Move(ments) Beyond Rights: Welfare Rights in an Era of Personal Responsibility

DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1016/S1059-4337(06)40003-X
Published date10 April 2007
Pages79-101
Date10 April 2007
AuthorRose Ernst
MOVE(MENTS) BEYOND RIGHTS:
WELFARE RIGHTS IN AN ERA
OF PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY
Rose Ernst
ABSTRACT
This article examines the persistence of a ‘‘rights’’ movement in a political
environment rife with the language of personal responsibility. Through an
analysis of interviews of welfare rights activists in three states, this article
explores the frequency and type of both ‘‘rights’’ and ‘‘needs’’ discourse
frameworks. Neither rights nor needs language is employed frequently in
the interviews. Activists do not view the language of rights and needs as
necessarily conflictual. Furthermore, race appears to play some role in
discourse choices between rights and needs. African American women
utilize both rights and needs rhetoric, while White women prefer needs
language. The results offer evidence of the centrality of race in under-
standing discourse choices among those struggling to gain recognition of
basic human needs and rights.
[E]verybody should have the right to housing and have the right to food, you know,
America has the wealth to do it.
And then the lady from human resources was telling me to come and get my stamps – 285 –
she cut it down to 10 dollars yI told her give it to somebody who needs it.
Welfare rights activists in Texas
Studies in Law, Politics, and Society, Volume 40, 79–101
Copyright r2007 by Elsevier Ltd.
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
ISSN: 1059-4337/doi:10.1016/S1059-4337(06)40003-X
79
What happens to the identity of a movement when the title of the movement
provokes looks of bewilderment at best, and open hostility at worst? The
current position of the U.S. welfare rights movement is a case in point. The
term ‘‘welfare’’ has itself acquired such a pejorative meaning that it appears
to be a strategic liability rather than an inducement to collective action.
When the term is coupled with ‘‘rights’’, it becomes even more problematic.
In an era where individual responsibility rhetoric reigns and rights are syn-
onymous with entitlement (which is equated with laziness) adopting the
label ‘‘welfare rights’’ may be viewed as an act of political suicide. Why,
then, does this title persist?
1
Do these social movement groups use the lan-
guage of rights when they frame their substantive demands? Alternatively,
do they make ‘‘needs’’ claims instead? This article explores these questions
through an analysis of the words of welfare rights activists themselves. The
assumption that rights language is utilized by activists simply because of the
title of their movement overlooks the possibility of shifting or new political
discourses, especially among the most marginalized groups in society. This
assumption also ignores how different groups within movements may con-
struct alternative framings of their social, economic, legal and political de-
mands.
Part one of this article outlines the need for empirical research on the use
of rights claims by activists outside the realm of litigation-centered social
change efforts. While sociolegal scholars have thoroughly explored both the
possibilities and limitations of rights-based litigation, little work has ex-
plored whether grassroots rights activists use this language themselves in a
particularly hostile political environment. Why do movements that started
in the 1960s persist in using rights titles? Similarly, the use of alternative
social change discourses such as an ethic of care or needs language has
largely remained a theoretical debate – are these discourses complementary,
conflictual or merely adjacent to one another in the minds of those who have
the opportunity to employ them on an everyday basis?
Part two offers a brief history of the welfare rights movement in a rights
context. Employing a critical race feminist framework, I argue that this
movement represents a ‘‘hard case’’ for movements that continue to incor-
porate rights discourses in their struggles: given its members’ intersecting
marginalized identities along axes of race, gender and class, they should be
among those who utilize rights frameworks rather than needs-based claims
that often rely on privileged identities.
Part three explores data collected from 23 in-depth interviews with wel-
fare rights activist women
2
in Montana, Texas and Washington State. Or-
ganizational affiliation, duration of commitment and racial identity of the
ROSE ERNST80

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT