Titmuss’ thesis was a ‘polemical retort to the critics of the welfare state’. Its aim was to encourage people to think of welfare in a broader sense, by showing how the welfare state was not a unitary whole. Many people at the time, and still today, tend to think of welfare and benefits only in terms of the visible benefits awarded to the poor and disadvantaged (social welfare). Titmuss acknowledged that because they are nor readily visible, fiscal welfare (tax relief etc.) and occupational welfare (pensions and fringe benefits) have a tendency to be disregarded as forms of welfare, leaving the dependant poor with their visible benefits, rather than the middle classes, as scapegoats for tax increases and inflation.
Titmuss saw divisions in the British labour force increasingly brought about needs and dependencies that were separate from the natural dependencies of childhood, old age and child bearing. He saw social and cultural dependencies as a consequence of industrial growth and social change. He argued that every factor ‘contributing to economic growth is also a factor in contributing to social need’ (Titmuss; 1958, p.170). Because these dependencies were out of the individuals control he believed the government had a duty to compensate the people he termed ‘the social pathologies of other peoples progress’ (Titmuss; 1968, p.157).
Many of the criticisms regarding Titmuss’ work have been related to its concise nature. Both Rose and Sinfield have many of the same criticisms of Titmuss’ work. A major aspect is one that Titmuss himself brings to attention within his thesis, explaining how he has ‘ exaggerated for the sake of brevity’ (Titmuss: 1958, p.219). According to Sinfield, Titmuss has not been expansive enough on the diversities between various systems of welfare (Sinfield; 1978, p.135) and suggests that the ‘interactions between the different themes… deserve much closer and sustained analysis’ (p.131).
This ‘brevity’ had much to with the fact that at this time ‘social policy’ did not have a recognised status in the field of sociology. Sinfield’s belief was that Titmuss was probably avoiding ‘diluting his conclusions for an already uninspired audience’ (Sinfield. 1978, Pg.135), and possibly if Titmuss had covered every point in depth he may have hidden his main points and would not have generated the interest, which he has. At many points within the essay Titmuss brings up features he feels demands further study implying that for the sake of space, these points, although worthy of greater research can only be touched upon.
Rose criticises Titmuss for not including what she feels to be a fourth dimension of welfare ‘informal welfare’, emphasising the interaction between public and private welfare systems (Rose; 1981 p.479). She
stresses the sexual division of labour and women’s roles in the day to day production and reproduction of welfare, but although critical she states Titmuss’s notion of social policy should not be ignored as ‘his preoccupation with the micro, with the intimate social relations of redistributions, has a specific relevance to feminist analysis’ (Rose pg.479).
Because Titmuss had put his focus onto different oppressed groups in society, rather than just the working classes Rose believed it would be possible to use as a foundation for the ‘analysis of the sexual division of welfare’ (Rose; 1981, pg.479).
Sinfield focuses his revision of the SDW thesis on the visibility of welfare, the time consumed by social welfare and the stigma attached to it. He believed that ‘people see the poor services of the public system, and may come to think that the programs are there because the poor are as they are’, He goes on to say that ‘In neglecting the effects of the distributive processes of other systems of welfare, we are liable to blame the poor for being poor’ (Sinfield; 1978, pg.143). Another aspect of his revision addresses the issue of how some classes are more influential in effecting distribution of resources of state welfare. Another criticism of Titmuss’ disregard for the concept of class alleged that he had ignored all ‘notion of class conflict as crucial in creating the overall balance of political forces which determines whether or not social legislation is
enacted, or as an influence upon the final form of that legislation’ (D.Weddenburg. 1965, p. 138)
It seems that Titmuss started a ball rolling for further fields of study that demand investigation. Sinfield speaks of the thesis to be an engine for further research. He is conscious ‘of the work that remains to be done’ but considers it as more of ‘a wealth of exciting and challenging opportunities than a burdensome area for laborious examination’ (Sinfield. 1978, Pg.156). He feels a way to study the subjects rigorously would be to break the field of research down into three divisions, economic, political and social to encourage speed of methodical examination.
Hilary Rose considers the work of Titmuss’ ‘disciples’, the ‘Titmice’ to have overlooked or ignored many aspects of study and states that they ‘neglected the occupational sector of welfare’ which now appears to be the largest sector of welfare, in much the same way as they ‘neglected this opportunity towards a feminist approach to social policy’. Rose speaks of the SDW as being ‘germinal’ as it has sowed the seeds of interest in a sexual division of welfare to facilitate the development of an analysis of it. She praises the fact that a feminist social policy now has at least ‘some mud and straw to build bricks with’ (Rose. Pg494).
To conclude it seems very likely that Titmuss’ provocative insights are still relevant maybe even more today than in the last century.
Our economy continues to grow at an alarming rate and the divide between the rich and poor, the powerful and powerless is becoming more apparent. Further research into the sexual division of welfare, labour and class structures seem to be essential to bring social policies and programmes into the future.
Bibliography
Miller. S. M. (1987) The Philosophy of Welfare Allen+Unwin, London
Rose. H. (1981) Re-reading Titmuss; the Sexual division of Welfare in
The Journal of Social Policy, Vol.10.no.4, Pg.407-502
Sinfield. A. (1978) Analysis of the Social Division of Welfare in the
The Journal of Social Policy, Vol. 10,Pg.152-156
Titmuss. R. (1958) Essays on a Welfare State. Allen and Unwin, London.
Titmuss.R. (1968) Commitment to welfare. Allen and Unwin, London.
Wedderburn. D. (1965) Facts and Theories of The Welfare State in
Milliband.R. and Saville.J. The Socialist Register. Martin Press, London
