Charles Murrays Claims Concerning Britains Underclass - Essay Example

Criminology Introduction The concept under has several connections to social exclusion, which is theidea of a cycle of deficiency and cultural theories. Additionally, this concept has been used in the description of the resultant negative impacts on the more vulnerable people. This phenomenon has therefore deepened the debate concerning the competence of universal policies on social protection and stimulated the growing distress concerning fairness in distribution of income patterns and employment (Dwyer, 2010). This essay will cross-examine Charles Murrays claims concerning Britain’s underclass. Generally, Murray (1990) believes that the underclass has a negative impact on the moral fabric of the society and that they are responsible for the occurrences of anti-social behavior in the society. He actually believes in left realism: he ignores the possibilities that crime could also come as a result of political and ideological factors. Therefore, he considers the underclass individuals as criminal minds and as people defined by their deplorable behavior in reaction to their situation but not their situation. Murray (1990) primarily insists that illegitimacy is to be blamed for the deplorable behaviors. For instance, he comments that women under the low class have a higher probability of giving birth to illegitimate children. He asserts that these illegitimate children easily "run wild" since they do not have father role-models. Further, Murray (2001) affirms the responsibility of the underclass unwillingness to work to the rising crime and the break-down of the community life. Again, Murray emphasizes so much on left realism such that he overlooks the possibilities of crimes being caused by the powerful in the society: he believes only the poor are to be blamed. Critics however claim that Murray’s conclusions have no evidence and are baseless. For instance, Alan Walker asserts that Murrays concepts are founded on innuendos, anecdotes, and assertions. Additionally, a research done by John Ermish about single mothers, in the 1980s, established that most women never stay put as single parents. Walker further comments that individuals in the underclass apparently desire stable relationships and jobs (Biressi & Nunn, 2013). Additionally, Anita and Heather (2013) comment that single mothers who divorced in reality take averagely longer time to claim on benefits than single mothers who have never been married. Certainly, Murray’s critics are right realist thinkers; they believe that crime does not only result from the poor but from every group in the society and from other factors such as polities. This is the best ideology that can be used in tackling crimes just like in the case of New York in the 1980s. Despite the criticisms, Murray still proves accounts about the underclass through focusing on the pathological individual. He still believes that when one is poor and do not have a job then it is their mistake. He implies that the attitudes and behavior of the underclass population cuts off the underclass from the normal society (Pickard, 2014). Generally, Murray is a firm advocate for this ideology and argues that the welfare reliance has resulted to a counter-cultural outlook that there exists no obligation to work when an individual can instead obtain benefits from the state or instead commit crime. However, the opposing position proposes that if an economy lacks full employment, then the resulting effect is the unemployed and eventually poverty (McCoy & Peddle, 2012). In this case, it is the structure that has failed and not the individual. Therefore, the individual cannot be held responsible for the surfacing of the underclass. Additionally, Lee and Turner (2014) assert that the emphasis of the phrase ‘underclass,’ since the 80s, has shifted. This shift is somehow in response to the liberal critics who insisted that in the current period, the poor are a junk of jobless, idle, and criminal minds. Therefore, the phrase became linked to blaming the population below poverty level for their insignificant social situation. Actually, in terms of descriptive level Murrays assertions are partly correct, but absolutely wrong in terms of an explanatory level. There exist numerous different explanations that can provide a more rational explanation regarding the concentration of marginality in the urban areas today. To begin with, the ever changing economy offers a number of great reasons as to why the UK has an underclass. Conservatives and liberals today emphasize a lot on values such as individual responsibility, particularly when considering issues like family formation, work ethic, violence, drugs, and teen pregnancy (Biressi & Nunn, 2013). Right realist thinkers primarily blame welfare for creating poverty and cannot see how someone can purposely diverge from culture’s mainstream. With joblessness being widespread, most people in the inner city experience stress and their communities experience distress, poor individuals try to adapt to such situations as much as they can, meeting the demands of this situation in most appropriate way they can. This creates an underground economy and in reality, this economy is what offers a means for the underclass population since the economy cannot. Actually, Murray tends to put so much blame on the poor such that he overlooks the possibilities that the rich are also potential criminals. For this reason he fails to recommend any changes that can be made for the benefits system. Murray ought to have been sensible enough to consider initiatives that would help tackle all forms of crime in the society. For instance, he should have considered initiatives like the New York initiative implemented by Bill Bratton. This initiative emphasized on zero tolerance to any form of crime, no matter how small the crime. The initiative believed that overlooking small crimes is what elevated the level of crime in the society. Had Murray he not focused on left realism he would have considered such ideologies, the right realism ideologies: modern ideologies that do not overlook mistakes done by the powerful through justifying them. Conclusion For one to understand the concept of underclass, they should consider the concept of poverty, and the left and right realism aspects. Branding all poor people as criminals in nature creates a high possibility for stereotypical statements and judgments that despite applying to certain individual groups, absolutely does not hold true for every individual within. Therefore, only a radical commentator can suggest that the entire underclass, negatively impact the society’s moral fabric, and amplify anti-social behavior because of their attitudes. References Anita, B., & Heather, N. (2013). Class and Contemporary British Culture. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, GB. Biressi, A., & Nunn, H. (2013). Class and contemporary British culture. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. Dwyer, P. (2010). Understanding social citizenship: Themes and perspectives for policy and practice. Bristol: Policy Press. Herrnstein, R. & Murray, C. A. (2010). Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life. New York: Free Press Paperbacks. Lee J. & Turner, B. (2014). Conflicts About Class: Debating Inequality in Late Industrialism. London: Oxford University Press. McCoy, G. & Peddle, R. (2012). Neoliberal policy and its influence on welfare ideology: A source of social injustice? Socheolas Limerick Student Journal of Sociology. 3(2): 60- 79. Retrieved from Murray, C. A. (1990). The emerging British underclass. London: Institute of Economic Affairs. Murray, C. A. (2001). Underclass + 10: Charles Murray and the British Underclass 1990 – 2000. Trowbridge, Wiltshire: The Cromwell Press. Retrieved on April, 14, 2015. Pickard, S. (2014). Anti-social behaviour in Britain: Victorian and contemporary perspectives. London: Oxford University Press. Read More