Giddens on the contrary believed that Murray was wrong, he believed that the underclass were vulnerable people unable to find secure jobs. He saw this as a consequence of the dual labour market, where there are high paid stable jobs on one hand and low paid insecure jobs on the other. Giddens believed that the underclass consisted of women and ethnic minorities due to prejudice and women’s careers being interrupted due to child birth and bringing the up.
Duncan Gallie (1988 1994) said that ethnic minorities were not really an underclass, as some were socially, economically and politically very successful. He did not see the underclass as being cut off from the rest off the society, though he acknowledged the ongoing problem of long-term unemployment. Ken Roberts 1997 defined the underclass as different groups sharing different lifestyles, such as hustlers, the homeless, single mothers and more. Welfare dependants have different skills to drug dealers.
Murray also attacked the black Afro Caribbean as being the underclass. William Julius Wilson 1987 believed that blacks in the inner city had formed a group as the underclass mainly due to racism in American society where the whites stereotype the black. The blacks who had gained skills over the years started moving out of the ghetto into the outer cities, leaving the severely disadvantaged behind who then became an underclass. Wilson believes that the underclass does not exist due to the culture of poverty but because of social isolation. He backs up Murray’s view about single parenthood.
Some of the third generation have felt anger towards the society feeling that their elders did right, they had worked, paid taxes and behaved well, then why are they being excluded by being paid low wages, no promotion and less educational opportunities.
Andrew Pilkington (1999) says that although the ethnic communities started off with low skilled labour work and under employment, they were now making progress. Caribbean women are leading, with the African Asian following and then the Indians. Pakistanis and Bangladeshis were either doing really well or really badly, therefore the ethnic minorities could not be classed as underclass.
Children brought up by wealthy middle class single parents are less likely to be involved in crime than the ones from single parent families in the lower society. This has been backed up by Travis Hirschi (1969 1995) who believed that these children would be more likely to get involved in crime, as they would have no morality. He believed that families strengthen the bond to society. That without a stable family there is no sense of attachment to the rest of the community, which can lead to unusual behaviour. Youth without opportunities, such as no jobs around their area, would not be involved in any activities and would not have any interests are more likely to commit crime. Not having strong beliefs, without a sense of right and wrong may also get them youths involved in crime.
This brings us back to Murray’s perception of the underclass being a major cause for increasing crime. These were young people who did not want to work and preferred to live off benefits and the illegal economy.
US reports with Freeman’s (1983) indicates that the increasing crime rate is linked to the increase of unemployment. People that leave employment are more crime prone. Although a research in Britain for the home Office in 1982 shows that people are committing crime even though they are in employment and schooling, unemployment may not be the major factor in the causation of crime.
A cycle seems to have been set since the 1970’s where family composition and employment are the main factors to why an individual would get involved in crime. Teenagers that are unemployed are more likely to become single parents and so on.
Professional crime is a major consequence from the exclusion of the under class. It’s effecting the excluded and the communities around them. There is an estimated 420,000 involved in professional crime in Britain today, and this is linked to the growth of unemployment especially amongst the young. Such young are seen as and believe to be failures. Some blame the new right policies for their exclusion as restrictive policies have been implemented towards employment, housing and benefits. This has caused many of them to hustle in order to live with out money.
Hustling has become a normal way of life for some young people, including many illegal activities. Hustlers start to socialize with the rest of the youth population, especially when it comes to selling drugs, and it is increasing due to the levels of unemployment. If small crime is tolerable in an area, graffiti and vandalism being at the end, then an environment will be created where drug dealers move in, then people with knives and guns, wrecking the community.
People have to live with the distress caused by crime. Young people are getting involved in crimes such as street crime, drug use, and prostitution. There are increased burglaries and the elderly are more prone to be victims of burglary as they are vulnerable and weak. In the year of 1988, England was reported to have had more burglaries than the USA. Violent crime is more common in the USA than it is in Britain, statistics showing the males in their teens to be the ones creating most violent crime.
Crime is also increasing in Britain; Tony Blair delivered the following speech on the 30th of May 2001,
"We will take further action to focus on the 100,000 most persistent offenders. They are responsible for half of all crime. They are the cores of the crime problem in this country. Half are under 21, nearly two-thirds are hard drug users, three quarters are out of work and more than a third were in care as children. Half have no qualifications at all and 45% are excluded from school … Spending on the police will be an extra £1.6 billion per year by 2003-2004. And we are pledged to recruit another 6,000 police officers …" (Jock Young, Crime and social Exclusion) The statement above is seen as a delinquency problem, which arises from the disadvantaged upbringing of the child. In some youths unemployment can lead to drug addiction. Because they have no sense of morality left and such low self-esteem, they may see drugs as a scapegoat, to make them feel relaxed. Once addicted, they would need money to buy such drugs and that would be another reason why they would turn to crime. Some may turn to mugging and bag snatching which effects women and the elderly, as they are more vulnerable to such crimes. This can lead to other consequences. Some women may fear coming out of their houses at night thinking that they would not be safe, but it can in fact increase crime, with less women being out, the ones that are out at night are more likely to get attacked without anyone noticing. Job centres and career services have described some individuals as being unemployable. These are people who are less likely to get any work, such as people with less physical and mental capabilities, personality disorders and lifestyle problems, drug abuse as an example. Drug addiction can also lead to prostitution. Female teenagers that are dependant on drugs may turn to prostitution in order to provide drugs for themselves. Also single mothers without a job may turn to prostitution in order to raise their children. One of Eysneck’s views on the causes of crime is that an individual’s family was inadequate at the business of social training. Wilson and Hernstein also suggest that crime and inadequate behaviour occur due to exclusion from society. Police are using the zero tolerance policy where the police target soft crime, incivilisation, loiterers, drunks, etc. It strives to return the past levels of respectability, order, and civility, reducing the rise of crime. It has also been argued that it is not necessary that children brought up single parent families to be dysfunctional and turn to crime. Hirschi, Murray and James Q Wilson claim that family is the main agency for discipline and socialisation. For example, the royal family are dysfunctional, but they do not turn to crime. Looking at the Kray Twins, they were brought up in family with strong sense of morality, and yet they turn to crime. Upper class families are also often broken, for example, sending them to boarding school, children do not see their parents enough. Underclass is a collective term basically used to refer to a group of individuals. Stereotypical judgements may be made about these people, but they are not necessarily true. Overall, certain members of members do cut themselves off from the wider society due to their behaviour and attitudes, though there are still some that do not. Some are merely born more disadvantage than others like the disabled and the elderly. Both these groups are dependant on the state welfare, which is believed by Ken Auletta and Murray as being the underclass, and are excluded from society. It would take a lot more research to prove that these groups are in fact an underclass due to their behaviour and attitudes. The underclass have basically been portrayed as not wanted, a social residuum. A lot of research has showed that Charles Murray’s view about lack of moral stability in the upbringing of children due to single parent families are the main reason for exclusion of the underclass and the state welfare dependency, backed up by Eysneck and Hirschi. Although Giddens view argued this believing that the underclass were the vulnerable people with no secure jobs and Picklington thought so too saying that they were the ethnic minorities who were under skilled for high paid jobs. However, there is a definite underclass emerging in Britain and the USA, but the question is what is to be done about it?
Bibliography
Gidden A (2001). Sociology: Class, stratification and inequality. 4th ed. Cambridge. Polity Press.
Morris L (1994). Dangerous Classes: The Underclass and Social Citizenship. London and New York. Routledge.
Muncie J (1999). Youth and Crime: Radical and Realist Criminoligies. London. Sage publications.
Byrne D (1999). Social Exclusion: The Possessive Individualists: Blaming the Poor. Buckingham. Open University Press.
Murray C et al (1990). The Emerging British Underclass. London. The IEA Health and Welfare Unit.
Smith J D et al (1992). Understanding The Underclass. London. Policy Studies Institution.
Jock Young. Crime and Social Exclusion. Retrieved 9th January 2005 from the Worldwide Web:
