MENDICANT INDIVIDUALISM *ARTHUR W. NELSON* Assistant Professor of Sociology Westmont College Of the many types and classifications of individualism analyzed in Habits of the Heart, still another type might be added. Chapters on Citizenship, Religion, and the National Society reviewed our ambivalence of feelings of responsibility for and diffused hostility toward the economically disadvantaged. However, as all authors have to limit the parameters of their subject, little attention was given to the individualism and commitment of those caught in the web of poverty. The poor in our society are beneficiaries of the programs established in the decades of what the authors term "welfare liberalism." Categorized as "living out of the public trough," the poor are often intellectually equated with the beggars or mendicants of the Elizabethan Poor Law era. In looking at our current society from the viewpoint of mendicant individualism, those unable to provide economically for themselves, we might ask about their concept of commitment and resulting recommendations as we answer the questions of the last chapter on "Transforming American Culture." The authors cite the beginning of the era of Welfare Liberalism as that of the 1930's and the administration of President Franklin Roosevelt. The publication which probably provided the most persuasive expression of the depths of the The Great Depression was written by a member of the president's staff, Harry Hopkins. This very controversial book was entitled Spending to Save and described all too vividly the suffering of the unemployed. Poverty of the depression years was extremely visible as millions of non-working Americans joined the soup lines. The needs of those most adversely effected were the basics of food, clothing, and shelter, and their ranks often included those from what had been the middle class. In 1912, President Franklin Pierce had placed, by means of an historic veto, the sole responsibility for problems of citizen poverty upon the states, and had exempted the federal government from the role of benefactor to those in economic need. As the disaster of the depression years mounted, congress struggled with the pressures to reverse the thinking which had endured from 1912 to 1930. At that time, mendicant individualism was expressed by a strong commitment to work as the element of survival. The forty eight state governors sent to President Roosevelt the message that the millions of unemployed did not want "hand-outs." They wanted jobs. The subsequent urgency of congressional action created, among many other programs, the Works Projects Administration and the Civilian Conservation Corps. The value of the work ethic was recognized. Capping this historical turnaround in federal government policy was the passage a few years later (1935) of the Social Security Act. Now recognized 50 years later as the most important single piece of social legislation in our history, this act was shaped around the work ethic with social insurance coverage related to the contributions of employed persons. However, as the decades passed, revisions of the Social Security Act have reflected further expansions of the needs of working persons as expressed by the individualism of the poor. Proposals to meet the financial needs of widows, orphans, the medically ill, and disabled surfaced regularly on legislative tables each congressional session. Modifications of the original act were numerous, but always related to the concept of the contributory resources of the working population. In 1956 Arthur Altmeyer, nationally known as "Mr. Social Security," spoke at the U.C.L.A. campus on the topic of the history of Social Security legislation. In the large auditorium very few students were present. Mr. Altmeyer took the opportunity to say how pleased he was with the size of the audience as similar appearances in the 1930's were amid packed auditoriums and opposing demonstrations. He accepted with pleasure the very visible evidence that the goal of his life, the development of Social Security, was now an accepted fact of our society. This phenomena of major governmental involvement in the lives of nearly every American came about and achieved general acceptance for many social and economic reasons. High on the legislative strategy list for achieving this acceptance was the integration of the concept of the work ethic with the then ultra-liberal idea of a national social insurance system. To be accepted by the economic spectrum of millionaires through the middle class and on to the chronically dependent required a strong common denominator. That common denominator was the work requirement for entry into the system. Individualism for poor people meant maintaining the self-respect, the confidence, and the feeling of accomplishment that "I earned it." In the 1960's, politicians and citizens were swayed by the book by Michael Harrington, The Other America, and the book by Robert Will and Harold Vatter, Poverty in Affluence, expressing the theme that in the post-war era of the "affluent society" we had governmental resources to win the war on poverty. The Kennedy and Johnson administrations predicted that with the passage of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 we were on the edge of forever changing the way of life for poor people in America. In sharp contrast to the pressures of poverty in the depression years, the pressures were to share with the disadvantaged the level of prosperity the like of which we had never before achieved. There was a compulsion to bestow economic surpluses on social anti-poverty experiments that was close to overwhelming. Potential groups of beneficiaries were unable to develop proposals rapidly enough to keep up with the allocations. The new concept was to utilize the knowledge of the poor to design and administer their own programs that were to lift them out of the quagmire of poverty. Federal government funding virtually ignored the established governmental state-county channels. The "War on Poverty" programs involved the federal Office of Economic Opportunity dealing almost directly with local Community Action Commissions. These commissions were composed of local citizens with one third from each of the categories of ethnic or groups of disadvantaged, governmental agencies, and those elected from low income census tract areas. As these very individualistic tripartite commissions went to their drawing boards, a plethora of programs evolved. Many were doomed to failure as the duplicated established services, and many fell as administrative skills and audit orientation were totally lacking. What is more significant is that so many of the programs were work oriented. One of the most successful, Head Start, usually required teachers aides to be hired from the low income or ethnic minority sector. Teen employment programs, stressing summer job opportunities were a high priority, and the Job Corps type training projects generally were a respected part of the total gamut of programs. Meals on Wheels programs hired low-income senior citizens, and Family Planning Clinics hired ethnic minority outreach workers. The programs to which tax-paying citizens eventually developed a strong objection, were poverty legal services and the funding of welfare rights organizations. The idea of using federal tax funds to create an attack force against establishment programs funded by federal tax funds lacked proper logic. Nevertheless, it should be observed that the individualism of the poor was expressed in the choice of programs either providing training for employment or funding direct employment in the delivery of services to the low-income sector. With the nebulous guidelines for the war on poverty programs, with the lack of traditional bureaucratic supervision, and without the structure of state and local government being present, we are hard pressed not to be persuaded that jobs, employment, and the work ethic were, at that time, a strong commitment of the individualism of the poor. The final chapter of Habits of the Heart on "Transforming American Culture" mentions the need to reevaluate the meaning of work in our society. As the mental gymnastics of this complex analysis are faced, we would be derelict in our task to limit our focus to the middle and upper economic brackets. As we look at the definitions of neocapitalist ideology and strain our calculators with "trickle down" actuarial predictions, the need for pragmatism in solutions to poverty problems is compelling. Our current concern for "welfare reform" should be tempered with what is axiomatic in the individualism of the poor--that social and legislative change should maintain a strong work orientation. We are not going to make the indigent aged young enough to work, we are not likely to succeed in making the disabled poor well enough to work, and we will not be able to make economically dependent children old enough to work. As we evaluate the meaning of work in the poverty strata it is necessary to accept support responsibility for the unemployable poor. From that point, our social and economic changes need to concern those that are in economic jeopardy, but have employment potential. Single working mothers should anticipate a public social policy on childcare that expects the employer to meet the need. Working mothers should also expect personnel policy changes permitting job sharing and flexible hours. Public welfare recipients should have the rewards of fiscal incentive in training, job search efforts, and the acceptance of employment. And to assure the success of maintaining the social and economic value of work among the poor, we need to again consider the concept of the depression years of government being the employer-of-last-resort. Statues to "rugged individualism" such as that of Buffalo Bill Cody on the eastern slope of the Rocky Mountains, solidify in bronze our impressions that this is indeed one of our cherished values. Although the minority voices of some welfare rights activists have labeled work expectations for poor people as involuntary servitude, we can conclude a diametric opposing position from the majority of poor people. Our future direction should reflect the clear commitment of mendicant individualism--the dignity and respect of the work ethic. For students in the Christian liberal arts college, the problems of poverty in society pose some resolvable theological conflicts. Calvinistic theology would tend to equate God's material blessings with thrift, tithing, and an industrious lifestyle. Conversely, the lack of economic affluence can be equated to not following God's plan. Conservative clergy occasionally come close to social Darwinism in excusing the church from responsibility for certain needy groups. The student in today's classroom may question the mind of God in permitting famine, illness, and economic hardship, but agreement can be reached on the proposal that God has no one but people to help people in need. The Judaic concept of gleaning, the Levitical codes, and examples such as the good Samaritan leave little doubt as to general Christian responsibility. Compassion would be the single factor for emphasis, especially for dependent children and the indigent unemployable--the aged, blind, and disabled. As children do not organize marches on Washington D.C., do not strike or riot, and do not vote, a special measure of compassion is merited for our future citizens. Students in the Christian liberal arts college should be well aware of the issues they will be voting on over the next few decades. For the employable poor, they should be well versed in the concepts of integration of the work ethic in all social legislation directed toward the economically disadvantaged.