Mixed feelings here. Mainly that I was lucky growing up, as our income was slightly above this level being discussed. But that's basically how we were. I was surprised it was as recent as 1969.
And some bewilderment as to how it all went wrong. Is the issue of people "on relief" getting more than this dignified and hard-working family anything to do with it?
And then some contempt for the academic, for talking about a poverty line that was never defined. Plus not being able to take him seriously because, 1969 and all that, he reminded me of Harry Worth.
Sam - my feelings were mixed too and I was also surprised it was as recent as 1969. I checked and the husband must have been earning about half the national average income, so the issue of people "on relief" must have been very divisive.
I think by 1969, the academic had found an area and a family which had been left behind economically, enabling him to talk vaguely about the poverty line as they still do.
It’s very telling, that hesitation and lowered voice when the interviewee speaks with vicarious embarrassment of families being ‘better off on public relief’.
I wonder whether replacing that generic established term, with its connotations of being supported in need and at a cost to other people, with the more nebulous and positive-sounding ‘benefits’ has ultimately been hugely detrimental to the country and may yet bring down the welfare state as we know it.
Macheath - that's a good point, language is probably far more powerful than we know. At one time "public relief" was something to be ashamed of and the language reflected that. The excesses of PC language seem to have made us more aware of evasive language, so maybe we'll resist it in future. I hope so.
4 comments:
Mixed feelings here. Mainly that I was lucky growing up, as our income was slightly above this level being discussed. But that's basically how we were. I was surprised it was as recent as 1969.
And some bewilderment as to how it all went wrong. Is the issue of people "on relief" getting more than this dignified and hard-working family anything to do with it?
And then some contempt for the academic, for talking about a poverty line that was never defined. Plus not being able to take him seriously because, 1969 and all that, he reminded me of Harry Worth.
Sam - my feelings were mixed too and I was also surprised it was as recent as 1969. I checked and the husband must have been earning about half the national average income, so the issue of people "on relief" must have been very divisive.
I think by 1969, the academic had found an area and a family which had been left behind economically, enabling him to talk vaguely about the poverty line as they still do.
It’s very telling, that hesitation and lowered voice when the interviewee speaks with vicarious embarrassment of families being ‘better off on public relief’.
I wonder whether replacing that generic established term, with its connotations of being supported in need and at a cost to other people, with the more nebulous and positive-sounding ‘benefits’ has ultimately been hugely detrimental to the country and may yet bring down the welfare state as we know it.
Macheath - that's a good point, language is probably far more powerful than we know. At one time "public relief" was something to be ashamed of and the language reflected that. The excesses of PC language seem to have made us more aware of evasive language, so maybe we'll resist it in future. I hope so.
Post a Comment