The Importance of Mentoring for Youth in Low-Income Communities

Introduction

There is a salient need for mentors in low-income African American neighborhoods. Many young people in these communities are growing up with little exposure to positive role models. This is especially true for African American males given the dearth of fathers who play an active role in their children’s lives. The latest census reports for all income groups indicate that nearly 60% of African American males under the age of 18 reside in households where the father is absent.[1] A significant increase in this rate is expected when examining low-income households exclusively. Though many fathers who do not share a household with their children still manage to fulfill the responsibilities connected with fatherhood, many more contribute little or nothing to their children’s social growth and development, especially in terms of quality interaction.

The absence of positive male figures creates a major gap in a young man’s socialization process. In many cases, young African American males are forced to model themselves after people who cannot invest in them. The most attractive and convenient option for these youngsters are men from the local environment, the popular media, or professional athletics. Frequently, adult males from the local environment are in the same situation as the young men, or even worse, they may be promoters of negative behavior. Furthermore, rappers and athletes cannot possibly reinvest in each of their followers; thus, the relationship remains one sided with the young man admiring the rapper or athlete, but getting nothing in return except entertainment.

Unfortunately, many young men will never have the opportunity to substantially interact with positive male figures. How did society arrive at this point and what can be done about it? This article broadly organizes the origins of the problem. It then calls for efforts to provide organized mentoring for African American males in low-income areas.

Socioeconomic Changes

Major social and economic changes correlate with a significant decline in role models in poor communities. These changes have had a negative direct influence on individuals and they have had such an effect indirectly by devastating the social environments in which poor people live. The decline in manufacturing related employment for unskilled urban males rendered many of them financially impotent. Their inability to meet social expectations led many of them to retreat from the norms and values of society. Subsequently, many of these men began to reject the principles associated with traditional modes of success, such as academic achievement, political involvement, and most notably, the norms associated with stable family organization. It has been known for some time now that men who view themselves as inadequate providers are less likely to be involved with their children.[2]

As a consequence of the economic changes mentioned above, neighborhoods that depended solely on manufacturing became disadvantaged. The situation was exacerbated as many of these areas became disconnected from investment capital and social network resources. In effect, these neighborhoods were now socially isolated.

Socially isolated communities typically do not attract or maintain viable businesses because the people living there are frequently unemployed or underemployed. Politicians are rarely proactive in these areas because the residents tend to be politically inactive and contribute little to political campaigns. Furthermore, socially isolated neighborhoods typically possess little financial capital, makeshift educational opportunities, and virtually no good paying jobs for unskilled laborers. [3] Ultimately, these conditions engender a process of “ghettoization” where poverty exists not only as a financial circumstance, but as a mindset.

Equally disturbing is that these areas typically develop a culture around ghetto behavior. The values connected to this culture often contrasts with those associated with success, such as hard work, education, innovation, and the procurement of assets instead of liabilities. The culture is upheld by many inhabitants of the community, which, in its manifest reality, only supports a cycle of underachievement.[4]

Also of note, it was during this time that vertically mobile African American households containing positive male figures began moving to the suburbs in a process known as black middle class flight.[5] Several socioeconomic factors may have contributed to the outmigration of potential father-like figures. The development of policy outlawing de jure residential segregation, the outmigration of professional jobs to the metropolitan periphery, and the previously mentioned ghettoization of many urban neighborhoods were all “push” factors encouraging educated, economically mobile African American men to migrate to more affluent areas.

Thus, fathers and father-like figures have become rare in low-income African American households. The social implications of this phenomenon are wide ranging. The literature suggests that young men who have substantial interaction with their fathers are more likely to graduate high school and college, exhibit prosocial behavior, and to eschew abusive attitudes toward women.[6] Conversely, boys who do not have such interaction are more likely to display violent behavior, fatalistic attitudes, and negatives views of marriage and family.[7]

Policy can mandate receipt of financial resources from absent fathers, but it cannot make them be proactive in the lives of their children. The practice of fatherhood cannot be legislated. Thus, any attempt to fill the father gap in low-income areas must arise from community-oriented efforts, such as mentoring.

---

[1] See U.S. Census. 2008. Living Arrangements of Children Under 18 Years/1 and Marital Status of Parents, by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin/2 and Selected Characteristics of the Child for All Children.

[2] Jones, L.1991. “Unemployed Fathers and their Children: Implication for Policy and Practice.” Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal 8:101-116

[3] Wilson, William Julius. 1996. When Work Disappears. Chicago: University of Chicago

[4] Ibid. See also: Clark, Kenneth. 1965. Dark Ghetto. New York: Harper & Row.

[5] Wilson, William, Julius. 1987. The Truly Disadvantaged. Chicago: The University of

Chicago. See also: Massey, Douglas S. 1996. “The Age of Extremes: Concentrated Affluence and

Poverty in the Twenty-First Century” Demography 33:395-412.

[6] Mackey, Wade C. 1996. The American Father: Biocultural and Developmental Aspects. New York:

Plenum.

[7] Mackey, Wade C. and Nancy S. Coney. 2000. The Enigma of Father Presence in Relationship to Sons'

Violence and Daughters' Mating Strategies: Empiricism in Search of a Theory. Journal of Men's Studies

3:349-374.

The McDonaldized Economy

The harshness of the current recession has left many social scientists asking “what happened?” Individuals are losing money in the market, facing rising energy costs, and struggling to hold on to their employment. Also affected are social structures such as Wall Street, corporations, cities, and states. The stock market is at its lowest point in years, banks have collapsed, and local governments have seen radical declines in revenue. So where did all the money go? Things were going well just a few years ago. It appears that our economy has been a victim of McDonaldization, a theory of social organization, expounded by George Ritzer in the mid 1990’s.

Among other things, McDonaldization suggests that society is becoming obsessed with efficiency, standardization, and control. A closer look at these factors will further our understanding of the current economic problems. This essay attempts to explain how these factors, in their extreme, have consequences detrimental to the socioeconomic health of American society.

Efficiency

It is commonly understood that greater productivity equates to getting more done in less time. Efficiency, therefore, is an essential component of productivity. The influential economist John Kenneth Galbraith lauded the importance of efficient production in The Affluent Society. Organizations that mass produce items must be efficient because time is related to costs and costs directly affect the bottom line. Few would question the importance of efficiency as a key component of a successful organization in terms of its output. However, problems arise when we begin to sacrifice quality for efficiency.

Less time can be dedicated to the individual attributes of production when volume and speed are valued over attention to detail and careful handiwork. Henry Ford, whose organizational principles are the precursor to McDonaldization, produced thousands of Model T’s, but they possessed very few distinguishable details and they were of dubitable quality. It is said that drivers of the early Model T’s were forced to travel uphill in reverse when low on gas because the positioning of the gas tank prevented fuel from traveling to the carburetor. Similarly, many argue that General Motors refused to reexamine its practice of planned obsolescence until it recently hit rock bottom.

Society’s fascination with efficiency also impacts consumption. We want everything quickly and conveniently. While it is not reasonable to wait an hour for a 35kb document to download, it can be concluded that extreme efficiency as it relates to consumption can have very detrimental effects on an economy. We value the present and seek to maximize its material potential whether we can afford it or not. This is indicative of the overwhelming desire for instant gratification in the American value system which not only involves meeting immediate needs, but also trivial desires; if it so happens that such desires are not present, then Madison Avenue will gladly manufacture them.

It has been established that extreme efficiency affects both consumption and production. Companies want to produce more and individuals want to consume more (with or without the cash to do so). Thus, there must be a mechanism that brings them together - something to support the high volume of production. Enter credit the great negotiator. With credit, consumers can satisfy their immediate desires for material goods which benefits producers and distributers of cheaply made products such as Wal-Mart, Chrysler, and Nike. Yet most of these products (including many homes in this current market) have little growth potential as assets, meaning that we are using debt to purchase liabilities. Indeed, the frightening reality is that our current economy is built on people borrowing money to purchase low-quality products.

This essay is not intended to be an indictment of credit. Credit can be good. However, credit run amuck will have detrimental effects. The problems associated with the current economic crises tend to revolve around the misuse of credit. Predatory lending, the housing collapse, and the failure of banks all involve debt outmuscling profit. Absolute power to produce and consume…. indeed it does; and it is extreme efficiency that sets this process in motion. Before we can rise from the current economic dilemma we must curtail the rate at which we produce and consume.

Standardization and Control

Standardization is a logical outgrowth of increasingly rational, social organization. In other words, the production or distribution of a product will adhere to standardized specifications leading to its mass uniformity (A Big Mac in Milan is exactly the same as a Big Mac in San Francisco). Control is a form of standardization wielded by companies where human ingenuity is replaced by centralized specifications.

Standardization is important because it ensures that a particular product will adhere to expectations. For example, a person may like the atmosphere at Applebee’s. Therefore, when walking into Applebee’s, he/she expects the walls to be filled with memorabilia reprints regardless of which Applebee’s they choose to patronize. Meanwhile, control is important because it allows for the organized mass production of goods through structured mandates.

Standardization and control add organization and a healthy efficiency to the production process. The problem lies not with standardization or control, but with the uniqueness of ideas in the product development stage. Not only are goods standardized and controlled, but so are the people involved in the process. An increase in standardization and control narrows the operating boundaries of indidvidual workers. This forces them to become increasingly specialized. School teachers are reduced to robots of standardized tests, craftsmen reduced to assemblers of prefabricated dinette sets, and what once was considered the general practitioner now only studies some tiny bone in the left arm. In an extremely controlled and standardized environment broad ranging skills, know-how, and intelligence are being replaced with instruction pamphlets, company handbooks, and search engines. This leads to a reduction in creativity which ultimately engenders economic hardships.

America’s current dearth of creativity compromises its ability to be innovative because potential ideas from talented people are suppressed by strict company guidelines. Creative concepts from the arts and social science communities receive little attention because they often lack immediate instrumental value. Such ideas are not appealing to West Coast venture capitalists. Nonetheless, the romance of American production is lost when the freedom to create is lost. America no longer awes consumers with its innovation and design (compare the 1960 Chevrolet Impala with the 2008 model).

Conclusion

Our economy has been McDonaldized to the point where we rely on cheaply made, non-innovative products. To make matters worse, we often pay for these products with credit. While settling for convenience we have sacrificed class and quality. In the process we have lowered our expectations and standards. This reliance on mediocrity has benefitted neither producer nor consumer.

America’s economic problems will not improve until it addresses the problems associated with a McDonaldized economy. Consumers must establish a demand for quality at lower-costs even if that means being patient. Producers must be open to ideas that exist outside of the corporate model and give its employees the freedom to maximize their talents.

America’s current economic slide is a social problem, and such dilemmas should be addressed with social solutions. We as members of society should give careful thought to the issues discussed in this essay. If we continue to allow extreme organizational rationalism to control our destiny, then our current economic problems will no longer exist as a temporary recession, but as a permanent norm.