[Perfecto] E.3

Dear scholars

Sennett is a sociologist and historian. He grew up in the projects of Chicago, but in a period (1940s) when the “projects” were not slums, they were a nice

place that people could enter if/when they qualified on a govt application.

When he grew up, he went back home and saw that his neighborhood had turned into one of the worst places to live in Chicago (it was called Cabrini

Green). Worse, people that lived there were stigmatized as poor, undeserving, and smooches off a government system.

In this piece, Sennett asks why our existing welfare system stigmatizes those involved. In this essay, he argues that it could be possible to create a modified system in which welfare recipients are more respected in society.

The reading is challenging and jumps around from idea to idea. Try simply to capture as much as you can.

Sennet's first point is that every single government, no matter what its ideology, helps people on some level. Of course, each government differs on how (and on how much) it helps its citizens in this regard. The US, Sennet suggests, is a "liberal welfare regime." Here, he uses "liberal" in the

sense of 'concern for each individual,'not in the sense of 'generous.' By "welfare," Sennett is talking about government aid intended for an individual's socioeconomic. well-being

here “iron cage” is a nickname for bureaucracy.

This is Sennett’s first stab at the main point: large scale institution like the army or a large company allow people to feel good self-esteem for their involvement.

Why is this not the case in the welfare system?

This is important. Sennett is borrowing

from a political theory

model. This is a model

of what makes

institutions function strongly. Havimg a voice is

central. Do welfare

recipients have a voice?

Now bring in some of your outside knowledge based on class lectures and discussions. The 1960s was also the late civil rights and the strong protests of the Vietnam War. What was going on

socially? How were people beginning to view the government differently? What did this have to do with “Loyalty, Voice, and Exit” from a governmental bureaucracy?

Sennett is exploring whether people in the US treat welfare as a “right” or a “privilege.” He mentions that some aspects of welfare (eg monthly aid or foodstamps) require interviews, in which people’s privacy is invaded and their word is not taken seriously — this is, ostensibly, to make sure they actually “deserve”

welfare.

Now Sennett will ask about the history of the idea of “rights” to see if welfare could be a right. So he goes to the godfathers of the philosophers of “rights” — the Enlightenment

thinkers John Locke, Montesquieu, and (the later thinker) John Stuart Mill.

Whoah. Keynes said

Welfare should

RESPECT the individual.

This seems to be what Sennett is really pushing for.

Damn. Sennett

argues that the

longstanding problem with

welfare is NOT

dependency, but rather passivity.