh,
I just completed a "first review" of this article, and I must say that I am quite impressed. I cannot really tell how much of the article was written by you and how much was written by others, but the overall article is very clear and well organized. Here are some specific comments that relate to the "first reviewer checklist" on our syllabus:
:2. Lead section: The lead section could be elaborated upon a bit. Specifically, you should include something about the debate surrounding the term.
:3. Jargon: The article is pretty sophisticated, but does a good job overall of avoiding jargon. One instance of jargon that I'd like to you define in the article (or just replace with simpler terminology) is "labor force attachment". Not everyone knows what this means.
:4. Wikilinks: Great use of wikilinks!!!
:6. Neutrality: The article seems pretty neutral, but there are a couple of moments where you talk about characteristics of the "underclass" as if they were universally agreed upon. Given the controversial nature of the term, I think it is important to explicitly tie everything you're saying to particular authors. You do this for the most part, but in some cases you do not.
:7., 12., 13. Sources and references: You really seem to have a great grasp of the literature, and you do a great job of citing it.
:8. Clarity: Like I said earlier, the article is very well written. Like I mentioned in point 6, making sure to tie each main idea to an author (or authors) will make the controversial nature of the term even clearer.
:9. Spelling/grammar: I went through and corrected a few things. You might want to re-read the article to make sure I didn't miss anything. One thing I changed that you might not have wanted me to change was the word "deviancies" to "deviancy." The internet doesn't seem to think that "deviancies" is a word, but perhaps it is.
:10. Categories: They look good to me!
:15. "Educational Assignment" template: I went ahead and added it to the top of this talk page.
Ok, that's all for now. Please let me know if you have any questions. All in all, I was really impressed by your article!!
Best Wishes,
Amanda
[[User:amcook|amcook]] ([[User talk:amcook|talk]]) 16:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
===Second Review===
Hi, Josh,
This is a really great article! I tried to add a lot of subtitles to your sections to help organize the thoughts. Please feel free to reword some of the categories or delete them altogether. I just found it easier to read and organize my thoughts once I added them. I made some minor editing changes, and I actually didn't change the content too much because I thought it was all pretty good. If you prefer not to have subtitles, I suggest you have clearer transitions between ideas and paragraphs. I can work with you to organize and revise your paragraphs (if you don't like the subtitles).
How comfortable do you feel with your Underclass and Journalism section? I think that was the only part that could potentially use more work, which I can definitely help you look for more resources if you think it's lacking in any way. Other than that, to be honest, I'm not really sure what else I could add to it! I am ready to nominate it for a Good Article Review (but I am a bit confused as to the timeline of that, according to the class). It is well-written and well-referenced!
Here's my ranking (1-5): trustworthy = 5, complete = 4/5, well-written = 5, and objective = 5
Great job, again! [[User:Aixle12|Aixle12]] ([[User talk:Aixle12|talk]]) 09:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
== Recent Addition to Underclass Definition ==
[Below is a recent addition I made to the defining the underclass section. I may include some of Ken Auletta's notions soon. Please respond with directions to other authors/readings with general conceptions of the underclass. I am happy to review and integrate other definitions.]
Line 70 ⟶ 121:
== Underclass and Journalism Section ==
[I have added the following section concerning American journalists' use of the term "underclass." The academic literature on the underclass, particularly by critics of the urban underclass terminology, often point to journalistic accounts. The Time Magazine article I reference seems to be the most frequently citied pop media illustration of the underclass. However, this section is in clear need of expansion. I encourage fellow wikipedians to summarize and cite other newspaper or newsmagazine articles on this topic. Also, I have thumbnail image for the cover of this Time Magazine issue, but unfortunately, due to copyright issues, I cannot post it without Time's permission.].
Line 76 ⟶ 126:
“common description of people who are seen to be stuck more or less permanently at the bottom, removed from the American dream. Though its members come from all races and live in many places, the underclass is made up mostly of impoverished urban blacks, who still suffer from the heritage of slavery and discrimination. The universe of the underclass is often a junk heap of rotting housing, broken furniture, crummy food, alcohol and drugs. The underclass has been doubly left behind: by the well-to-do majority and by the many blacks and Hispanics who have struggled up to the middle class, or who remain poor but can see a better day for themselves or their children. Its members are victims and victimizers in the culture of the street hustle, the quick fix, the rip-off and, not least, violent crime.”[24] [[User:Joshseim|Joshseim]] ([[User talk:Joshseim|talk]]) 13:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
== Critiques of the Underclass Concept Section ==
[I recently added a new section - "Critiques of the Underclass Concept." Please help me develop this subsection by expanding the mentioned critiques. Also, I'm thinking that it may be wise to include a section before this one outlining the politicization of the underclass. In other words, we could briefly compare and contrast how the political left and the political right have traditionally employed the term "underclass."]
Following the popularization of the underclass concept in both academic and journalistic writings, some academics began overtly critiquing underclass terminology. Those in opposition to the underclass concept generally argue that the word “underclass” has become a homogenizing term that simplifies a heterogeneous group on the one hand, and a derogatory term that demonizes the urban poor on the other hand.[25] [26] Also, many who counter the underclass notion suggest that “underclass” has been transformed into a code word to refer to poor inner-city blacks.[27] For example, Hilary Silver highlights a moment when David Duke, former Grand Wizard of the KKK, campaigned for Louisiana Governor by complaining about the “welfare underclass.”[28] The underclass concept has been politicized, with those from the political left arguing that joblessness and insufficient welfare gives rise the underclass while the political right employ the underclass term to refer to welfare dependency and moral decline.[29] Many sociologists suggest that this latter rhetoric – the right-wing perspective – became dominant in mainstream accounts of the underclass during the later decades of the twentieth-century.[30]
Herbert Gans is one of the most vocal critics of the underclass concept. Gans suggests that American journalists, inspired partly by academic writings on the “culture of poverty,” reframed “underclass” from a structural term (i.e., defining the underclass in reference to conditions of social structure) into a behavioral term (i.e., defining the underclass in reference to rational choice and/or in reference to a subculture of poverty).[31] Gans suggests that the word “underclass” has become synonymous with impoverished blacks who behave in criminal, deviant, or “just non-middle-class ways.” [32]
Loïc Wacquant deploys a relatively similar critique by arguing that “underclass” has become a blanket term that frames urban blacks as behaviorally and culturally deviant.[33] Wacquant notes that underclass status is imposed on urban blacks from outside and above them (e.g., by journalists, politicians, and academics), stating that “underclass” is a derogatory and “a negative label that nobody claims or invokes except to pin it on to others.”[34] And, although the underclass concepts is homogenizing, Wacquant argues that underclass imagery differentiates on gender lines, with the underclass male being depicted as a violent “gang banger,” a physical threat to public safety, and the underclass female being generalized as “welfare mother”(also see welfare queen), a “moral assault on American values.” [35]
These charges against underclass terminology have motivated replacement terms. For example, William Julius Wilson, sympathetic to criticisms brought against underclass terminology (particularly those criticisms posited by Gans), begins to replace his use of the term underclass with “ghetto poor” during the early 1990s.[36] For Wilson this is simply a replacement in terminology in an attempt to revamp the framing of inner-city poverty as being structurally rooted. He states, “I will substitute the term ‘ghetto poor’ for the term ‘underclass’ and hope that I will not lose any of the subtle theoretical meaning that the latter term has had in my writings.”[37] Gans also suggests replacing underclass terminology, but instead of “ghetto poor” he suggests the term “undercaste."[38] Unlike Wilson’s replacement, Gans is not simply calling for a replacement term, but a revised concept altogether. For Gans, the position of the so-called “underclass” is better-suited for paradigms of caste stratification than class stratification. He conceptualizes the undercaste as “a population of such low status as to be shunned by the rest of the society, with opportunities for contact with others of higher status and upward mobility even more limited than those of the people today described as an underclass.”[39] In closing this conception, Gans admits hesitation in advancing a notion of undercaste – an other umbrella term “open to anyone who wishes to place new meaning, or a variety of stereotypes, accusations and stigmas under it” – but argues that undercaste is nevertheless a suitable term worthy of replacing the politically charged language of the underclass.[40]
[[User:Joshseim|Joshseim]] ([[User talk:Joshseim|talk]]) 17:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
==Critique of the Underclass Characteristics section==
The danger of this section is fairly clear after the projects of infamous regimes in history. We must keep the demographic to its defining factors only. Anything beyond that is classism - arguably even eugenics.
Perhaps the following could be surmised more wisely:
Much of these behaviors are identified by their consequences, such as the high number of teen and out of wed-lock births and the overrepresentation of the underclass in U.S. prisons and jails.[33][34]
A rational man will look at the statement "overrepresentation of the underclass in U.S. prisons and jails" and consider the possibility that it's precisely because they are underclass that the governments have incarcerated many of them.
The other thing: Race is mentioned far too often here. Neither black people, nor white people are poor. Poor people are poor, and you don't need me to remind you that more white people than black people are below the poverty line in the United States. On top of that, focusing so much on "black people" makes this a very Americentric article. Classism is worldwide, so lets keep race out of it.
~The Underclass~ <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/89.101.194.102|89.101.194.102]] ([[User talk:89.101.194.102|talk]]) 18:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
: Thanks for your comments. Please clarify the following statement, "The danger of this section is fairly clear after the projects of infamous regimes in history. We must keep the demographic to its defining factors only. Anything beyond that is classism - arguably even eugenics." This sounds fancy, but it doesn't hold much weight unless you expand your point. Also, your comments on incarceration are confusing. It is true that many academics define the underclass as disproportionately criminal, and thus when making this case they often turn to arrest and incarceration statistics. Your "rational man" point doesn't seem very rational. Wouldn't the standard conclusion be that there is an overrepresentation of the underclass in correctional facilities because the underclass is more criminal? This is a popular argument made by those who embrace a behavior-centered definition of the underclass. You are correct that race is mentioned frequently in this article. That is because much of the literature on the underclass is US focused (in fact, the term "underclass" was initially employed to explain US poverty). This is an "Americentric article" because the underclass concept is itself "Americentric." You are correct that you do not need to remind me that the there is a larger '''frequency''' of white Americans below the poverty line than black Americans. However, proportionately (i.e., per 100,000 within each race category), there are more blacks below the poverty line than whites. The underclass is arguably a race-focused concept (see the final section in this article). Lastly, this is an article on the underclass - specifically as an academic and journalistic concept. This is not an an article on [[classism]]. Your comments are appreciated. [[User:Joshseim|Joshseim]] ([[User talk:Joshseim|talk]]) 15:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
== Potential Causes and Solutions Section ==
The section "Potential Causes and Solutions" needs to be updated with more diverse opinions (I agree with the neutrality dispute posted on the article). As of right now, only Wilson is referenced as detailing the "causes" of the underclass. It may be a good idea to survey a variety of proposed solutions from both the Left and the Right (e.g., deindustrialization, outsourcing, welfare dependency, segregation, permissive governance, etc.) and then review policy suggestions. Also, the Wilson discussion in this section seems way too long - maybe several of these details can be transferred to the already existing article on Wilson's work.
My reading on the underclass tells me that there are essentially two basic social policy suggestions: expand the welfare state's reach to the underclass or reduce/discipline an already too large and too permissive welfare state. I'm sure there are are also fiscal and economic policy issues to highlight. Any thoughts? Also, does expanding on this section on potential causes and solutions run the risk of bloating this article? Maybe this should be a separate page, since the central focus of this article seems to be on '''conceptualizing''' the underclass. [[User:Joshseim|Joshseim]] ([[User talk:Joshseim|talk]]) 16:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
:One of the reasons the conservative parties want to 'reduce' the welfare state is the leaky bucket issue. So for every 100 dollars the government is given, that 'bucket of bucks' is used to pay administrators and other fee's and the like. So instead of the 100 dollars going directly to the underclass, it is syphoned out and only a percentage ends up going toward welfare. There are mulitiple sources expanding on this issue.[[User:P0PP4B34R732|P0PP4B34R732]] ([[User talk:P0PP4B34R732|talk]]) 17:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
:: Interesting. So is this a general criticism of funding inefficient bureaucracies or are these critiques claiming that they system is corrupt? Could you point to some specific articles or books that highlight the points you make? In developing this article, it may be a good idea to also include the Left and Right debates concerning block grant welfare versus entitlement welfare. Your comment sounds semi-related to this. Thanks for the input! [[User:Joshseim|Joshseim]] ([[User talk:Joshseim|talk]]) 15:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
== Too US-centric ==
I didn't read all of this article, but the first few pages are almost completely about the United States. It needs to be expanded to include other nations (or at the very least other English-speaking countries). <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:SaintDaveUK|SaintDaveUK]] ([[User talk:SaintDaveUK|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/SaintDaveUK|contribs]]) 12:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
If it's limited to English-speaking countries, it would miss the Muslim underclass in Paris and other cities on the Continent, underclasses in India based on caste and also regional origins (e.g. Bihar), underclasses in Latin America based on indigenous ethnic groups, Russian urban underclasses based on rural origins and not having official permission to live in cities (and apparently a similar situation in China), perhaps a lingering distinction between East and West Germans, Southerners and Sicilians in Italy, etc. Surely there are insights to be gained about the phenomenon in the U.S. by considering overseas examples. [[User:LADave|LADave]] ([[User talk:LADave|talk]]) 00:16, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
== Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment ==
[[File:Wikipedia-Ambassador-Program-Logo.png|50px]] This article is the subject of an [[WP:Student assignments|educational assignment]] at University of California-Berkeley supported by [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Sociology of Poverty|WikiProject Sociology of Poverty]] and the [[Wikipedia:Ambassadors|Wikipedia Ambassador Program]] during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available [[Wikipedia:United States Education Program/Courses/Berkeley Sociology Poverty Course (Sandra Smith)|on the course page]].
[[Category:Wikipedia Ambassador Program student projects, 2011 Q3{{!}}{{PAGENAME}}]]
{{small|The above message was substituted from {{tlc|WAP assignment}} by [[User:PrimeBOT|PrimeBOT]] ([[User talk:PrimeBOT|talk]]) on 16:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)}}
| |||