Victoria Longman

The Sociological Imagination

Focussing on Goodwin's quote, I intend to discuss through this essay, the fact that for

social workers, the most important thing that sociology can teach is not how ‘personal

issues’ may be public issues, but in fact how people’s experiences of personal issues

effect public concerns and policy and shape everybody’s lives, thus how their service

users’ issues are in fact public issues. To answer the question in brief, poverty is an

aspect of contemporary society that can affect anyone at any time, therefore it is of

everyone’s concern and is a public issue. For social workers, while it is important to

acknowledge how poverty is often a very personal experience for people, it is something

that is affected largely by social structures and policy and thus a real public concern, and

indeed, one that everybody should take responsibility for.

Looking at Mill's notion of the sociological imagination with the question of whether or

not poverty is a public issue in mind, we can see that Mills does consider poverty to be a

public issue. The quote highlighted within the question considers the effects of societal

structures, the first example that Mills highlights in this quote  is the effects of

industrialisation on workers; he highlights the changing distribution of wealth as societal

structures change. While Mills does not explicitly state that the issue most dependant on

societal structures is that of personal wealth, it is implied in the nature of his examples.

One could suppose from this that Mills does view poverty as a public issue, as he feels

that societal structures have real implications on people's wealth. Thus it could follow on

from this that as poverty is always affected by social structures, it can always be

1|Page
Victoria Longman

considered to be a public issue and the implications of societal structures on personal

economics is something that will be highlighted later in this essay.

Pete Alcock (1993) describes poverty as going short materially, emotionally and

socially.  That individuals living in poverty may spend less on food, on health and on

clothing than someone on an average income. Poverty may also take away the tools to

build blocks for the future which provide life chances.  Furthermore he claims that

poverty steals away the opportunity to have a life unmarked by sickness, decent

education, a secure home and long retirement.

This explains how, although this essay is concluding that poverty is always a public issue,

people’s experiences of poverty are very personal. The implications of poverty become

personal issues for those experiencing it. Poverty can affect a family’s quality of life and

can significantly constrain the options available to them in numerous ways.  For example,

many families are not able to afford essentials such as a cooked meal each day which can

have a detrimental effect on an individual’s health in the long run with implications such

as fatigue, malnutrition and developmental delay.  A parent or caregiver may not be able

to afford clothes, toys or school trips for their children and may not pay priority debts

such as their utility bills in order to do so, resulting in them accruing debt and living in

fear of the consequences. Furthermore individuals may feel they have no alternative but

to turn to crime in order to make ends meet or as a means of survival. An individual may

also experience constraints on the ability to find employment due to long-term illness or a

lack of skills and the cost of childcare. Moreover many families find themselves living in

poor and inadequate housing conditions and unable to adequately heat the dwelling.

2|Page
Victoria Longman

Furthermore the neighborhood may be unsafe but the family may have no resources to

secure a better home in a safer neighbourhood. In addition children who are economically

disadvantaged are less likely to do well at school.   Poverty can also affect how a family

interacts, for example, marital conflict over money may result in the relationship

deteriorating under the strain which may result in breakdown of the family. Consequently

this may lead to inconsistent parenting and increased sibling responsibility which may

subsequently limit any leisure activities for the family.

It is widely accepted that the stress of poverty has long term implications on people’s

health; limiting long-term illness among people of working age is not only a potential

cause of poverty but also a potential consequence of it

(http://www.poverty.org.uk/i61/index.shtml). Piachaud also notes this association, stating

that ‘there are large differences in health and mortality that are linked to income and

social class’, (Piachaud in Ellison and Pierson 1998 p.239).

While these examples are not specific to everyone’s experiences when living in poverty,

they highlight the various affects on individuals and families when living in poverty.

Indeed, they highlight how people’s experiences of poverty make it a personal issue.

However, as will be discussed, personal issues of poverty also highlight that poverty is

not an isolated concern but is linked to several other social issues, making it a public

concern and a public issue.                                           

The Frank Butler Trust recently commissioned a research project that was undertaken by

researchers from York University and NSPCC’s child protection team. The overall aims

of the research project were to explore the relationships between poverty, parenting and

3|Page
Victoria Longman

children’s well-being in diverse social contexts, from the perspectives of parents, children

and professionals. The sample was of seventy families, thirty two living in areas of high

deprivation and thirty eight more in affluent areas. The final report was entitled ‘Living

with hardship 24/7: The diverse experiences of families in poverty in England ’. The

report highlighted that many individuals perceived themselves as ‘trapped’ in their

circumstances and that they felt restricted in many ways by their lack of options in

society. Individuals also experienced feelings of inadequacy and guilt as a result of not

being able to meet their children’s needs as well as their own which often contributed to

low-self esteem and a feeling of worthlessness. Many individuals were also aware of the

stigma attached to poverty, especially the thirty eight families living in the affluent areas

that had consequently suffered social isolation as a result of poverty stigmatisation. The

report also highlighted that individuals did not wish to identify themselves as being

‘poor’ or living in poverty due to the large stigma and shame attached to the subject. As

one single parent notes:

‘You begin to feel like you’re a scrounger, a low life, a good for nothing, your

permanently on benefit. Nobody can see that I spent a lot of time in the forces, that’s why

my legs, my knees, my hips knackered, nobody can see that’. (Father, unable to work for

health reasons, affluent area, Living in hardship 24/7, p.41)

(www.buttletrust.org/user_files/1200397699_living-in-hardship_final_report.pdf)

This report highlights not only the personal implications of poverty for individuals, but

also the fact that several of these implications are common to people living in poverty as

a collective. The collective identity of those living in poverty is further exacerbated by

4|Page
Victoria Longman

popular responses to poverty. Indeed, widespread discussion about poverty as a public

concern highlights that it is certainly an issue that is responded to as a public concern.

Cunningham and Cunningham note that popular discriminatory images of ‘the poor’ have

a shared common theme throughout history, that poor people are somehow to blame for

their state of affairs.  Stereotypical images of poverty encompass a moral judgment that

shifts emphasis away from anything to do with a lack of cash, and becomes a statement

on the moral character of those involved (Cunningham and Cunningham, 2008 p.39).

 It could be argued that Britain has had a fascination with making a distinction between

the deserving and undeserving poor that can be traced back to the Elizabethan Poor Law

of 1601.  In the nineteenth century sociologist Herbert Spencer supported the

individualistic theory of poverty; he was a severe critic of the poor and showed no

sympathy towards their plight. He firmly believed that individuals were poor because

they were too lazy to work and thought that individuals should be responsible for their

own welfare; therefore, if they could not be bothered to work they should not be able to

eat.  Spencer coined the phrase ‘survival of the fittest’ and stated that to enable society to

grow the individuals who worked hard should reap the rewards, whilst the lazy, weak and

incompetent should be left to live in poverty.  Additionally he argued that poverty was a

necessary part of society, which acted as an incentive to encourage individuals to seek

employment as opposed to ‘dissolute living’ (Haralambos, 2000 p.205).

 Rowntree (1901) drew a distinction between the deserving and undeserving poor during

the nineteenth century. Many people during this time associated poverty with morality.

Poverty was more or less seen as a crime as those who experienced it were essentially

5|Page
Victoria Longman

immoral people who had brought the problem on to themselves through alcoholism or

laziness. Such people were identified as the undeserving poor. On the other hand, there

was acknowledgment that other individuals experienced poverty from no fault of their

own, for example ill health. These people were identified as the deserving poor. However

these distinctions were in fact mature and were first formulated by the governments of the

Tudors particularly Elizabeth I.

This debate still persists and is highlighted by ongoing conflict about the welfare state,

which, throughout the 1990s primarily involved the emergent debate from the ‘New

Right’ and the emergent ‘New Labour’ government.

In recent years, the American political scientist Charles Murray suggested in an article he

wrote for the Sunday Times in 1989, that Britain had a emerging ‘underclass’ similar to

that which he had already identified in the U.S.  In it he wrote:

‘When I use the term underclass I am indeed focusing on a certain type of poor person

defined not by his condition, e.g. long-term unemployed, but by his deplorable behavior

in response to that condition, e.g. unwilling to take the jobs available to him.’

(Murray,’ Underclass’, Sunday Times 1989)

Other forms of ‘deplorable’ behaviour that Murray highlighted included illegitimate

children born into lone parent families and criminal activity. Murray believes that the

‘underclass’ consists of unemployed men and lone parents that have no urge to support

themselves or their families which results in their pro-longed dependency on the state.

Murray has a negative view of individuals who live in poverty and argues that they are a

6|Page
Victoria Longman

hindrance to society and therefore should not be offered any assistance. Murray’s

approach like Spencer’s before him is linked to the theory that individuals are to blame

for their own poverty.

Murray provided a new lease of life to the concept of the ‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving

poor’, however, many commentators before him had highlighted similar arguments.

Alcock notes that the underclass debate has been prominent since as early as 1973 when

sociologist John Rex spoke of black communities in Britain becoming a segregated

‘underclass’, which he later described as being ‘cut off from the main structures of

society’. (Alcock, 1993 p.191).

In his major study of poverty, Townsend (1928-2009) a social policy researcher and

campaigner claimed that older people experienced an ‘underclass’, a status which he later

extended to include the disabled, long-term unemployed, chronically ill, and single parent

families (Alcock, 1993 p.191).

And indeed,  an article written in the guardian as recent as June, 2009 claims that a report

published by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation argues that the perception of people on

benefits as ‘scroungers’ is as deep rooted ever:

‘The financial crisis has produced greater distaste for the "super rich" but has had no

impact on wider attitudes to the income gap between rich and poor, the report claims.

Echoing the Victorian concept of the "deserving" and "undeserving" poor, negative

perceptions of benefit claimants were countered by strong sympathy for the working poor

7|Page
Victoria Longman

and for groups such as carer’s.(http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/jun/22/benefits-

income-poverty-fabian-rowntree)

The idea of an ‘underclass goes against commonly held social work values of non-

judgemental and Anti-discriminatory practice. Commentators like Murray can be

criticised for engaging in a judgemental debate, stereotyping the perceived ‘undeserving

poor’ as a homogeneous group, furthermore this argument is largely factually inaccurate.

Highlighting the issue of lone parent families, Lydia Morris notes that there is much

diversity in the experiences of such families. Factors such as levels of conflict between

parents, maternal hardship, kin networks, education and peer relationships will affect an

individuals experience of lone parent families, within these factors there is great scope for

different experiences. Essentially, not all lone parent families are living in poverty; many

lone mothers are working and many children experience lone parenting from a Father.

Therefore sweeping comments generalising the experiences of lone parent families

cannot be accepted as a sociological argument. (Morris in Allan, 1999 p.228).

And indeed, Murray was criticized across the political spectrum. An ongoing counter

argument has existed since the emergence of the debate around the ‘deserving’ and

‘undeserving’ poor. Runcimon states that the ‘underclass’ is an artificial construct that

serves to demonise those who are victims of recession, criticizing a homogenous group or

emergent ‘class’ made up of the long term unemployed (Morris 1993).

Ruth Lister has been a long time critic of Murray and the effects of ‘othering’ those in

poverty as seen through the underclass debate. Lister states that what people in poverty

want ‘is the universalist recognition of their common humanity and citizenship and of the

8|Page
Victoria Longman

equal worth that flows from that’ (Lister 2003). Lister wishes to see full recognition and

involvement of victims of poverty within mainstream society through the reframing of

the politics of poverty to a politics of recognition and redistribution, continuing the

school of thought championed by Richard Titmuss and his calls for universal welfare.

Commentators such as Titmuss argued that poverty was a public issue, and indeed, an

issue for which the burden should be shared through a system of universal welfare,

affording assistance to whoever was in need, whenever they needed it. This argument,

that Hewitt calls the mutualist conception allows needs to be met through mutual and

supportive relationships including those facilitated by the state (Hewitt in Ellison and

Pierson, 1998 p.64). This shows that there is another side to the underclass debate within

policy, as there has been an ongoing argument for a ‘sympathetic’ approach to welfare

incorporating understanding of poverty and its causes and effects.

 Poverty is a public issue in that it has a very real effect on economic and social policy,

not just in terms of the inequality that it creates, but also in terms of expenditure, policy

prioritization and public debate.

  A report compiled for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation in 2006 entitled: The cost of not

ending child poverty revealed some of the annual costs for the welfare state directly or

indirectly associated to child poverty. It stated that £3 Billion a year is spent by local

authority social services, directed at children, more than £1 billion of which goes to

residential provision. A further £500 million a year is spent in order to support homeless

families with children. Furthermore it is estimated that £300 million a year is spent on

9|Page
Victoria Longman

free school dinners and £500 million a year is spent on primary healthcare for deprived

children (Hirsch, 2006).

(Hirsch, 2006) also noted that there are many other costs for society, for example social

unrest, people do not want to live in a society where some children may attend school

hungry, whereas other children may have plenty. Furthermore he claimed that poverty

may also contribute to anti-social behavior, crime, and the influence of illegal drugs

which may add to the economic costs of the youth justice system and other school related

services (www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/9781859355060.pdf).

Moreover Hirsch claimed that families living in poverty are more likely to obtain lower

educational attainment and this may be transmitted to the next generation. Therefore a

labor force with lower skills and limited aspirations will reduce productivity and

economic growth which may affect a country’s ability to contend in a global economy

(Hirsch, 2006).

Individuals from a lower socioeconomic group may also have limited access to healthcare

and are more likely to postpone seeking treatment which will result in a significant effect

on already poor health, eventually leading to higher service costs. As well as healthcare

expenditure poor health generates costs for the economy through sickness absence which

will also result in lower productivity.

Unemployed individuals are costly to any society in terms of lost taxes and benefits.

Furthermore having a major proportion of the populace unemployed is detrimental to a

country’s economy as it decreases productivity.

10 | P a g e
Victoria Longman

Therefore it can be seen that the effects of poverty force the issue into the consciousness

of everybody, not just those who it affects. While this is a real issue for social workers,

often dealing with the most economically disadvantaged within society, it is also a very

real issue for the mainstream populace. Discussed examples highlight that poverty is

forced into everybody’s consciousness, thus the issue of poverty is of public concern.

Goodwin states that students of sociology should understand the ways in which social

structures create demons such as poverty, for only those who fully understand the cause

of such issues can work towards alleviating them.

Ideologies such as the aforementioned differing attitudes to the ‘problem’ of poverty and

its victim’s shape the structures and relationships within society, and it could be argued

that many of the Social structures in society not only maintain poverty, but also further it.

For example the ideologies surrounding the family are a man, woman and two children.

Therefore families which diverge from the ‘norm’, of the nuclear family, for example,

single parent families may be penalised. Additionally Charles and Kerr note that there is

a very specific division of labour along lines of gender (the man the as the ‘breadwinner’

and the woman the homemaker) which is enshrined in policies and practice at all levels

of society, from the marriage ceremony to social security legislation (Charles and Kerr,

2001 p.191). There is also ideology in the school system as it is often assumed that the

mother is the primary emergency contact for their children and not the father. Feminist

critiques have questioned and challenged this ‘gender blindness’ which has led them to

argue that a focus upon differences between men and woman in research and policy

analysis would divulge that woman suffer poverty on a more prevalent basis than men,

11 | P a g e
Victoria Longman

and that their experience of poverty is quite different as a result of social expectations

about gender roles (Alcock, 1993 p122). Furthermore feminists claim that the

continuation of unequal power structures within families may lead to male physical and

sexual violence against woman and children resulting in issues such as domestic violence

and child abuse (Marsh and Keating, 2006 p.535).

Oxfam claims that nearly 13 million people live in poverty in the UK – that is one in five

of the population. They claim that 3.8 million children in the UK are living in poverty.

7.2 million working age adults in the UK are living in poverty, and that women are the

majority in the groups (www.oxfam.org.uk/resources/ukpoverty/povertyfacts.html).   

Many women’s lives are shaped by the social structures they have been traditionally

expected to take on, for example, the duty of child care, preserving the home and the care

of older people. These duties can affect a woman’s work patterns, the type of

employment they work in and their earnings or state benefits. Furthermore the social

structures of society could also increase the likelihood of a woman becoming financially

dependant upon a man or state benefits. In light of these issues it could be argued that

societal structures are effectively economically disempowering women excessively to

their male counterpart. That contemporary society is effectively economically

discriminating against women highlights how structures can maintain the economic status

quo and effectively reinforce poverty. That societal structure so clearly impacts upon

personal economics is another contributing factor to the argument that poverty is a public

issue.

12 | P a g e
Victoria Longman

Indeed, while traditional family structures impact upon the economic achievement of

many; economic structures also play a large part in maintaining economic inequality.

Walsh, Stephens and Moore state that capitalism is sustained by ‘competitive

individualism’ (Walsh, Stephens and Moore 2000 p.16). In an economy where the free

market is promoted, it is natural that while some will achieve great wealth, others will

flounder in poverty. Capitalism sustains inequality; the free market encourages

competition, which challenges the natural cooperation and consideration for others which

could thrive if economic structures were radically changed.

Furthermore, other social structures compound the situation created by this economic

climate. The use of the media by government highlights this, and campaigns such as

those against benefit fraud, play a huge part in shaping people’s views which in turn,

influences policy, creating a cycle that maintains the socio-economic order. Within this

socio-economic climate, inequality is maintained through the gap between the rich and

the poor. That social structures reinforce poverty in this way also highlights how poverty

is a very public issue.

 To conclude, I would like to stress the importance of acknowledging that poverty is a

very real concern and is something that everyone is at risk of experiencing. It is an

oversimplification to state that poverty is a public issue, it is a real concern for millions of

people and their experiences of living at an economic disadvantage are very personal to

them. Working in this arena, social workers disproportionately interact with those who

are economically disadvantaged, therefore it is essential to realise that it has a personal

effect on people, it is a factor that one may wish to consider on a personal level rather

13 | P a g e
Victoria Longman

than looking at the structural causes of poverty. However, as Giddons states, students of

sociology, including social workers, should ensure that they recognise the causes of

poverty. While service users may not wish to hear about the structural causes of their

personal situation it remains imperative that society in general continues to address these

concerns.

14 | P a g e
Victoria Longman

  Bibliography

Alcock, P. (1993) Understanding Poverty, Palgrave Macmillan

Allen, G. (2001) The sociology of the family, Blackwell Publishers

Cunningham, J and Cunningham, S. (2008) Sociology and Social Work, Learning LTD

Hewitt, M. (1998) ‘Social Policy and Human Need’ and Piachaud, D (1998) ‘Changing

Dimensions of Poverty’ in Ellison, N and Pierson, C. (ed.) (1998) British Social Policy,

Macmillan Press

Godfrey, J. (2009) How to use your reading in your essays, Palgrave Macmillan

Haralambos, M. (1991) Sociology ‘Themes and perspectives’, Collins Educational

Hirsch, D. (2006) ‘The cost of not ending child poverty: How we can think about it, how

it might be measured and some evidence’, The Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

Hooper, C, Gorin, S, Cabral, C, and Dyson, C. (2007) ‘Living with hardship 24/7: The

diverse experiences of families in poverty in England’, The Frank Buttle Trust.

Lister, R (2003) Justice, Equality and Dependency: A critical social policy perspective

Available at: www.warwick.ac.uk

15 | P a g e
Victoria Longman

Marsh, I. and Keating, M. (2006) Sociology making sense of society, Pearson Education

Limited

Morris (1993) in Giddens with assistance of Simon Griffiths Sociology, 5th ed, Polity

Press

Walsh, M, Stephens, P and Moore, S (2000) Social Policy and Welfare, Stanley Thornes

Publishers

Websites

www.buttletrust.org

www.guardian.co.uk

www.jrf.org.uk

www.makepovertyhistory.org

www.oxfam.org.uk

www.poverty.org.uk

www.warwick.ac.uk

16 | P a g e
Victoria Longman

17 | P a g e