Welfare dependency is when a person or household is reliant on government welfare benefits. They use welfare benefits for their income for a long period of time, and without the benefits they would not be able to pay for things for daily living. Some individuals may use this benefit even though they make more than an individual who may need the benefits more than they do. This benefit is supposed to help families with low income, but many people take advantage of this benefit to get what they want. I do not think it is right to abuse the system and take advantage of something that is supposed to help others who really need it.
When people use benefits that they do not need it leaves the people who do need it with nothing. Welfare dependency funds may not always be there for people who need it because of people who abuse the system. People always try to find loop holes in the systems, so they can get money or what they want depending on which benefits. In my opinion, people need to stop trying to find loop holes and just follow the system. The benefits are there for a reason and it is for people who are in need.
An essay called “A Genealogy of Dependency: Tracing a Keyword of the U. S. Welfare State” by Nancy Fraser and Linda Gordon is about welfare dependency being talked about in politics and getting public assistance is for people who are known as dependency. They also discuss why it is so negative for some people. Fraser and Gordon seek to dispel the common belief of current U. S. discussions of dependency by redefining the term dependency. They will do this by contrasting the present meanings of dependency with its past meanings. They believe that dependency is an ideological term. This means that the term means differently to everyone because people have their own opinions and beliefs.
I agree, with the term dependency being an ideological word because it is a word that people have their own different meanings to. There is not really a set definition for the word dependency because people see dependent differently. In the essay they discuss that dependency is usually referred as women with children who need to maintain their families with economical support on a government program called Aid to Families with dependent children. In his program it gives women a chance to leave abusive relationships without having to give up their children.
The authors believe that dependency tends to make women appear to be individual problems. Dependency will make women look like they cannot make money to take care of her children and I do not think this is always the case. In the essay, Fraser and Gordon gave an example of someone who would want to get welfare dependency. It is typically a mother that is often young, unmarried black women or even a teenager. In their opinion this image gives off multiple contradictory meanings of dependency. The authors go on to talk about what dependency meant in the past and what it means now.
They shift to the rise of welfare dependency and how it began. They stated that welfare use of dependency developed in the United States. Fraser and Gordon believed that the country lacked a strong legacy of feudalism; therefore it lacked a strong sense of obligations. As they mentioned earlier, the most general definition of economic dependency was people who did not earn wages for income. By the end of the nineteenth century, the definition divided into two sides. One side being the good household dependency and this is people who really are dependent because they did not have income.
The other side is people who are charity dependency and this is people who are not dependent, but are people who want the extra income. Fraser and Gordon talked about how the New Deal made a two-track welfare system. The First-track programs are people who are unemployed and old age. It offered help as an entitlement and without dependency. The second-track public assistance programs like Aid to Families with Dependent Children became the biggest and most well-known for welfare support. Fraser and Gordon discussed how good dependency had disappeared from society.
What people think of dependency is expanding, but dependency remains feminized and racialized by many people. The stigma of dependency is increasing with combined results of politics and geography. They believe that whatever dependency remains it can be seen as the fault of individuals. This means if there is more help for dependency then it is the individuals to be the blame. The authors of this essay go on to talk about the women of NWRO. These women are active with the welfare system. They believe people should be claiming rights instead of charity.
They also mentioned that their domestic labor was necessary. Their help redeveloped the arguments for welfare. During the period in which NWRO activism was at its height, historians developed a new interpretation of the welfare state as a structure of social control. Fraser and Gordon explained how the historians of social control told their story mainly from the perspective of the helpers. In dependency theory, theorist used the concept of dependency to analyze the global economic perspective. By doing this, they brought up the old meaning of dependency.
This usage remains strong in Latin America as well as in the U. S. Fraser and Gordon believed that the theorist seek to shift the focus back to the social relations of subordination. Even though, they do not have much impact on mainstream talk about welfare. Now that economic dependency is now another meaning for poverty, no one really talks about dependency as a social relation of subordination. In the authors conclusion they mentioned dependency is now differentiated in several sections. In the economic section, its meaning has changed from gaining income by working by to relying for support on welfare.
In the sociologic section, the meaning of dependency is undergo unchanged, but its reference has changed. In the political section, they believe that dependency’s meaning as governing power has remained relatively constant. The authors sates that before the rise of capitalism, all forms of work were intertwined into dependencies. In addition, they go on to conclude the genealogy of dependency. It also expresses the individual personality. This constructs another version of the independence/dependence division. This creates an opposition between the independent personality and the dependent personality.
Lastly, in their conclusion, Fraser and Gordon state that a genealogy cannot tell us how to respond politically to today’s welfare dependency. They mentioned Pat Gowenes to be an example to elaborate a feminist of dependency. Most of the mothers of all social classes and all different educational levels will always depend on another income. For example, it may come from child support. The word dependence may define a dad who counts on the mother to raise children and care for the home. Some families may need someone who does not make income to take care of the children while some one works for the income.
They believe that dependence does not define the single mom who does it all. In conclusion, this essay really goes in depth about welfare and it gives an open mind on all aspects of welfare dependency. They discussed dependency in the past and what it means now. I think they are right when they say not all people who go on welfare dependency need it, some people go on welfare dependency because they like charity, and they want the relief of help. I do not think it is bad to want help but welfare is for families who need it because they do not have any kind of income.