From Katz’s piece, it sees as though the term “underclass” went through a metamorphosis of meanings. From the 1970s to the 21^st century, it found associations with everything from negativity and pity to spirited hope amidst adverse conditions.

To begin, I found that a key part of defining or even mentioning the underclass in academia, newspapers, and other media stemmed from the allocation of funds through public policy.  Where public money is spent, there follows harsh criticism and a need for evaluation. It is almost as though an entire social science category was born out of the need to explain the question of poverty in regards to culture, environment, and the distribution of money (welfare). The result of integrating research and public policy is the polarization of perceptions because even amidst objective research, results are skewed by private agendas (whether conservative or liberal) to advocate a cause. The direct result of such polarization is likely the reason our “underclass” in the 21^st century carries a different meaning than the “underclass” forty years ago.

In the 1970s, the underclass was typically viewed as undeserving poor whose circumstance was a function of their own behavior. Researchers attempted to explain that social isolation, or lack of supervision and role models, bred a culture of poverty. In addition, the most common image of poverty was of an African American woman raising her children through the support of welfare. As much as anthropologist tried to remove the image and supplant it with an objective framework to judge the cause of poverty, private agendas continued to anchor perceptions. A prime example is the work of Oscar Lewis, who discussed the “culture of poverty” in hopes of stirring activists for his cause. He achieved no such feat and the term became a speaking point that advocated punitive public policy. Yet, we now live in a culture where the underclass is labeled as undeserving poor, but rather, as those lacking the right opportunity to escape their circumstance.

To continue, the emergence of new springboard projects that give those in poverty a means of overcoming is the product of a changing perception. Whether the tool is microfinance or government supported initiatives, people in adverse economic situations have proven their capacity to progress. With this in mind, true characterization of the poor can only be attributed after opportunity is granted. Hence, it is imperative that programs be in place because it is then that behavior truly becomes responsible for a person’s economic circumstance.