2.5: Early 1900s- Laissez-Faire Economics, The Protestant Work Ethic and Social Darwinism

The Early 1900s: Laissez-Faire Economics, The Protestant Work Ethic and Social Darwinism

Laissez-Faire Economics

As rapid industrialization occurred in both America and Europe through much of the 1700s and 1800s, ideas about the poor and their plight reflected the changes. The Industrial Revolution brought with it a focus on laissez-faire economics and the Protestant work ethic (Zastrow, 2010). Laissez-faire economics was a philosophy that favored businesses being generally permitted to operate without interference or regulations from government entities, doing whatever they found would lead to greater profits. The idea behind laissez-faire economics is that the market is capable of being self-governing; if anyone tries to raise prices on a commodity too much, then the competitors dealing in that commodity will see an increase in business, forcing the overcharging company to lower its prices to match the competition, for example. Similarly, if an employer tries to take advantage of its workers by paying them an unfairly low wage, those workers will leave and go to a company that can pay them a fair amount for the same work.

The Protestant Work Ethic

The Protestant work ethic is the idea that people are responsible for their own lot in life. If one is rich, according to the Protestant ethic, it means one deserves it—that person has worked hard, been a moral and upstanding individual, and has not depended upon the help of others. Conversely, a poor person suffers in poverty due to their own personal and moral shortcomings: laziness, lack of education, poor will power, poor money management, greed, irresponsibility. This would be an example of the “unworthy poor,” an idea that emerged from medieval England. Unworthy poor were people who were seen to be responsible for their own poverty, whereas the “worthy poor” such as widows, orphans, or the disabled, were not considered responsible.

None of these ideas about poverty acknowledged the racism, enslavement, or genocide of Black, Indigenous, and other people of color. Supremacist actions caused and contributed to poverty, family trauma, and other life problems, but this was not taken into account when considering the help people needed or whether they were considered worthy or unworthy of assistance.

The Protestant ethic remains a popular idea today, especially among people who hold the residual view of social welfare and those with other conservative views. Many stereotypes persist about the poor that show the general public opinion of them is rather low. For example, many states have made an effort to drug-test recipients of public assistance in order to be sure they are not using drugs; if they are found to have drugs in their system, their benefits may be revoked and/or the individual may be sent to a treatment facility. In the states where these policies have been implemented, the rates of welfare recipients who are found to be using drugs is actually lower than the national average (Covert & Israel, 2015), yet the myth about public assistance being a way to fund drug users’ habits persists. It’s just one example of an idea held by many—that people who fall below the poverty line must have done something to deserve being in that position, or that they haven’t done the right things to get themselves out of the situation.

These two philosophies (laissez-faire economics and Protestant work ethic) put together created a very dangerous situation for the less fortunate. With employers being allowed to do whatever was necessary in order to make a buck, they didn’t have to treat their workers fairly. If one company got away with subpar working conditions, others followed suit. The resultant lack of jobs that paid a living wage exacerbated the already existent divide between the haves and the have-nots. Despite the fact that the poor were powerless to shape policy or challenge the status quo, they were blamed for their own circumstances.

"Charles Darwin" by Franco Folini is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0

Social Darwinism

Another prominent philosophy that really grew in popularity during this time was Social Darwinism. What do you think of when you hear the name Darwin? Evolution, survival of the fittest, origin of the species—something from that list probably popped into your mind. Darwin did not come up with the idea of Social Darwinism; it was an unfortunate application of his ideas regarding evolution among living organisms to human social systems and safety nets. The underlying principle of Social Darwinism is that we should not help the poor when they struggle. In order to survive, organisms must adapt. If we assist the poor by paying them enough to live in minimal comfort and security, we are preventing them from adapting to their struggles, and thereby hindering their ability to improve themselves and their skills. Conversely, if we let the poor suffer without help, then those who do not have the genetically superior traits that will allow them to survive will, in fact, die out. According to Social Darwinism, that will make the human race stronger, because we will be eliminating the less desirable genes from the population.

If this sounds horrifying to you, you aren’t alone—people holding the institutional view of social welfare would agree (and even many of those holding the residual view would consider Social Darwinism overly harsh). This philosophy and its close relatives have been one reason why many have opposed expanding (or even maintaining current levels of) social welfare spending. As David Macarov put it, “Not only does Social Darwinism block social change; it is also at the root of some opposition to social welfare;” according to this theory, “social welfare activities somehow maintain the unfit at the expense of the fit…and thus undermine the rights of those who strengthen society and support the development of a new and better way of life” (1995, p. 214).

Macarov (1995) also points out the inherent flaw in Social Darwinism—it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. First, we assert that poor people are somehow deficient and therefore do not deserve to thrive. Due to this belief, we refuse to help them in their time of need. When they thereafter fail to survive or thrive, we say, “See? We told you they didn’t have what it takes to make it.” Taking this approach may help us feel absolved of responsibility, but it’s really just an example of blaming the victim, similar to the reaction of the English to the failed Speenhamland System. When the poor stood up for themselves and refused to be mistreated, they were branded “lazy” and treated as if they lacked moral fortitude. When they are not helped and go on to struggle further, we blame them for not working hard enough to get out of a situation that was quite possibly out of their control in the first place.

Not Such Ancient History

All of these ideas remain popular today. Put together, they created a very dangerous situation for the less fortunate. With employers being allowed to do whatever was necessary in order to make money, they didn’t have to treat their workers fairly. If one company got away with subpar working conditions, others followed suit. The resultant lack of jobs that paid a living wage exacerbated the already existent divide between the haves and the have-nots. Despite the fact that the poor were powerless to shape policy or challenge the status quo, they were blamed for their own circumstances.

Social workers are well aware of the fact that people land in poverty and other difficult situations not because they are deficient or lack redeeming qualities, but because they have encountered any of a range of issues that could not have been predicted or prevented by anything they could have done: discrimination, tragedy, medical problems, layoffs, outsourcing, and many more. Regardless, this isn’t a view shared by all of society today, and it certainly wasn’t at the time of the Industrial Revolution. It took one of the worst times in American history to shake the country out of the commonly held ideals behind the Protestant ethic.

Attributions:

Social Work & Social Welfare: Modern Practice in a Diverse World. Mick Cullen & Matthew Cullen.

Introduction to Human Services 2e Copyright © by Elizabeth B. Pearce.