A Critique of Racial Attitudes and Opposition to Welfare, an Article by Martin Gilen: [Essay Example], 1045 words GradesFixer
exit-popup-close

Haven't found the right essay?

Get an expert to write your essay!

exit-popup-print

Professional writers and researchers

exit-popup-quotes

Sources and citation are provided

exit-popup-clock

3 hour delivery

exit-popup-persone
close
This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by professional essay writers.

A Critique of Racial Attitudes and Opposition to Welfare, an Article by Martin Gilen

  • Category: Life
  • Subcategory: Myself
  • Topic: Attitude
  • Pages: 2
  • Words: 1045
  • Published: 14 September 2018
  • Downloads: 56
Print Download now

Pssst… we can write an original essay just for you.

Any subject. Any type of essay.

We’ll even meet a 3-hour deadline.

Get your price

121 writers online

blank-ico
Download PDF

In Martin Gilen’s “Racial Attitudes and Opposition to Welfare,” a multi-dimensional study consisting of survey data, regression analysis, and covariance structure analysis is used to identify both the presence and magnitude of racial attitudes in the shaping of white Americans’ stark opposition to welfare programs. Gilen provides thorough analysis of existing literature, acknowledging both past successes and failures. When discussing his own research, Gilen clearly outlines his scope and purpose in addition to giving the reader a clear depiction of the methodology and results. Gilen’s work undoubtedly utilizes current literature, a new methodology, and interrelating conclusions to provide the reader with an unquestionable depiction of the role racial attitudes play in constructing opposing views to welfare.

In his introduction, Gilen provides the reader with a complete overview of the current literature. In his acknowledgment of the past failures of the research, Gilen notes that, “past scientists have been slow to examine the implications of racial attitudes outside the domain of racial policy, per se” (Gilen, 1995, p. 994). Past research shows that Americans typically undoubtedly support welfare programs that citizens pay into over the course of their lives, such as Social Security. When it comes to so-called “handouts”, white public opinion is less than satisfactory.

Gilen links together past efforts to interpret the views of Americans’ on welfare via the roles of economic self-interest and individualism. For more than 30 years, it has been said, “that ‘primitive self-interest’ alone” could provide the best explanation of trends in social welfare views. Individualism, found at the core of American society, has been found to be an important factor in shaping welfare. This belief stemmed from Tocqueville and was carried through to the late 1900s.

In his final statements on past research, Gilen focuses on the pitfalls. He notes that, “racial attitudes have been almost wholly overlooked in analyses of Americans’ welfare views” (996). While two authors, Kleugal and Smith, attempted to examine the support for welfare by pairing egalitarianism, self-interest, and individualism with racial attitudes, they acknowledged failure in that their racial attitude items created a weak index. Gilen uses the lack of research in this particular area as a means to define the scope of his work. He aims to not only “show the importance of racial attitudes” but also to clearly identify the “racial views most responsible for generating opposition to welfare” in America (997).

Gilen’s study was done using data from the 1986 National Election Study (NES). He chose the year carefully, stating that the “1986 NES contains both a wider array of questions on racial attitudes and a larger number of items tapping individualism than do more recent surveys” (997). He clearly delineates the NES’ questioning and how it relates to his own, noting that the study does not explicitly ask about spending on welfare in general, but rather whether the programs should be increased, decreased, or kept the same. This concise explanation of the scope of Gilen’s study of choice allows the reader to acknowledge his caution and consideration.

Gilen cites 11 questions on racial attitudes that were pulled from the 1986 NES, specifically excluding questions that blurred racial attitudes with general attitudes about government spending so as to maintain the integrity of his research. Factors analyzed include individual versus structural explanations for racial inequality, the belief that blacks are naturally inferior to whites, the role of government in insuring equal opportunity, and attitudes toward affirmative action, which will all be analyzed together. These four were chosen for consistency. A fifth factor, the speed at which civil rights leaders are pushing for change, will be analyzed separately. This note can be difficult for readers with little knowledge of the subject, but is subsequently explained.

After gathering his data, Gilen did an exceptional job at presenting the reader with findings that both follow a logical pattern of thought and are supported heavily with evidence. Gilen found that “four of the five dimensions of racial attitudes are at least moderately related to whites’ opposition to welfare” (1000). Of those, the strongest correlation (r=.42) belonged to blaming blacks for racial inequality. Of the five, only the belief that blacks are inherently inferior to whites was not significantly related to opposition to welfare.

Gilen also discovers that, of factors regarding economic self-interest, “family income is by far the best predictor of welfare views” (1002). Regarding individualism, six questions were analyzed to find the extent to which participants belief that working hard will result in economic success. Of the predictors mentioned in past literature, individualism was found to be the strongest influence on welfare views. A highlight in the findings of Gilen’s work is that the, “blame for racial inequality appears to reflect a specifically racial evaluation; judgments of the ‘culpability’ of poor blacks and poor whites appear to be largely independent” (1006). To continue that sentiment, Gilen also found that the majority of white Americans believe that “blacks could be just as well off as whites if they only tried harder” (1008). Gilen’s concluding remarks about his findings delineate an interrelation between race attitudes and welfare opinions that is hard to ignore.

While past research focused heavily on economic self-interest and individualism, Gilen made the bold decision to directly study racial attitudes regarding welfare opinions. In this study, Gilen was able to conclude that, “attitudes toward blacks must be counted as among the most central of these influences” (1010). His study shows that beliefs about blacks directly lead to certain policy preferences from white Americans. He concludes his work by stating that, “as long as the centuries-old belief that blacks lack commitment to the work ethic persists, white Americans’ opposition to welfare will remain strong” (1011). Gilen’s logical orientation to the subject matter guides the reader on a straight path to his conclusions, providing a sense of solidity to his findings. He brilliantly sets the stage for his study, clearly delineates its purpose and methodology, and then compares and contrasts his findings with those of previous literature. Gilen strategically argues his points, and that certainly comes across in his work. Future studies might focus on the intersectionality of race and gender relations in debunking the idea of “welfare queens” and “deadbeat dads”. All in all, Gilen’s study provides new insight into the role that racial attitudes play in defining white Americans’ opposition to welfare.

Remember: This is just a sample from a fellow student.

Your time is important. Let us write you an essay from scratch

100% plagiarism free

Sources and citations are provided

Cite this Essay

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:

GradesFixer. (2018, September, 14) A Critique of Racial Attitudes and Opposition to Welfare, an Article by Martin Gilen. Retrived April 7, 2020, from https://gradesfixer.com/free-essay-examples/a-critique-of-racial-attitudes-and-opposition-to-welfare-an-article-by-martin-gilen/
"A Critique of Racial Attitudes and Opposition to Welfare, an Article by Martin Gilen." GradesFixer, 14 Sep. 2018, https://gradesfixer.com/free-essay-examples/a-critique-of-racial-attitudes-and-opposition-to-welfare-an-article-by-martin-gilen/. Accessed 7 April 2020.
GradesFixer. 2018. A Critique of Racial Attitudes and Opposition to Welfare, an Article by Martin Gilen., viewed 7 April 2020, <https://gradesfixer.com/free-essay-examples/a-critique-of-racial-attitudes-and-opposition-to-welfare-an-article-by-martin-gilen/>
GradesFixer. A Critique of Racial Attitudes and Opposition to Welfare, an Article by Martin Gilen. [Internet]. September 2018. [Accessed April 7, 2020]. Available from: https://gradesfixer.com/free-essay-examples/a-critique-of-racial-attitudes-and-opposition-to-welfare-an-article-by-martin-gilen/
close

Sorry, copying is not allowed on our website. If you’d like this or any other sample, we’ll happily email it to you.

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement. We will occasionally send you account related emails.

close

Attention! this essay is not unique. You can get 100% plagiarism FREE essay in 30sec

Recieve 100% plagiarism-Free paper just for 4.99$ on email
get unique paper
*Public papers are open and may contain not unique content
download public sample
close

Sorry, we cannot unicalize this essay. You can order Unique paper and our professionals Rewrite it for you

close

Thanks!

Your essay sample has been sent.

Want us to write one just for you? We can custom edit this essay into an original, 100% plagiarism free essay.

thanks-icon Order now
boy

Hi there!

Are you interested in getting a customized paper?

Check it out!
Having trouble finding the perfect essay? We’ve got you covered. Hire a writer

GradesFixer.com uses cookies. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy.