Equal opportunity gives everyone a chance to thrive (Mullaly, 2007). Equal opportunity reduces inequality in society (Mullaly, 2007). Equal opportunity gives everyone a fair chance at a good quality of life (Mullaly, 2007). These are all statements and views of the liberalism ideology (Mullaly, 2007). The liberalism perspective believes in maintaining capitalism in society, however, they have modified it by creating a welfare state and slightly increasing government regulation (Mullaly, 2007). Therefore, feel they have created equal opportunities for individuals in society to have success (Mullaly, 2007). However, this equal opportunity is not equal for all people (Mullaly, 2007). In Mullaly, he describes equal opportunity as: “if one person has a 50-meter head start in a 100-meter race, it is not likely that the other person will ever catch up” (Mullaly, 2007 p.98). Factors such as wealth and health can affect someone’s position in the race of equality (Mullaly, 2007). Another downfall of the liberal ideology perspective is that they believe so strongly in the goal of equal opportunity that they feel that anyone who fails in life didn’t take advantage of the opportunities they were given (Mullaly, 2007). This view of the liberal ideology may benefits some people in society, however, leaves people with disabilities and other conditions behind (Mullaly, 2007).
A friend of the family has a number of disabilities such as aspergers that does not allow him to work. He is living off disability pension from the job he had before his disability got to the point where he had to stop working. This disability pension only provides him with an amount of money that is about equivalent with minimal wage. He also cannot bring in any other money (odd jobs) or he will lose this pension. This is an example of giving someone a social minimum to survive like the liberal ideology believes (Mullaly, 2007). This individual barely gets by day to day with this amount of money provided for him. Working is not an option and he does not qualify for many social services that can help him. Two services they offered him were for someone to bring him to get groceries (he was unable to drive or afford a car) but he would have to pay for the gas and a limited amount of one on one counseling time per week. These services did not help any of the barriers that were preventing this man from living a good quality of life regardless if he used them or not. This leaves him in the need of help from family and friends which bring us back to the neo-conservative notion of society. In the race of equal opportunity this man was placed 50m behind because of the minimal supports he was given.
If equal opportunity is suppose to help people in need if they take advantage of it. Then they do people like him fall between the cracks!? This ideology has taken a step in the right direction but it is far from providing equality for everyone. The creation of the welfare state dose help people to an extent but at the end of the day the notion of survival of the fittest is still dominates.
Nicole G
Reference
Mullaly, R. (2007). The new structural social work (3rd Ed.). Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press.
I do agree with liberalism and equal opportunity for all people. However because with social class and people with disabilities I can see, that it gives them the disabled and poor much less of a chance. And I completely agree that the ‘social minimum’ is sometimes not nearly enough for the poor or the disabled which I find incredibly sad that the government cannot take into consideration that every person is unique and may require more or less money depending; making equal opportunity not very equal or fair at all.
ReplyDeleteAutumn B.
You are absolutely right that liberalism is stepping in the right direction towards equality, but not recognizing the bigger picture. Like your friend many people struggle with not being able to maintain a job because of a physical disability. In your friends case it is worse because he was forced to leave work and now is making less than what he was.
ReplyDeleteIt is very strange to me to see the social services provided to him (which should be part of the welfare) are making him pay. It’s sad because he is already living on a strict budget and needs to have these day to day things (like groceries) and is having to pay for all the in conveniences.
That is something Liberals fail to recognize is that not everyone starts off at the same point as Liberals think they do. Many people are less fortunate than others, and as a result the Liberals should be considering this when making new laws/ideas/etc.
-Jessica VL
I can totally relate to your feelings towards your families friend. A very close family friend of mine has cancer and she has been on disability since 2005 and she can barely live a enjoyable life on the amount of money she is given. I totally agree that while there are services out there to help people with disabilities etc. the notion of the survival of the fittest still reigns supreme.
ReplyDeleteAlexis B.
I found great significance in hearing a story of a person who is trying to survive on the bare minimum that is provided to him. In class we tend to talk about “situational” constructs but rarely real life stories. You created great empathy in regards to how much of a struggle it is to survive and receive minimum necessities such as counselling and groceries. Everything comes at a cost these days! I think that generally we have a stereotypical image of a person who is too lazy to work and images of the man you painted rarely come to mind with the consideration of social assistance. You did an excellent job of the distinction between neoconservative and liberal views and you also displayed a clever way to suggest that perhaps we aren't as liberal as we think.
ReplyDeleteTara Purvis
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the post Nicole! Social assistance and welfare is put in place to make the lives of people who are struggling easier. However, because of the regulations one must comply with in order to receive assistance; often times welfare can also add to the struggle. I understand that the government cannot afford to give people welfare and also allow them to say, have a full time job. In saying that I also beleive that the government needs to work with people, while understanding that this social minumum is not always enough to support a family or individual who is trying to thrive in our society. If everyone who was elligable for welfare were also employed, the economic standing of the government would be greatly impacted. I beleive there needs to be an inbetween, which allows people who are on welfare to also have a job and take in extra money. Though I understand there must be a limit to additional income, having a job is about more then just making money. The feeling of responsibility, and commitment to something goes far beyond an extra dollar.
ReplyDelete-Eliza R.
Hello everyone! Thank you for your comments. Yes, I agree that a real life story can really bring out the meaning of what you’re trying to express. I would also like to thank those who told personal stories because it really puts into perspective how many people are affected by a social minimum. This also shows how important in is to advocate for these individuals and something we should think about when entering the social work field.
ReplyDeleteNicole G
I believe that it is very difficult for the government to accomodate everyone so they are happy. It seems that someone will always lose out while the next person will not be. That is where it is our job as social workers to speak up for the individuals that are facing so many undeserving challenges. When I think of people on receiving assistance, I often think that it is the lazy people who take advantage of it. But your story reminded me that there are those who are deserving and are not receiving above the social minimum in order to survive.
ReplyDeleteDana W
While I was reading this I thought it was very good that your "friend of the family" has a pension plan; However I could not believe how unfair his life is due to less opportunity. He has the ability to work extra jobs from what I understand, yet he is not allowed to which is not fair to him.
ReplyDelete- Brettany G.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNicole, I too think the liberal ideology has taken one step in the positive direction in regards to helping persons with physical disabilities. The liberal ideology limits the extent to which help can be provided to those with physical disabilities. I don't agree with the liberal ideal of fixing problems as they arise. Doing so I think encourages society to follow the mentality that issues are fixable after the outcomes of those problems are obvious in society. Rather, I think dealing with social problems from the roots of problems is a more sustainable approach to a prospering society. Maybe instead of approaching social issues with the ideal that 'equal opportunity will benefit those who take advantage of it', we should, for example, endorse ways to support early childhood development for those with physical disabilities. Herein, although a social democratic ideology may be more difficult to elevate problems as quickly, equality of conditioning will lead to an overall reduction of social problems in the end.
ReplyDelete-Brooke D.
Nicole,
ReplyDeleteI feel for you friend, I really do. It is unfortunate that a real person can slip between imaginary cracks. Clearly the system in place is not adequate; however, if given the opportunity to correct it, I am left with a headache and few better suggestions. Minimum wage or the equivalent thereof is definitely not adequate, but what is adequate? How do a system or rules and regulation place a dollar amount on what an individual should receive? A better system is required that can account for an individual’s needs and wants. Your friend is lucky that he has friends and family that can help, because clearly without them, he would be even more in need. This is a great example of the comparison of equal opportunity and equality of condition. Obviously the liberal ideology that considers equal opportunity to be sufficient in society is not satisfactory. A social democratic ideology is more appropriate given the “head start” many people have over others with disabilities for example; however this concept is not reality. Unfortunately I do not see advancement in this issue given the idea of a minimum working wage; some viewpoints (neoconservatives) question: How could some make more not working when compared to low income working class individuals? The welfare state is not fair and does not take into account the advantage many people already have. I wish this issue could be address more successfully.
-Darcie B.
Great job on being able to put the liberal ideology into perspective. Using all person as your example really helped me imagine the 50 meter head start, we talk about it in class all the time. You were able to put us in a real life situation and imagine ourselves in that role. In this day and age minimum wage doesn't get you alot, and not being able to do odd jobs to help meet your financial needs. I can't imagine what I would do in that situation. Very good post!
ReplyDelete