Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Notes 378
Index 399
Preface
As this is being written, the world is faced with serious social and economic problems. In
Europe, Greece, Italy, Spain, and Portugal are experiencing serious financial problems. It
has been necessary for members of the European Union to bail them out with loans. One
path for these nations to solve their problems consists of retreating from provisions of the
welfare state, including early retirements and generous retirement pensions. A similar phe-
nomenon is taking place among the states in the United States. There is a growing shift of
wealth to the East as China, India, Singapore, and South Korea have expanded their econo-
mies at fast paces. Accompanying economic growth is population growth and a demand
for more energy supplies, food, and water. The financial ability to eat richer diets drove up
the price of food, metals, and fuels. Thus, there is a downside to the upside of economic
growth when large numbers of people gain wealth; they then seek more and different types
of food and goods, and they place increased strains on food and other supplies.
The economic success of a farmer in China enables him to replace his bicycle for deliv-
ery of goods to market with a motorcycle, cutting his delivery time but also using gasoline
as part of a new driving force in the competition for oil. A young Indian learns English
and computer technical skills and joins the global workforce as a competitor with similar
persons in several parts of the world. There is no way to avoid these evolving events and
no Luddites can roll back the clock. Globalization is here to stay and its effects will be
long-lasting, especially regarding social welfare needs and services. These and other inter-
national forces form the background context for the United States and—in turn—influence
what issues confront the United States and what social welfare can be.
Many parts of the world are also facing non-state actors such as international busi-
nesses, tribes, religious organizations, and criminal networks. The growth of aging popula-
tions is widespread. Also, there are groups of radical Islamists that contribute to economic
and security instability. Poverty, although diminishing, remains a major problem, along
with pollution, disease, hunger, and drug and people trafficking.
More directly, forces confronting the United States establish the national context within
which social welfare must deal with problems and issues. The War on Terror continues and
uses many billions of dollars; the price of oil continues to be problematic, which in turn
raises the price of fertilizer, gasoline, and other goods and—in turn—creates shortages of
food crops that are being used to replace gasoline. There is no short-range solution for the
supply and cost of oil and gasoline, the lifeblood of our economy and civilization. Also, the
major debts of the United States are held by the Chinese, Japanese, and other sovereign
funds, and others who not only hold our IOUs but also buy into our economy. The hous-
ing bubble evolved into multitudes of foreclosures, delaying an economic recovery. Many
people lost their homes, the major part of their wealth, while others grew rich. The gap
between the lower and middle classes and the wealthy continues to widen.
The United States is slowly coming out of the Great Recession and unemployment
remains above 9 percent; fiscal national annual deficits, when combined with record
breaking national debt, are very serious problems facing the nation. There are projections
that our nation has entered a period of slow economic growth where the competition for
available funds becomes intense. Human services will have to compete for scarce funds
xv
xvi Preface
with all other societal needs. These contextual factors do not support attempts to deal with
issues of poverty, education, and social problems in general, and, unfortunately, with the
exception of the very costly Patient Protection and Affordability Care Act, it seems un-
likely that in the foreseeable future the situation will become more supportive of efforts
to improve social and human services. Do solidarity, national morale, and social justice
require maintenance of these programs that help individuals and families take advantage of
their opportunities? What will be the way forward? There are suggestions the economy will
remain in low gear for more years. All of which suggests we have reached a time of scarce
resources for social welfare and the likelihood of constrained incremental progress. What
are the implications when the wealth created becomes less than the needs of the citizenry?
We have written a book with a point of view—one that examines social welfare issues
critically, focusing on concepts and inviting challenge and alternative interpretations. We
have striven to produce a usable textbook, one that covers detail and fact in an organized
manner and that is useful for all those concerned with our society’s social welfare and hu-
man services. The success of our work can only be judged by individual readers, whom
we hope will be challenged to reach their own conclusions about the issues discussed. We
will have succeeded if readers attain knowledge and understanding to aid them in decision
making both as professionals and as informed and inquiring citizens.
This revised edition reflects change in the social welfare system, our society, and our
world since the last edition of this text. In addition to a complete updating, we have tried to
anticipate issues and propose solutions to various social problems. Yet we have still main-
tained the main theme and focus on the impact of societal structure and change on the
nature of people’s needs and problems and the search for social justice. In this edition we
have added or augmented material on the following:
• Trends, data, and discussions are all up-to-date, including programs, income, pov-
erty, wealth, demographics, and the several welfare systems.
• The Obama administration, the financial crisis, the effort to avoid a second Great
Depression, the Troubled Asset Relief Program, and the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (the stimulus).
• A Return to federalization: Ideology? Or pragmatism?
• Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare).
• Phases of implementation, issues, and financing.
• The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform.
• The Road Map for America: Ryan’s plans and other conservative plans for Social
Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
• Veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan and social justice.
• Children and the life effects of poverty and social justice.
• Elder abuse and social justice.
• Issues confronting social work and social welfare.
• The 2010 Social Work Congress.
• Leadership, multiculturalism, religion, and spirituality.
• Technologies, managed care, sufficient quantity of qualified social workers and
other resources, and accountability.
• New trends in volunteering.
Preface xvii
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to a number of persons whose reactions and advice have helped us
to improve this book: Ana Alvarez, Aaron Dolgoff, Eliana Tretiak, William Jackson,
Jr., Heejung Koh, Richard Larson, Margie Simon, Dr. Raju Varghese, Dr. Janice Wells,
Dr. Donna Harrington, Dr. Howard Altstein, Rex Rempel, Linda Neuwirth, and Janice
Wells. We also want to express our appreciation to the librarians of the Health and Human
Services Library of the University of Maryland, Baltimore, and the Milton S. Eisenhower
Library of the Johns Hopkins University.
Many people have contributed to the development of this book, including our review-
ers: Michael J. Cappel, University of Louisiana, Monroe; Mark Cederburg, University of
Kansas; George T. Patterson, Hunter College, City University of New York; and Cynthia
J. Rocha, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. We are appreciative of the support our fami-
lies have provided. Special thanks are due to Sylvia Dolgoff, who has contributed in many
ways. Finally, we want to express our deep appreciation to our students, whom we have
taught and from whom we have learned.
To communicate with the authors, contact RDolgoff@ssw.umaryland.edu. We will
respond to your comments as soon as possible.
About the Authors
Ralph Dolgoff is professor emeritus at the School of Social Work at the University of
Maryland, Baltimore, where he also served as dean. Previously, he served as acting dean
and associate dean at the Adelphi University School of Social Work, and as senior program
specialist at the Council on Social Work Education. Dr. Dolgoff is the author of Introduc-
tion to Supervisory Practice in the Human Services and coauthor (with Frank Loewenberg
and Donna Harrington) of Ethical Decisions for Social Work Practice (Ninth Edition). He
has published widely on social and welfare services, ethics, social policy, and social work
education.
Dr. Donald Feldstein is the former associate executive vice president of the Council of
Jewish Federations. He has had a distinguished career in Jewish Communal Service and in
social work education. He is the author of numerous monographs and articles in the previ-
ously mentioned fields.
xviii
Chapter 1
Socioeconomic Structure, Human
Needs, and Mutual Responsibility
Competition . . . is a law of nature . . . . [I]f we try to amend it, there is only one way in which
we can do it. We can take from the better and give to the worse. We can deflect the penalties
of those who have done ill and throw them on those who have done better. We can take the
rewards from those who have done better and give them to those who have done worse. We
shall thus lessen the inequalities. We shall favor the survival of the unfittest, and we shall
accomplish this by destroying liberty. Let it be understood that we cannot go outside of this
alternative: liberty, inequality, survival of the fittest, not-liberty, equality, survival of the
unfittest.
—William Graham Sumner1
Overview
Embedded in Sumner’s statement is a deep American belief: Those who have done well
materially are better than those who have done not so well. Those who have prospered
have done so because of their own individual talents and efforts. The corollary is that those
who have not done well have done so because of some personal defect. They are immoral,
lazy, unmotivated, or not so bright. Poor people, for example, are individually responsible
for their poverty. According to this perspective, each person is responsible for his or her
personal situation. The most important values are self-reliance and the avoidance of
dependence. One should not be a burden to family, others, or—especially—society. Essen-
tially, those who are disadvantaged, victimized, poor, or disabled somehow are responsible
for their condition; if they were better or more adequate people, they would not be in a
dependent position.
1
2 Chapter One
We begin this book by noting this perspective because it has had a profound and
continuing impact on the nature of social welfare in the United States and has reemerged
as a widespread force during the 1980s and 1990s. However, this emphasis on individual
responsibility is not the only driving force in U.S. social welfare, which is influenced by a
mixture of motives rather than one unified, impelling force. Altruism, a refusal to ignore
the suffering of others, a sense of fairness, and a concern for mutual aid are also essential
American values. Social welfare also functions to meet the maintenance needs of society by
preventing instability and providing for social continuity. In part, one’s views of the func-
tions of social welfare depend on one’s personal perspective, but in reality the U.S. social
welfare scene is marked by ambivalent motivations rather than one pure and straightfor-
ward intention.
The values of a society, even implicit values, can influence the nature of its social
welfare system. What are the roots and various manifestations of social welfare in U.S.
society? What drives the American tendency to focus on individual responsibility as a
major influence on social welfare policy? How are this and other values expressed in
concepts of social welfare? And what are the biases of the authors that will inform this
volume?
3. When children grow up in poverty, they are more likely as adults to have low earn-
ings, which in turn reflect low productivity in the workforce. They are also more likely to
engage in crime and to have poor health later in life. Their reduced productive activity
generates a direct loss of goods and services to the U.S. economy. Any crimes they commit
impose large monetary and other personal costs on their victims and on taxpayers who pay
for the criminal justice system. Their poor health generates illness and early mortality that
require large health expenditures, impede productivity, and reduce their quality and quan-
tity of life. The statistical relationships between growing up in poverty and later earnings,
as well as productivity, plus estimates of the costs of crime and poor health per person were
aggregated across the total number of children growing up in poverty. The results sug-
gested that the costs associated with childhood poverty total about $500 billion per year:
Productivity and economic output are reduced by about 1.3 percent of Gross Domestic
Product (GDP); the costs of crime are increased by 1.3 percent of GDP; and health expen-
ditures are increased by 1.2 percent of GDP.4 But, the high dollar costs of eliminating child
poverty will not by themselves change the situation. The poverty situation of children can-
not be understood or changed without changes in behaviors, neighborhoods, and parents’
actions.5
4. Families of children with disabilities face elevated costs of caregiving, insufficient
support from income transfer programs to offset the additional costs, and parental employ-
ment severely limited by child care and leave policies. Young children with disabilities are
significantly more likely to live in poverty than their peers without disabilities. Living in
poverty is associated with consequences such as poor physical health, diminished cogni-
tive abilities, emotional and behavioral problems, and reduced educational attainment.
Ill health is overrepresented in low-income families. Children in low-income families are
twice as likely to die before age 15 as children in families from the professional social class.
Perinatal and postnatal mortality rates, birth weight, height, dental health, respiratory ill-
nesses, traffic accidents, and deaths from fire are all related negatively to income and social
class. These problems are compounded among families receiving public assistance. Half
the families on California public assistance with special needs children had both out-of-
pocket expenses and foregone earnings. These are substantial burdens for many low-income
families with special-needs children.6
Cascading Effects
Disadvantages can cascade, that is one problem can lead to another or in some cases to
many. Lin and Harris (2008) report that “difficult but solvable problems—the lack of
dependable food, clothing, or shelter; the inability to control oneself; the presence of a
disruptive peer group; a home environment that does not or cannot support learning—
exacerbate and are exacerbated by other disadvantages.” Further, they suggest multiple disad-
vantages exist, even solutions can intensify the problems. For example, giving a child extra
help at school, paradoxically, can reinforce his parents’, his teachers’, and his own belief that
he is bad or incapable.7
Unemployment and poverty are inextricably tied to the structure of the economy.
Among these structural factors are a shift from a goods-producing, manufacturing econ-
omy to service-producing industries; the polarization of the labor market into low-wage
and high-wage sectors; increasing technology; and the dispersal of manufacturing and
other jobs to suburban and overseas locations. Although these structural factors—such as
the nature of the job market, the job preparation of potential workers, geographic factors,
4 Chapter One
and racial and other types of discrimination—affect everyone in our society, their impact
is differential on different groups, as we shall see in more detail in Chapter 8.8 For example,
the structure of jobs and wages has changed. Many industries require more able and highly
skilled workers. Such workers are generally in short supply, bidding up their wages and in-
creasing the gap between their incomes and those of workers with lower educational levels
and skills.
Poverty in the United States has become more urban, spatially concentrated, and clus-
tered with other indicators of disadvantage. The residents of neighborhoods of concen-
trated poverty who experience multiple forms of social and economic disadvantage are
disproportionately members of minority groups. Changes in the wage structure over the
past several decades have impacted negatively on noncollege-educated minorities living in
inner cities. Declining real wages overall, rising inequality in wage and income distribu-
tion, and growing numbers of low-wage jobs have been accompanied by an increase in
joblessness, especially among black minority youth in cities.9
We will return to these issues and concepts in later chapters. For now we need
to recognize the impact of structural factors such as business cycles; the shifts in the
number, types, and degrees of skilled labor required by various industries; interna-
tional trade and competition; and technological change. Additional significant factors
are discrimination, immigration, changes in the age and educational composition of
the work force, and unionization or the lack of it, as well as changes in the political
climate.10
impact on the U.S. economy and general culture—including social welfare, both directly
and indirectly—our priority focus will be social welfare and social work within the U.S.
context.
strain), and social Darwinism, each contributing to our placing priority on individual
responsibility.
Industrialism encouraged mobility, material gain, and competition, resulting in the
amassing of capital, which was frowned on in more traditional Christian theology.
Industrialism demanded a large pool of low-paid workers and drove people from their
traditional homes and pursuits to cities. Religion and science generated a rationale and
justification for these developments. Additional support came from economics and evo-
lutionary theory. The theories of laissez-faire capitalism suggested that society functions
best and that the common good is furthered most when there is constrained governmental
interference in the affairs of the market. The market is a grand anonymous stage in which
each commodity finds its own value. If labor is underpaid, this reflects its market value.
Any attempt to interfere by regulation lessens the ultimate benefit to society.16 Social sci-
entists went further. They took the ideas of natural selection developed by Charles Darwin
and created a social equivalent. The theory of natural selection, most simply stated, is that
in nature the most fit survive and the least fit die. Similarly, according to this view, in
society, in the free market (nature), there is a natural tendency for the best (most fit) to
succeed, and any attempt to interfere with this “natural selection” only perpetuates and
gives favor to those who can contribute least.
According to these views, social welfare measures, which help the weak, only weaken
society. The kindest approach, in the long run, is to let the weak fail. Laissez-faire philoso-
phers acknowledged the value of charity, but more to foster uplifting the soul of the phi-
lanthropist than for aiding the victim. President Herbert Hoover claimed that enterprise
builds society while charity builds character.
All of these ideas and forces had their impact in shaping the American myth. They
were particularly functional to a young, vigorous, and expanding country whose growth
left many casualties, from the indigenous Native Americans to enslaved African Americans,
as well as the working poor and the waves of immigrants in each generation.
It is not our intent here to try to counter the arguments of these philosophies. They
are discussed further in Chapters 2 and 3. Many Americans reject them on face value, but
many others believe them. It is suggested that we live in a welfare society, and “they” are
expected to be able to do something about our social problems, finding approval in some
quarters and indignation in others. Most Americans believe the destitute should be helped.
But so deep and pervasive in the American psyche is the philosophy of individual responsi-
bility and competition17 that we still find ourselves, in many overt and subtle ways, repeating
the patterns that belong to ideologies many have long since rejected. Many others believe
these ideologies are true and best for each of us and for the nation.
unemployment, child abuse, health care, slum housing—has been analyzed within the
framework of the responsibility of the individual. Those who experience the problem are
poorly motivated, lack information, have the wrong characteristics, have poor judgment,
or are not acculturated.
What are some of the reasons we shift responsibility from community and society
entirely to the individual? To do so serves certain purposes. It makes us feel superior;
it allows us to express our hostilities toward relatively safe objects. It also separates and
distances us from those in need and allows us subtly to defend the status quo in regard
to the poor.
The sector of the economy, the degree of unionization, the geographic part of the coun-
try one resides in—all these and other factors, as we shall see in greater detail in Chapter 8—
affect one’s well-being. Events in distant locations can have enormous implications for per-
sons and families, events over which, in this interdependent world, we often have little, if
any, control.
should one group be deprived so that the general society is better off at least to a certain
degree? Under what circumstances can global needs take priority over the needs of the
local community? What are the basic human needs, and how does one know when they
are fulfilled?19
A simple answer to all these questions might follow jazz great Louis “Satchmo”
Armstrong’s approach. When he was asked by a young woman to explain jazz music, he
responded: “There are some people that if they don’t know, you can’t tell them,” thus sug-
gesting that one has to find the concept apparent at first view; otherwise, one won’t ever
get it. Using the Armstrong method, Miller described social justice as “how the good and
bad things in life should be distributed among the members of a human society.” When
a policy or state of affairs is attacked, critics are “claiming that a person or a category
of people enjoys fewer advantages than they ought to enjoy (or bears more of the bur-
dens than they ought to bear) given how other members of the society in question are
faring.”20
be offered to support the enactment of a social minimum in a society? All these questions
are the subject of debate and argument, and the answers one provides depend on many fac-
tors, including values.
White defined a social minimum as “that bundle of resources in the circumstances
of a given society which enable someone to lead a minimally decent life.”22 What is the
nature of that “bundle,” and what is a “minimally decent life”? Second, what policies and
institutions can serve to secure reasonable access to this social minimum for all members
of society?
One way of approaching these questions is to identify a set of necessary human capabili-
ties and activities. Nussbaum, among others, believed we can identify a set of vital activities
so critical that they define a life which is truly human. She defined the following capabilities
or activities as those that are central to human functioning in the world:
Life. Being able to live to the end of a human life of normal length; not dying prema-
turely, or before one’s life is so reduced as to be not worth living.
Bodily Health. Being able to have good health, including reproductive health; to be
adequately nourished; to have adequate shelter.
Bodily Integrity. Being able to move freely from place to place; to be secure against
violent assault, including sexual assault and domestic violence; having opportunities
for sexual satisfaction and for choice in matters of reproduction.
Senses, Imagination, and Thought. Being able to use the senses, to imagine, think,
and reason, and to do these things in a “truly human” way, a way informed and culti-
vated by an adequate education.
Emotions. Being able to have attachments to things and people outside ourselves; to
love those who love and care for us, to grieve at their absence; in general, to love, to
grieve, to experience longing, gratitude, and justified anger.
Practical Reason. Being able to form a conception of the good and to engage in criti-
cal reflection about the planning of one’s life. This entails protection for the liberty of
conscience.
Affiliation. Being able to live with and toward others, to recognize and show concern
for other human beings, to engage in various forms of social interaction. Having the
social bases of self-respect and non-humiliation; being able to be treated as a dignified
being whose worth is equal to that of others. This entails protections against discrimi-
nation on the basis of race, sex, religion, caste, ethnicity, or national origin. The capa-
bility for love and friendship.
Other Species. Being able to live with concern for and in relation to animals, plants,
and the world of nature.
Play. Being able to laugh, to play, to enjoy recreational activities.
Control Over One’s Environment. Political. Being able to participate effectively in
political choices that govern one’s life; having the right of political participation, pro-
tections of free speech and association. Material. Being able to hold property (both
land and movable goods); having the right to seek employment on an equal basis with
others; having the freedom from unwarranted search and seizure.23
The point of the suggested list is to create a list that people from many different tradi-
tions, with many different and fuller conceptions of the “good,” can agree on as the nec-
essary basis for pursuing a good life. The list is deliberately general but refers to a life
comprising full human functioning and whose human dignity is not violated by hunger,
Socioeconomic Structure, Human Needs, and Mutual Responsibility 11
Equality of Opportunity
Equality of opportunity plays an important part in the search for distributive justice,
the allocation of the benefits and burdens of economic activity. The central question is,
Under what conditions is the distribution of liberties, opportunities, and goods that society
makes available to persons just or morally fair? The distribution is just and fair if it
satisfies the norm of equality of opportunity. This requires that unchosen inequalities
(matters imposed on an individual in ways that he could not have influenced or con-
trolled) be eliminated and that inequalities that arise from choices of individuals given
equal initial conditions and a fair framework for interaction should not be eliminated or
reduced. This is the concept of a “level playing field.” Justice requires leveling the play-
ing field by making everyone’s opportunities equal and then letting individual choices
and their effects dictate further outcomes.27 The ideal is a society in which people do not
suffer disadvantage from discrimination on grounds such as race, ethnicity, religion, sex,
and sexual orientation. One can understand this ideal as morally right in and of itself.
Or, one can understand that excluding persons, for example, women from the labor force
makes markets function less efficiently and can result in the loss of valuable talents so-
cially and economically.
The equality of opportunity is key. Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, British public
health researchers, found that greater equality makes societies stronger.28 They suggest
that it has long been known that poor health and violence are more common in more
unequal societies. However, they studied internationally other social problems and found
they were more common in more unequal societies. The list included: level of trust, men-
tal illness (including drug and alcohol addiction), life expectancy and infant mortality,
obesity, children’s educational performance, teenage births, homicides, imprisonment
rates, and social mobility (not included for the United States). For example, inequality is
associated with lower life expectancy, higher rates of infant mortality, poor self-reported
health, low birthweight, AIDS, and depression (2009). Social mobility (moving up or
down the social ladder) is lower in more unequal countries. Homicides are more common
in more unequal societies. Among the nations studied were Australia, Austria, Belgium,
Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Netherlands,
New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, and the
United States.
Socioeconomic Structure, Human Needs, and Mutual Responsibility 13
3. Social policies and programs can have a profoundly positive influence on society.
4. Private troubles and public issues are interrelated. Private troubles are embedded in
public issues, and public issues are often embedded in private troubles.
All of these perspectives are important. Because of the circumstances in which people
are born and raised, there are different obstacles and opportunities confronting each indi-
vidual. There are unequal capacities among people, and there are oppressive social forces.
We do not deny these factors as part of the reality that confronts each individual in re-
lation to his or her own responsibility. Moreover, people are sometimes so incapacitated
that their impairment makes it impossible for them to control their own actions; therefore,
they do not have a full measure of responsibility. These exceptions and external forces cre-
ate dilemmas for human beings, but, it seems to us, we must hold people responsible for
their actions precisely because such a claim upon them maintains their very humanity and
dignity. The question is this: To what extent are people really human without assuming
responsibility for their actions?
If one is human, one is deserving of faith in ultimate worth, in capacity to grow. But
being human implies being responsible for one’s acts in spite of adversity. There is a
patronizing element in portraying vandals as social revolutionaries, and there is racism
in suggesting that any group cannot be expected to live up to standards for responsible
behavior.
We believe that poverty and other social problems derive largely from the institu-
tional arrangements of the society in which we live. These arrangements result from an
interplay between philosophical beliefs, such as those that have been reviewed here, and
the demands of our society. These factors are structural in the society and not simply the
byplay of individuals with equal opportunity making their demands felt in a free-market
economy. From the tax structure, which is much less progressive than it was in recent decades,
to the availability of social services and supports, to the punishments meted out by the
penal system, we observe vast inequalities in how people are treated by society. There is a
kind of “welfare” for the wealthy and for large industries not available to the poor. It is our
point of view, therefore, that solutions to social problems must be sought mainly in insti-
tutional and structural arrangements rather than in the rehabilitation of vast numbers of
sick, disturbed, or uncultured people. Although we believe that individuals may need and
deserve individual services, the greatest help will come to the most people through insti-
tutional change such as quality education, job creation, improved housing, and equitable
health services.
Recent rhetoric from the highest levels of the U.S. government portrayed government
as the enemy of social progress, ignoring the impact of societal structure. That rhetoric
suggests that government programs can only make problems worse; it is the voluntary
efforts of people in local communities that can really make a difference. There have been
poor government programs and exciting local voluntary programs, but this basic proposi-
tion is essentially false. Major and massive social problems have, throughout our history,
been amenable to amelioration only through major government efforts, including the
application of fiscal resources. From the Social Security system to Medicare to any number
of other significant programs, changes and improvements in the social system have come
about through major public efforts, most often national—not local.
We live in a highly complex, postindustrial society in which we are all very interdepen-
dent. We are not the mythological self-reliant, autonomous, and independent beings we are
led to believe constitute the highest order; we are, in fact, integrally dependent on others.
We cannot all repair automobiles, build roads, grow corn, and teach ourselves, and we are
Socioeconomic Structure, Human Needs, and Mutual Responsibility 15
deeply dependent on others who are, in turn, dependent on our own specialized skills and
knowledge.
We also believe there is an alternative reading of evolution, which leads us to coopera-
tion and survival. In nature there is competition, but there is also cooperation. There is
selfishness, but there is also mutual aid and self-sacrifice. Contrary to the argument put
forth by the social Darwinists with which we began this chapter,
animals . . . are strikingly unselfish, particularly with their own species—giving
warning of predators, sharing food, grooming others to remove parasites, adopting
orphans, fighting without killing or even injuring their adversaries. They work duti-
fully for their communities instead of being hard-bitten, self-seeking individualists.31
However, the fact that altruism is natural does not mean it is inevitable. Altruism is
in keen competition with other values and has not been socially nurtured in recent U.S.
history. Altruistic behavior depends on social structures within which we live. It is neither
essential nor a universal characteristic of human nature, and the structural choices our society
makes either support or undermine altruistic behaviors.32
We see the poor as the outcome of imperfect systems. We believe this is not the only
choice in society and that other options are available. Finally, we suggest that the middle
class is also injured by structural factors. Although economically less disadvantaged, the
middle class, too, is caught in a snare of individualism run rampant, in which blame for
personal misfortune is self-directed. Members of the middle class, often ineligible for
public welfare programs and unable to pay for private assistance, frequently believe that
their problems, too, are the result of individual failure: “If we were really equal to the
task, all things would be possible. Whatever our difficulties, they are the result of our
failures.” The overreaction to this belief system, the other side of the coin, is the tendency
among some contemporary groups to deny their own humanity, to disclaim respon-
sibility for their behavior, to despair of achieving progress when “they” don’t respond
immediately to a political campaign, or to retreat to utopias and inactivity. This is a kind
of self-victimization.
It is clear U.S. society has several predominant values in regard to social welfare, some-
times conflicting and always interdependent. An emphasis on self-reliance, individual
responsibility, and social Darwinism are strong currents in American thought. However,
U.S. society is also influenced by the value of mutual aid, the ideal of equal opportunity,
and the “second chance” philosophy.
Our social welfare system, as we will see, has been profoundly affected by the English
Poor Laws. Even so, when the pain is distributed broadly enough in our society, Americans
begin to think more in terms of improving society than of “we” and “them.”
There are several strong themes in social welfare. For example, Americans suspend
their judgmental values about persons with problems on the basis of human tragedies,
especially widespread disasters that affect persons across the board and also in regard to
special categories of persons, such as war veterans. We do suggest, however, that an em-
phasis on individual responsibility is a crucial perspective that is unduly influential in U.S.
society. A major thesis of this book is that values inform social welfare, and this theme will
be explored as we proceed.
Even though we believe that all persons in the United States are entitled to the
inalienable rights provided by the Constitution, they are entitled not on the basis of their
problematic situations but simply because they are human. We do not believe individu-
als should have to demonstrate how beaten down they are before government interven-
tion helps them out. Similarly, we do not believe that groups should have to contest with
16 Chapter One
each other over how persecuted they have been in order to qualify for necessary benefits
and resources. The basic question is, How can U.S. society ensure equal rights and equal
opportunities for all? Thus, we see societal values as having profoundly affected the social
structure in the United States, particularly in social welfare. We see humans, however
imperfectly, as being capable of adopting more humane values and of structuring a more
humane society.
Summary
In Chapter 1, we introduced the ideas of self-reliance and individual responsibility as driv-
ing forces in U.S. social welfare and suggested the importance of societal structures as they
impact on our lives. We briefly defined social welfare and social work; explored the American
myth of the hero; and introduced intellectual, scientific, religious, and socioeconomic
factors contributing to the state of U.S. social welfare. Finally, we introduced the authors’
perspectives. Students and readers are entitled to know our perspectives because of the
importance we assign to values as determinants of each person’s and our society’s views
regarding social welfare. We hope readers will be encouraged to consider how values play a
part in determining how our society deals with social welfare.
We turn now to Chapter 2, in which we review the relationship of perspectives on
human nature in any society and the approach the society takes to welfare. Early history
and examples of social welfare practices over time will be explored.
Electronic information sources are growing in importance. In the Appendix, you will
find sources of information and a timeline of significant social welfare events that you can
use to enrich your learning.
I see increasing reason to believe that the view formed some time
back as to the origin of the Makonde bush is the correct one. I have
no doubt that it is not a natural product, but the result of human
occupation. Those parts of the high country where man—as a very
slight amount of practice enables the eye to perceive at once—has not
yet penetrated with axe and hoe, are still occupied by a splendid
timber forest quite able to sustain a comparison with our mixed
forests in Germany. But wherever man has once built his hut or tilled
his field, this horrible bush springs up. Every phase of this process
may be seen in the course of a couple of hours’ walk along the main
road. From the bush to right or left, one hears the sound of the axe—
not from one spot only, but from several directions at once. A few
steps further on, we can see what is taking place. The brush has been
cut down and piled up in heaps to the height of a yard or more,
between which the trunks of the large trees stand up like the last
pillars of a magnificent ruined building. These, too, present a
melancholy spectacle: the destructive Makonde have ringed them—
cut a broad strip of bark all round to ensure their dying off—and also
piled up pyramids of brush round them. Father and son, mother and
son-in-law, are chopping away perseveringly in the background—too
busy, almost, to look round at the white stranger, who usually excites
so much interest. If you pass by the same place a week later, the piles
of brushwood have disappeared and a thick layer of ashes has taken
the place of the green forest. The large trees stretch their
smouldering trunks and branches in dumb accusation to heaven—if
they have not already fallen and been more or less reduced to ashes,
perhaps only showing as a white stripe on the dark ground.
This work of destruction is carried out by the Makonde alike on the
virgin forest and on the bush which has sprung up on sites already
cultivated and deserted. In the second case they are saved the trouble
of burning the large trees, these being entirely absent in the
secondary bush.
After burning this piece of forest ground and loosening it with the
hoe, the native sows his corn and plants his vegetables. All over the
country, he goes in for bed-culture, which requires, and, in fact,
receives, the most careful attention. Weeds are nowhere tolerated in
the south of German East Africa. The crops may fail on the plains,
where droughts are frequent, but never on the plateau with its
abundant rains and heavy dews. Its fortunate inhabitants even have
the satisfaction of seeing the proud Wayao and Wamakua working
for them as labourers, driven by hunger to serve where they were
accustomed to rule.
But the light, sandy soil is soon exhausted, and would yield no
harvest the second year if cultivated twice running. This fact has
been familiar to the native for ages; consequently he provides in
time, and, while his crop is growing, prepares the next plot with axe
and firebrand. Next year he plants this with his various crops and
lets the first piece lie fallow. For a short time it remains waste and
desolate; then nature steps in to repair the destruction wrought by
man; a thousand new growths spring out of the exhausted soil, and
even the old stumps put forth fresh shoots. Next year the new growth
is up to one’s knees, and in a few years more it is that terrible,
impenetrable bush, which maintains its position till the black
occupier of the land has made the round of all the available sites and
come back to his starting point.
The Makonde are, body and soul, so to speak, one with this bush.
According to my Yao informants, indeed, their name means nothing
else but “bush people.” Their own tradition says that they have been
settled up here for a very long time, but to my surprise they laid great
stress on an original immigration. Their old homes were in the
south-east, near Mikindani and the mouth of the Rovuma, whence
their peaceful forefathers were driven by the continual raids of the
Sakalavas from Madagascar and the warlike Shirazis[47] of the coast,
to take refuge on the almost inaccessible plateau. I have studied
African ethnology for twenty years, but the fact that changes of
population in this apparently quiet and peaceable corner of the earth
could have been occasioned by outside enterprises taking place on
the high seas, was completely new to me. It is, no doubt, however,
correct.
The charming tribal legend of the Makonde—besides informing us
of other interesting matters—explains why they have to live in the
thickest of the bush and a long way from the edge of the plateau,
instead of making their permanent homes beside the purling brooks
and springs of the low country.
“The place where the tribe originated is Mahuta, on the southern
side of the plateau towards the Rovuma, where of old time there was
nothing but thick bush. Out of this bush came a man who never
washed himself or shaved his head, and who ate and drank but little.
He went out and made a human figure from the wood of a tree
growing in the open country, which he took home to his abode in the
bush and there set it upright. In the night this image came to life and
was a woman. The man and woman went down together to the
Rovuma to wash themselves. Here the woman gave birth to a still-
born child. They left that place and passed over the high land into the
valley of the Mbemkuru, where the woman had another child, which
was also born dead. Then they returned to the high bush country of
Mahuta, where the third child was born, which lived and grew up. In
course of time, the couple had many more children, and called
themselves Wamatanda. These were the ancestral stock of the
Makonde, also called Wamakonde,[48] i.e., aborigines. Their
forefather, the man from the bush, gave his children the command to
bury their dead upright, in memory of the mother of their race who
was cut out of wood and awoke to life when standing upright. He also
warned them against settling in the valleys and near large streams,
for sickness and death dwelt there. They were to make it a rule to
have their huts at least an hour’s walk from the nearest watering-
place; then their children would thrive and escape illness.”
The explanation of the name Makonde given by my informants is
somewhat different from that contained in the above legend, which I
extract from a little book (small, but packed with information), by
Pater Adams, entitled Lindi und sein Hinterland. Otherwise, my
results agree exactly with the statements of the legend. Washing?
Hapana—there is no such thing. Why should they do so? As it is, the
supply of water scarcely suffices for cooking and drinking; other
people do not wash, so why should the Makonde distinguish himself
by such needless eccentricity? As for shaving the head, the short,
woolly crop scarcely needs it,[49] so the second ancestral precept is
likewise easy enough to follow. Beyond this, however, there is
nothing ridiculous in the ancestor’s advice. I have obtained from
various local artists a fairly large number of figures carved in wood,
ranging from fifteen to twenty-three inches in height, and
representing women belonging to the great group of the Mavia,
Makonde, and Matambwe tribes. The carving is remarkably well
done and renders the female type with great accuracy, especially the
keloid ornamentation, to be described later on. As to the object and
meaning of their works the sculptors either could or (more probably)
would tell me nothing, and I was forced to content myself with the
scanty information vouchsafed by one man, who said that the figures
were merely intended to represent the nembo—the artificial
deformations of pelele, ear-discs, and keloids. The legend recorded
by Pater Adams places these figures in a new light. They must surely
be more than mere dolls; and we may even venture to assume that
they are—though the majority of present-day Makonde are probably
unaware of the fact—representations of the tribal ancestress.
The references in the legend to the descent from Mahuta to the
Rovuma, and to a journey across the highlands into the Mbekuru
valley, undoubtedly indicate the previous history of the tribe, the
travels of the ancestral pair typifying the migrations of their
descendants. The descent to the neighbouring Rovuma valley, with
its extraordinary fertility and great abundance of game, is intelligible
at a glance—but the crossing of the Lukuledi depression, the ascent
to the Rondo Plateau and the descent to the Mbemkuru, also lie
within the bounds of probability, for all these districts have exactly
the same character as the extreme south. Now, however, comes a
point of especial interest for our bacteriological age. The primitive
Makonde did not enjoy their lives in the marshy river-valleys.
Disease raged among them, and many died. It was only after they
had returned to their original home near Mahuta, that the health
conditions of these people improved. We are very apt to think of the
African as a stupid person whose ignorance of nature is only equalled
by his fear of it, and who looks on all mishaps as caused by evil
spirits and malignant natural powers. It is much more correct to
assume in this case that the people very early learnt to distinguish
districts infested with malaria from those where it is absent.
This knowledge is crystallized in the
ancestral warning against settling in the
valleys and near the great waters, the
dwelling-places of disease and death. At the
same time, for security against the hostile
Mavia south of the Rovuma, it was enacted
that every settlement must be not less than a
certain distance from the southern edge of the
plateau. Such in fact is their mode of life at the
present day. It is not such a bad one, and
certainly they are both safer and more
comfortable than the Makua, the recent
intruders from the south, who have made USUAL METHOD OF
good their footing on the western edge of the CLOSING HUT-DOOR
plateau, extending over a fairly wide belt of
country. Neither Makua nor Makonde show in their dwellings
anything of the size and comeliness of the Yao houses in the plain,
especially at Masasi, Chingulungulu and Zuza’s. Jumbe Chauro, a
Makonde hamlet not far from Newala, on the road to Mahuta, is the
most important settlement of the tribe I have yet seen, and has fairly
spacious huts. But how slovenly is their construction compared with
the palatial residences of the elephant-hunters living in the plain.
The roofs are still more untidy than in the general run of huts during
the dry season, the walls show here and there the scanty beginnings
or the lamentable remains of the mud plastering, and the interior is a
veritable dog-kennel; dirt, dust and disorder everywhere. A few huts
only show any attempt at division into rooms, and this consists
merely of very roughly-made bamboo partitions. In one point alone
have I noticed any indication of progress—in the method of fastening
the door. Houses all over the south are secured in a simple but
ingenious manner. The door consists of a set of stout pieces of wood
or bamboo, tied with bark-string to two cross-pieces, and moving in
two grooves round one of the door-posts, so as to open inwards. If
the owner wishes to leave home, he takes two logs as thick as a man’s
upper arm and about a yard long. One of these is placed obliquely
against the middle of the door from the inside, so as to form an angle
of from 60° to 75° with the ground. He then places the second piece
horizontally across the first, pressing it downward with all his might.
It is kept in place by two strong posts planted in the ground a few
inches inside the door. This fastening is absolutely safe, but of course
cannot be applied to both doors at once, otherwise how could the
owner leave or enter his house? I have not yet succeeded in finding
out how the back door is fastened.