Impoverished theories of the working poor. - book review

Public Interest, Fall, 1999 by Heather Mac Donald

It's easy to take the liberal academic out of the ivory tower but not the ivory tower out of the liberal academic. Katherine S. Newman, an urban anthropologist at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, spent two years in Central Harlem studying the inner-city working poor - specifically, workers in an unnamed national fast-food chain she calls Burger Barn. Newman's goal was to cast light on an economic group she claims middle-class Americans stigmatize and ignore. But the resulting book, No Shame in My Game,(*) reveals instead how staunchly academics cling to their cherished beliefs about American racism and injustice in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Newman arrived in Harlem with two stories to tell. The primary one concerned the inner-city working poor. The inner city, her story began, is filled with people whose commitment to work and family is virtually indistinguishable from that of middle-class Americans. But overwhelming "structural" barriers, above all racism, she was determined to say, prevent these would-be burghers from capitalizing on their strengths. Racism creates an economic deck so stacked in favor of whites that hard-working blacks and Hispanics stand little chance of escaping poverty and the ghetto. American society then adds insult to injury, Newman argues, by subjecting low-wage workers to "withering criticism" and equating them to Indian "untouchables."

Writing about the working poor is hazardous for the liberal academic, who wants to avoid stigmatizing welfare recipients. Heaven forbid Newman give the slightest support to that pernicious "conservative" distinction, as she calls it, between the "deserving" and the "undeserving" poor. So while Newman's primary focus is on workers, she simultaneously carries on a subterranean argument about those on welfare. If the latter are not working, she suggests, it is because they too face discrimination. If they are taking drugs, stealing, having babies they cannot support, or raising criminals, it is because they are burdened by "the crushing personal costs of living where good jobs have gone (away)." But don't think nonworking welfare recipients aren't pulling their own weight. In fact, they are providing indispensable labor as baby-sitters and "neighborhood-watchers," Newman asserts.

The only problem with Newman's stories about the working and nonworking poor is that her subjects contradict them on every page. True, she did find dozens of people with admirable pluck, who go to great lengths to retain their jobs, and who resoundingly believe in the value of work. But rather than confirming Newman's "structural" analysis of poverty, the Burger Barn workers insist that a person's character determines his fate. Newman acknowledges these radical views, but does not take them seriously enough to change her assumptions.

Newman's fast-food workers don't accept her explanations for the large number of nonworkers in the inner city. First to fall is the lack-of-jobs explanation. "There is so much in this city; it's always hiring," a former welfare recipient told Newman. "It may not be what you want. It may not be the pay you want. But you will always get a job."

It turns out that many would-be workers are their own worst enemy. Fast-food managers - all minorities - complain about boys who come in with their pants hanging down, a "Niggers with Attitude" T-shirt on, a beer in their hand, and then ask for a job application. "That mentality keeps people from getting jobs. Who do you think is gonna hire you?" asks one frustrated boss. Before blaming others for your jobless state, he advises, "maybe you need to understand how to maintain a job."

Newman's supervisors show a distressing tendency to generalize about local residents. One hiring manager tells her: "The folks who live around here are irresponsible and apt to steal." Most managers show a preference for workers from other boroughs - it decreases the chances that their friends will cadge free food - and for immigrants. A black manager says: "These immigrant guys come in and say 'Yes, sir!' And they are willing to do anything."

Newman regrets her subjects' penchant for jumping to negative conclusions about the local workforce based on mere "snippets of information," but she cannot bring herself to call their views bigoted, though if a midtown manager were to make these judgements, he would be hauled into court. Newman never considers whether these typically conservative 'stereotypes' may be grounded in hard-won experience.

Newman's charge that racism keeps Harlem residents out of work also fails the street-smart test. "It doesn't matter what color you are. You could get a job whether you are black or white," a girl says. Newman seems frustrated by her subjects' resistance to a victim mentality. She does find would-be workers who blame racism when they don't get a job, but they are just as quick to deny that racism cripples other people's lives. One Puerto Rican boy claims that he was not offered a midtown job because of his skin color, yet also maintains that employers "don't judge you by your skin color. My mother is dark-skinned, but she works with rich people and stuff."