| (eed, Fe. 6. The “Underclass” as Myth and Symbol The Poverty of Discourse about Poverty Seen ne a Era don: inner polis v Lev Aneel af Henhesta Frese, (497 nse ofthe image and its pop- oto er ed, the underclass idea rests on fuzzy and often very disturbing assumptions ‘shout poor people, poverty and the w- The “Undercia:s” as Myth and Symbol The “Underctass” as Myehend Symbol —181 10 als—and how can we tell one from the other axyway’) like Charles Murray, Lavirence Mead, Nicholas Lemann, Gecrge Glider, Mickey Kaus, Thomas Sowell, Robext Woodson, or Glenn Loury—assume the need to cor 0 take into account, poor people's defective tendencies as an es- ban— but as shall show, only within a nanow context of victimeblaming pre- ‘sumptions about inner-city poor people. Specific formulations of the undercias's ‘composition, therefore, speak eloquently of the pemicious orientation that frames public discussion about American pover sully distin- Suishes the underclass: behavior. Whatever the cause. most stud ‘of poverty believe thatthe underelss suffers from beavioral es well as income deficiencies. The underclass usally operates ouside the generay ‘accepted boundaries of society. They are often set apart by ei “de Via” or antisocial behavior, by their bad habits. no just their povertys ‘Auletta muses that we might not want living in the underground economy" and aliens" and he wonders whether “those with serious ment counted.” In a pinch, fora quick, quasi-empirical referent, the holy tin sleight of hand, th invoeation ofthe magical power of posi authority as an altemative to descriptive evidenee The numb by joumalsts and professional counters of pover, hs become the cont estimate without any justfeatory argument. Infact, descriptive effort end Se ee EE eT ee ee ee mderclas inludes all “those Americans who combine ultimate souree ofthis estimate, instrectively, may be Oscar Lewis, thor a relatively low income with funetonin Chee through scoo, obeying the law, 8. For Kaus the underclass is the “black Whom “the work ethic has evaporated and the entreprencuiial di 2S and drug: pushing.” argument? ‘Defining the Problem——_———— 182—The “Underclass” as Myth ond Symbol ‘The “Underclass” as Mythand Symbol —183 poctod to work ata tedy job, ures they are ssbled, or ae supported by their spouse. Fourth, everyone is expected ro bey the laws. from a “strongly self-defeating culture" that tem and whose centerpiece seems to be ot ‘as Lemann gets. He does, though, volunteer the information that this ture is “venerable” and “disorganized” and that its members need tat some equally vague “bourgeois values” ‘Meeting these obligations, Savhill announces, is an element of the Ameri- «cen “social contract’; the underclass are those people—“too many” of them, in fact—“who are not folfiling their end of the bargin”"® Simply put—that is, without the gamish of cracker-barel eontrataianism. soci Seence Picton 7 vr of cthing or eorsing he npn gexcltes ands sre Soiel pov meee Aleta Ka nd Lemon asst im han a of ete ety sond Beaches ot qumfion Win or mows ate vr hd Naan da of ries Shai wan inet sf eb lain of th nde indirect proxies” for deviant, dysfunctional, “underclass behavicr” re, in -w, dropping out of school, female heading of families with children, we'- ‘Where one stands on the liberalonservative axis seems litle to affect the appeal of the underclass concept. Kaus and Leman probably think of themselves a5 liberals or neoliberals of some sort ‘which antisocial activities il and commitment to get discussed would probably af- >. Even those avowing consid- erably greater liberalism have gravitated to the notion, however. Eleanor Holmes Norton, President Jimmy Cartr’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) director end now congressional delegate from the District of Columbia, define it a those who suffer from a “ghetto subculture,” which she understands to ‘and most troub] ‘havior that is both “dysfunctional” and deviates from “existing laws and aor ‘She proclaims a set of homespan verities —beaifed (without evidence of eo fs “norms” —to be the consensual obligations thet “society” demands of members: for family,” and other such “enduring values."* William Julius Wilson gave the notion a ringing liberal imprimatur and even chastised the left for not being tough enough to face ‘asa “heterogeneous grouping of inner-city fami Firs, children are expected to study hard and complete at I from conceiving.184—The “Underclass” as Myth and Symbol The "Underclass" as Uythand Symbol —185 teristics are the well-known “tangle of pathology” litany: crime, drug abuse, teenaged pregnancy, out-of-wedlock birth, female-headed households, and wel- fate dependency. David Ellwood identifies the “ghetto-poor”—his version of ‘the underclass —as those who suffer ‘ening array of negative forces: de tion, poor education... the moveret