The Intersection of Poverty Discourses

WELFARE RACISMA ND CULTURALISM

n most instances, the images associated with poverty have become synonymous with those of African Americans, although other race and ethnic minorities may be similarly vulnerable. The media plays a role in racializing welfare policy, and the subsequent perceptions of broader society, by disproportionately presenting images of African Americans in missives on poverty (Avery & Peffley, 2003).
However, the pejorative race/poverty connection can be linked to a history of influential racially biased policy analysis and subsequent welfare policy.
During the 1960s’ war on poverty, Moynihan (1965) systematically linked poverty in the inner cities to the deterioration of the Black family. Rather than, address structural causes of poverty, he argued that economically disadvantaged Blacks were caught in a “tangle of pathology” and blamed inner-city poverty on a Black culture that embraced broken families, illegitimacy, and intergenerational dependency on welfare. Much of Moynihan’s work was rejected by social scientists; however, current welfare reform policy rests on his and subsequent analysts’ “culture of poverty” arguments that blame the poor for their own poverty (Murray, 1984). Proponents of welfare reform have argued that the “problem” with welfare lies not with broader structural constraints but with the inability of poor people to take personal responsibility for themselves and their families, resulting in denial of “traditional family values,” lack of a strong work ethic, inability to delay personal gratification, and, ultimately, the long term dependency on public assistance (Reese, 2005; Hays, 2003).
Blaming welfare recipients for their poverty was part of a discourse imbued with racism that represented recipients, particularly African Americans, as welfare cheats and perpetuated racial stereotypes that produced controlling images such as the “welfare queen.” As a result, the ghost of Moynihan’s “tangle of pathology” view of the Black family was covertly reintroduced into the debate on welfare reform. This discourse “relied on and reinforced racist views of people of color in general, and African Americans in particular” (Sparks, 2003, 178).
The role of racism in the development and implementation of welfare policy indicates that the social welfare system is not color-blind, but systematically dis- criminates against people of color (Schram, Soss, & Fording, 2003: Roberts, 2003; Piven, 2003; Dill, Baca Zinn, & Patton, 1998). Socially and politically we “whitewash poverty” by reporting that the majority of welfare recipients are White. However, due to racialized media presentations, the persistence of explanations founded in a culture of poverty, and the strength of race-based stereotypes such as “welfare queen,” the face of welfare is Black (Dill, Baca Zinn, & Patton, 1998; Schram, 2003). More importantly, racism not only informs and molds public assistance policies, but it also results in outcomes that significantly impact the life chances of poor people of color.
By disregarding race-based prejudices and discrimination in broader society, people of color are placed at a disadvantage in terms of successfully leaving public assistance programs and obtaining self-sufficiency. Welfare reform policy does not take into account that racial discrimination impacts the likelihood that recipients of color will be able to secure employment that pays a living wage or obtain safe, affordable housing and childcare (Neubeck & Cazenave, 2001). A growing body of research reports the existence of “racial disparities” in the implementation and outcomes of welfare reform policy, as well as the treatment of Black recipients in comparison to White recipients (Schram, 2005, 253). For example, it appears that as the percentage of people of color increases there is a higher likelihood of stricter welfare reform restrictions and enforcement (Soss, et al., 2001; Fellowes & Rowe, 2004). Furthermore White recipients are more likely than Black recipients to successfully leave welfare (Finegold & Staveteig, 2002), to stay off of assistance once they have left (Loprest, 1999), and to have better options and referrals for education/training (Gooden, 2003).
Current discussions of welfare racism often devolve into analyses of the Black experience. However, other racial/ethnic minorities have also experienced the impact of welfare racism via the implementation and outcomes of welfare reform legislation. This is particularly apparent among immigrant groups seeking new opportunities in the United States and those minorities that live in isolated geographic locations. Empirical evidence suggests that the welfare system has been grounded in a “history of exclusion” and that welfare reform legislation works to further the disenfranchisement of other people of color in the United States (Fujiwara, 1998, 2005; Weinberg, 1998, 2000).
Prior to the implementation of welfare reform, growing anti-immigration sentiment responded to arguments that immigrants were taking jobs away from U.S. citizens (Fujiwara, 2005) and immigrant women were taking advantage of an overly indulgent welfare system (Fujiwara, 2005; Lindsley, 2002; Roberts, 1997) by restricting the access of legal immigrants to need based public assistance such as Supplemental Security Income, food stamps, and services provided by Temporary Aid to Needy Families (Fix & Zimmerman, 1995). While there has been a partial restoration of need based assistance to noncitizen immigrants, this mandate placed them at the center of a racially charged political debate and cast them as members of the undeserving poor, further bolstering anti-immigrant bias and stereotypes (Fujiwara, 2005).
Similarly the racial politics underlying welfare reform had a significant negative impact on the life chances of other racial/ethnic minorities. The limited research on poor Hispanic recipients in the United States suggests that their welfare experiences may be similar to those of African American recipients (Dill, Baca Zinn, & Patton, 1998; McPhee & Bronstein, 2003: Lee & Abrams, 2001; Weinberg, 1998). Furthermore the image of the “welfare queen” that has haunted African American women is also a prominent controlling image for poor Hispanic women (Briggs, 2002). Hispanics also face difficulties that are distinct to their racial/ethnic background when attempting to meet the mandates of welfare reform. For example, language barriers and conflicting cultural demands play an important role in the distribution of assistance, opportunities for further education, and successful entry into the labor market (Allegro, 2005; Bok, 2004; Briggs, 2002; Burnham, 2002; Cattan & Girard, 2004).
Other minorities residing in isolated communities have also been dispropor- tionately impacted by welfare reform policy. This is particularly the case for reservation bound Native Americans. Given the extreme poverty on reservations, the high unemployment rates, and the lack of employment opportunities, tribal governments found themselves without the social capital or economic resources necessary to successfully implement welfare reform (Pandey, et al., 1999; Stromwall, et al., 1998). Yet, when recipients were unsuccessful in entering the labor force the stereotypical image of the “lazy, alcoholic Indian” was evoked as explanation for the inability to achieve personal responsibility.
In summary, welfare reform has consistently been tied to racial politics and has significantly impacted the life chances of racial/ethnic minorities across the country. Missing from this discussion is an analysis of how White poverty fits into the system of welfare racism. There is a need to examine White women’s experiences with the welfare system, especially in racially homogeneous rural areas such as Appalachia where clear spatial inequalities exist (Tickamyer, et al., 2006) and cultural stereotypes that create stigma and controlling images (Billings, Norman, & Ledford, 1999). Appalachian scholarship suggests that the construction of an Appalachian identity and a rigid two-class system often parallels, and is as enduring, as race disadvantage (Duncan, 2000). Thus the construction of a rural Appalachian identity creates a dimension of difference that is denigrated by policy makers and represented as culturally inferior (Billings, Norman, & Ledford, 1999), which in turn has a material reality for poor women in the region (Duncan, 2000; Billings & Blee, 2000; Lichter & Jensen, 2002; Tickamyer, et al., 2004).
We synthesize theory and research on welfare racism produced by “inter- sectional analysis” (Dill, 2002; Dill, Jones-Deweever, & Schram, 2004) with our empirical research on Appalachian poverty (Tickamyer, et al., 2006, 2000) to show that the facade of a universal social welfare system and policies disguises discourses that reinforce the real disadvantages that different race and ethnic groups experience, including White Appalachian women. Appalachian women, as a cultural minority and a segment of the lower socioeconomic class, are twice exploited by the stereotypical images of welfare recipients. First, in isolated rural Appalachia the stereotypical images of White poverty—“hillbilly” and “White trash”—and belief in a culture of poverty serve to define poverty in the area and foster hostility from working- and middle-class Whites. These images influence economic development within the region with impacts on employment opportunities. At an individual level they stigmatize recipients, making it difficult for women to leave welfare and enter the workforce. Second, at the same time that poor Appalachian women are denigrated as yet another example of the deficiencies attributed to welfare dependency, their Whiteness becomes the means to argue that the welfare system is bias-free regarding race. Thus these stereotypical images serve to control the opportunities of both White Appalachian women and women of color as they attempt to negotiate the welfare system.
The existence of rural White poverty reinforces the claim that public policy is a universal that does not discriminate by gender, race, or any other salient category. The realities are that these dimensions of difference are reinforced by the pretense that poverty policy is unbiased and gender/race neutral. Poverty policy is neither culturally nor gender/race neutral, but the existence of pockets of poor White women in rural Appalachia provides a convenient way for policy makers to argue that neutrality exists with detrimental outcomes for all poor women….

APPALACHIAN CULTURE AND CONTROLLING IMAGES
The Appalachian region is one of the poorest geographic locations in the nation (Billings & Blee, 2000; The State of Poverty in Ohio, 2004), and lags other regions in economic development, employment rates, and per capita income (Appalachian Regional Commission, 2005). Rural Appalachia has a long history of high unemployment and persistent, severe poverty that is equal to, or worse than, that in urban areas (Rural Sociological Task Force on Persistent Rural Poverty, 1993; Lichter & Jensen, 2002). While those receiving public assistance in both rural and urban areas may confront similar problems in terms of making ends meet and complying with the mandates of welfare reform, empirical evidence indicates that the constraints experienced by welfare recipients in rural areas are distinct from those in urban areas (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2002).
Rural communities are often perceived by broader society as idyllic settings that offer a stable, wholesome environment in which to live and raise a family (Brown & Swanson, 2003; Logan, 1996; National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, 1992; Seebach, 1992). However, these views rarely acknowledge the true nature or conditions of the region (Logan, 1996; Brown & Swanson, 2003). The extreme level of spatial inequality in rural Appalachia, particularly in isolated communities, has a significant impact on the ability of poor people to leave welfare and successfully enter the labor market (Tickamyer, et al., 2006; Zimmerman & Hirschi, 2003). Leaving welfare and achieving self-sufficiency through employment is hindered by the lack of job opportunities and the social/ human capital required to facilitate the transition (Parisi, et al., 2003; Tickamyer, et al., 2006; Weber, Duncan, & Whitener, 2002). Unlike their urban counter- parts, those in these isolated rural communities often confront an absolute lack of resources such as economic assets, childcare, transportation, healthcare, and housing (Henderson, et al., 2002; Rural Policy Research Institute, 1999; Zimmerman & Hirschi, 2003). Consequently, in comparison to those in urban areas, poor women living in rural communities often encounter more hardship (Brown & Lichter, 2004; Snyder & McLaughlin, 2004)….
… What are the implications for poverty and welfare policy? First, is the obvious point that political action and sound policies and programs to benefit the poor are never an easy sell, but they are made virtually impossible when successful divide and conquer strategies are applied to both the poor themselves and to how other citizens view them. Convincing the majority of voters that poverty is someone else’s problem, that it is particularly a problem of a racial “other,” and that it is primarily a problem created by individual and collective group failure, rather than the outcome of structural impediments and system failure has been a successful strategy for advancing the agenda of those whose goal has been to radically alter public service provision.
… The question remains of how practically this can happen? How can we overcome the scripts that gender, race, class, and culture create? Here we come full circle. Guinier and Torres (2002) argue that race is the “canary in the coal mine,” the first warning that the atmosphere is too poisonous to support life. What is fatal to the canary ultimately will harm all who breathe the poisoned air. They further argue that forms of resistance forged in racial struggle can play a leading role in seeking progressive social change, but this will require recognizing racial difference and harnessing the knowledge this produces. They see the possibility of transcending racial barriers not by pretending they do not exist, but by recognizing the costs, realizing that what is bad for the canary ultimately touches everyone, and using this knowledge as the means to organize for change….

REFERENCES

Allegro, L. (2005). Welfare Use and Political Response: Urban Narratives From First and Second-Generation Puerto Ricans and Dominicans in New York City. Centro Jour- nal, 17(1), 221–241.
Appalachian Regional Commission. (2005). Retrieved April 14, 2005, from www.arc
.gov/index.jsp.
Avery, J. M., & Peffley, M. (2003). Race Matters: The Impact of News Coverage of Welfare Reform on Public Policy. In S. Schram, J. Soss, & R. C. Fording (Eds.). Race and the Politics of Welfare Reform (pp. 131–150). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Billings, D. B., & Blee, K. M. (2000). The Road to Poverty: The Making of Wealth and Hardship in Appalachia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Billings, D. B., Norman, G., & Ledford, K. (1999). Back Talk from Appalachia: Confronting Stereotypes. Lexington: University of Kentucky Press.
Bok, M. (2004). Education and Training for Low-Income Women: An Elusive Goal.
Affilia, 19(1), 39–52.
Briggs, L. (2002). La Vida, Moynihan, and Other Libels: Migration, Social Science, and the Making of the Puerto Rican Welfare Queen. Centro Journal, 14(1), 75–101.
Brown, D. L., & Swanson, L. E. (2003). Introduction: Rural America Enters the New Millennium. In D. L. Brown & L. E. Swanson (Eds.), Challenges for Rural America in the Twenty-First Century (pp. 1–15). University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Brown, J. B., & Lichter, D. (2004). Poverty, Welfare, and the Livelihood Strategies of Non-Metropolitan Single Mothers. Rural Sociology, 63(2), 282–301.
Burnham, L. (2002). Welfare Reform, Family Hardship, and Women of Color. In
R. Albelda & K. Byron (Eds.), Losing Ground (pp. 43–56). Boston: South End Press. Cattan, P., & Girard, C. (2004). Recent Cuban Immigrants and Native-Born African
Americans Leaving Welfare. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 26(3), 312–332.
Dill, B. T. (2002). Intersections, Identities & Inequalities in Higher Education. Robin Williams Jr. Lecture. Eastern Sociological Society.
Dill, B. T., Baca Zinn, M., & Patton, S. (1998). Valuing Families Differently: Race, Poverty and Welfare Reform. Sage Race Relations Abstracts, 23(3), 4–30.
Dill, B. T., Jones-Deweever, A., & Schram, S. (2004). Racial, Ethnic, and Gender Disparities in Access to Jobs, Education and Training under Welfare Reform. Research and Action Briefs 1. College Park, MD: The Consortium on Race, Gender and Ethnicity.
Duncan, C. M. (2000). Worlds Apart Why Poverty Persists in Rural America. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Fellowes, M. C., & Rowe, G. (2004). Politics and the New American Welfare State.
American Journal of Political Science, 48(2), 362–373.
Finegold, K., & Staveteig, S. (2002). Race, Ethnicity, and Welfare Reform. In A. Well &
K. Finegold (Eds.), Welfare Reform: The Next Act (pp. 203–244). Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
Fix, M., & Zimmerman, W. (1995). When Should Immigrants Receive Public Benefits? In I. V. Sawhill (Ed.), Welfare Reform: An Analysis of the Issues (ch. 13). Retrieved April 30, 2005, from http://www.urban.org/url.cml?lD=306620.
Fujiwara, I. H. (1998). The Impact of Welfare Reform on Asian Immigrant Communi- ties, Social Justice, 25(1), 82–104.
Fujiwara, L. H. (2005). Immigrant Rights are Human Rights: The Reframing of Immi- grant Entitlement and Welfare. Social Problems, 52(1), 79–101.
Gooden, S. (2003). Contemporary Approaches to Enduring Challenges: Using Perfor- mance Measures to Promote Racial Equality under TANF. In S. Schram, J. Soss, &
R. C. Fording (Eds.), Race and the Politics of Welfare Reform (pp. 254–275). Ann Arbor University of Michigan Press.
Guinier, L., & Torres, G. (2002). The Miner’s Canary: Enlisting Race Resisting Power, Transforming Democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hays, S. (2003). Flat Broke with Children: Women in the Age of Welfare Reform. New York: Oxford University Press.

Lee, S. Z., & Abrums, L. S. (2001). Challenging Depictions of Dependency: TANF Recipients React to Welfare Reform. Journal of Poverty, 5(1), 91–111.
Lichter, D., & Jensen, L. (2002). Rural America in Transition: Poverty and Welfare at the Turn of the Twenty-First Century. In B. Weber, G. Duncan, & L Whitener (Eds.), Rural Dimensions of Welfare Reform (pp. 77–110). Kalamazoo, MI: Upjohn.
Lindsley, S. (2002). The Gendered Assault on Immigrants. In J. Silliman &
A. Bhattacharjee (Eds.), Policing the National Body: Race, Gender and Criminalization
(pp. 175–196). Boston: South End Press.
Logan, J. R. (1996). Rural America as a Symbol of American Values. Rural Development Perspectives, 12(1), 19–21.
Loprest, P. (1999). How Families That Left Welfare are Doing: A National Picture.
Assessing the New Federalism, B-01. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
McPhee, D. M., & Bronstein, L. R. (2003). The Journey From Welfare to Work: Learning From Women Living in Poverty. Affilia., 18(1), 34–48.
Moynihan, D. P. (1965). The Negro Family: The Case for National Action. Office of Family Planning and Research, Department of Labor. Washington, DC.
Murray, C. (1984). Losing Ground. New York: Basic Books.
National Rural Electric Cooperative Association. (1992). Public Attitudes toward Rural America. CD3–46. Washington, DC: NRECA Public Relations Division.
Neubeck, K. J., & Cazenave, N. A., (2001). Welfare Racism: Playing the Race Card against America’s Poor. New York: Routledge Press.
Pandey, S., Brown, E. F., Scheuler-Whitaker, L., Gundersen, B., & Eyrich. K. (1999). Promise of Welfare Reform, Development through Devolution on Indian Reser- vations. Journal of Poverty, 3(4), 37–61.
Parisi, D., McLaughlin, D., Grice, S., Taquino, M., & Gill, D. (2003). TANF Participa- tion Rates: Do Community Conditions Matter? Rural Sociology, 68(4), 491–512.
Piven, F. F. (2003). Why Welfare is Racist. In S. Schram, J. Soss, & R. C. Fording (Eds.), Race and the Politics of Welfare Reform (pp. 323–335). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Reese, E. (2005). Backlash against Welfare Mothers Past and Present. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Roberts, D. (1997). Who May Give Birth to Citizens? Reproduction, Eugenics, and immigration. In J. F. Pera (Ed.), Immigrants Out: The New Nativism and the
Anti-Immigrant Impulse in the United States (pp. 205–219). New York: New York University Press.
Roberts, D. (2003). Shattered Bonds: The Color of Child Welfare. New York: Basic Books.
Rural Policy Research Institute (RUPRI). (1999). Rural America and Welfare Reform: An Overview Assessment. Policy paper pp. 99–103, February 10, Rural Welfare Reform Initiative. Retrieved April 24, 2005, from www.rupri.org/publications/.
Rural Sociological Task Force on Persistent Rural Poverty. (1993). Poverty in Rural America. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Schram, S. (2003). Putting a Black Face on Welfare: The Good and the Bad.
In S. Schram, J. Soss, and R. C. Fording (Eds.), Race and the Politics of Welfare Reform (pp. 195–221). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Schram, S. (2005, June). Contextualizing Racial Disparities in American Welfare Reform: Toward a New Poverty Research. Perspectives on Politics, 3(2), 253–268.

Schram, S., Soss, J., & Fording, R. C. (2003). Race and the Politics of Welfare Reform. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Seebach, M. (1992). Small Towns Have a Rosy Image. American Demographics, 14(10), 19.
Snyder, A., & Mclaughlin, D. (2004). Female-Headed Families and Poverty in Rural America. Rural Sociology, 69(1), 127–149.
Soss, J., Schram, S. F., Vartanian, T. P., & O’Brien, E. (2001). The Hard Line and the Color Line: Race, Welfare, and the Roots of Get-Tough Reform. In S. Schram,
J. Soss, & R. C., Fording (Eds.), Race and the Politics of Welfare Reform (pp. 225–249). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Sparks, H. (2003). Queens, Teens, and Model Mothers: Race, Gender, and the Dis- course of Welfare Reform. In S. Schram, J. Soss, & R. C. Fording (Eds.), Race and the Politics of Welfare Reform (pp. 171–195). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Stromwall, L. K., Brzuzy, S., Sharp, P., & Anderson, C. (1998). The Implications of “Welfare Reform” for American Indian Families and Communities. Journal of Poverty, 2(4), 1–15.
The State of Poverty in Ohio. (2004). Ohio Association of Community Action Agencies.
Community Action Partnership. Retrieved August 21, 2005, from www.ceoge.org/ research/contentonly.pdf.
Tickamyer, A., Henderson, D., Tadlock, B., & White, J. (2004). The Impact of Welfare Reform on Rural Livelihood Practices. Presented at the Rural Sociological Society Annual Meetings. Sacramento. CA.
Tickamyer, A. R., Henderson, D., White, J. A., & Tadlock, B. (2000). Voices of Welfare Reform: Bureaucratic Rationality Versus the Perceptions of Welfare Participants.
Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work, 15(2), 173–192.
Tickamyer, A. R., White, J., Tadlock, B., & Henderson, D. A. (2006). The Spatial Pol- itics of Public Policy: Devolution, Development and Welfare Reform.
In L. Lobeo, G. Hooks, & A. Tickamyer (Eds.), Spatial Inequality (pp. 113–139). New York: SUNY Press.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [USDHHS]. (2002). One Department Serving Rural America” HHS Rural Task Force Report to the Secretary. Retrieved from ftp://ftp.hrsa.gov/ruralhealth/PublicReportJune2002.pdf.
Weber, B. A., Duncan, G. J., & Whitener, L A. (2002). Rural Dimensions of Welfare Reform. Kalamazo, MI: UpJohn Institute.
Weber, L. (2001). Understanding Race, Class, Gender, and Sexuality. Boston: McGraw Hill.
Weinberg, S. B. (1998). Mexican American Mothers and the Welfare Debate: A History of Exclusion. Journal of Poverty, 2(3), 53–75.
Weinberg, S. B. (2000). Welfare Reform and Mutual Family Support Effects on Mother- Led Mexican American Families. Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work, 15(2), 204–223.
Zimmerman, J. N., & Hirshl, T. A. (2003). Welfare Reform in Rural Areas: A Voyage Through Uncharted Waters. In D. L. Brown & L. E. Swanson (Eds.), Challenges for Rural America in the Twenty-First Century (pp. 363–374). University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.