Welfare- Bad for Citizenship?

In “Lessons of Welfare: Policy Design, Political Learning, and Political Action,” Joe Soss highlights a very important perspective on the ways in which individuals and groups interact with the government. Furthermore, he analyzes how this interaction can temper one’s participation as an active citizen in politics. Soss argues that views of government that citizens develop through program participation- like welfare initiatives- help explain broader patterns of political action. Participants of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) have different experiences with the government through their respective welfare programs. It appears that there is a linkage between the amount of control and efficacy an individual feels they have in their particular welfare program and the way they view the greater government and the wider political process.

Prior to reading this piece, I had never really given much thought to the ways in which people establish their views of the government. Moreover, I had never seriously considered the varied spectrum of attitudes toward the government that the citizenry possesses and how individual attitudes affect individual and group participation in politics. Soss raises a very interesting- and perhaps alarming- point about welfare programs. Although welfare initiatives are intended to increase the prosperity and future of many Americans and their dependents, welfare may have an adverse effect on the development and involvement of what political scientists and experts define as good citizens. Yes, welfare may provide monetary advantages, but perhaps the procedures and bureaucratic processes that are necessary for the allocation of welfare need to be reevaluated if they can have such a profound impact on relative levels of participation from those citizens that take advantage of these programs. From Soss’ piece, it appears that many welfare recipients feel marginalized and objectified by the terms of their welfare agreements. I agree with Bri that a serious overhaul of the welfare system would be both costly and unpopular; however, I think the points raised by Soss should be given attention. Isn’t the intrinsic value of welfare diminished when the people who utilize its advantages don’t vote, aren’t informed, and/or unable or unwilling to try and alter the initiatives that affect them?

Throughout the semester, we have discussed possible reasons why American citizens are not as involved as political scientists would like them to be or think they ought to be. The possible reasons we have discussed vary widely, yet Soss’ piece introduces a new aspect on the cause of citizen apathy. Perhaps disdain for the government and a general apathy toward politics is being institutionalized in the very programs that the government supports and runs—like welfare. Are the interactions between welfare recipients and the government institutionalizing a disproportionate power relationship that significantly impacts an individual’s likelihood and willingness to be politically active as a good citizen (i.e. vote, volunteer to campaign, be informed, etc.)? If one of the government’s and/or political scientists’ objectives is to promote good citizenry –particularly from the lower socio-economic classes- we must minimize the principal-subordinate relationship (as suggested by Soss-AFDC) that has been introduced through certain welfare programs.