Using the different ideas of the Philosophers to evaluate the ”The Uses of Poverty: The Poor Pay All”, we would like to ask the following questions. How can the Davison of Labor of Durkheim affect the Philippines? How can the function of poverty can be seen in the Philippines? Lastly, What is the idea leads the writer to write the article?
According Max Weber the most desirable way to understand phenomena is through the concept of ideal type. In his three forms of ideal type the most applicable way to understand poverty is through the types of action (Bannagen , 2002, pg. 239). In the article it is enumerated each action of the poor under poverty such as doing dirty work, low wage and serve the professionals , then you are considered poor (Gans, 1971).
Also, using the concept of Weber there are four types of solidarity. In analyzing the article the Practical rationality can be explain how the author write the paper. Practical rationality is “a way of looking the world in which the meaning of an act is believed to lie its function” (Bannagen, 2002, pg.239). The author explains poverty by the job and how they act in the society. Then he concluded that what is the act or job of the poor is also their function in the society. However, the author’s point of view is a man who does not experience poverty. Then he sees phenomena of poverty just in the actions of the poor. He does not put his feet in the shoes of the poor to see what the function of poverty is.
From the article it is very specific what the function of poverty in the society is. In that function of poverty the Division of Labor of Durkheim was seen in the article (Bannagen, 2002, pg 229). First, Anomic Division of labor in the workplace is based on power and social and economic status, rather than on differentiation of individual ability or effort an anomic division of labor.
The people under poverty has a specific function according to the article such as they are doing “dirty work”, make life employers life easier, creates jobs for a number of occupations and professions that serve or \"service\" the poor, and poverty helps to guarantee the status of those who are not poor (Gans,1971).
These article is an evidence that if you are poor you are align in a certain work not considering your ability. It is like a stereotyping that poor is destined to a certain job no matter what is the talent or skills he/she possessed. Anomic division of labor is greatly seen in the Philippines. “We are poor because we are poor” this quotation will always be heard in the Philippines. This quotation we can see the influence of anomic division of labor in the minds of the Filipinos.
It is like they are saying we do job for poor because we are poor. We always here the saying “mahirap ka kaya wag kang umaastang mayaman” in some television shows. This saying in the television has a big impact on the existence of anomic division of labor. .According to F. Sionil “The culture of poverty is self- perpetuating” (as cited by Laking, 2016, par7).
Second, Forced Division of Labor, workers are not natural demands of society, and they become useful only to certain groups and not to society in general (Bannagen, 2002, pg. 229). In the article it is specified that the function of poverty is to guarantee the status of those who are not poor. This is particularly true for the working class, whose politics is influenced by the need to maintain status distinctions between themselves and the poor, much as the aristocracy must find ways of distinguishing itself from the nouveaux riches (Gans, 1971).
People under poverty who are under the forced division of labor became useful to the rich people because until there is poverty, the rich can manipulate the poor. The poor gain little amount of benefits from the rich because they work for them but the rich gain more than the poor. Forced division of Labor is also seen in the Philippines. The political dynasty, they are the certain group that sees the poor as the useful group that can be beneficial for them.
Even in the age of social media, traditional politics continues and still thrive the usual image of “trapos” or traditional politicians has diversified into younger , more tech-savvy, members have occupied the same post (thin dynasties) or have spread to different elected position (fat dynasties) . The 2016 presidential and national elections, political dynasties won electoral posts for governor (81%) , House of representative (78%) , mayor (69%) and vice mayor (57%).
A 2016 study published in Oxford Development Studies examined the link between poverty and dynasties using comprehensive database of political dynasties in the Philippine local government from 2000 to 2013. The study concluded that more fat dynasties causes greater poverty, notably outside of Metro Manila (Will Ph-Style Federalism Work, 2018 , par 12). The Filipino nation became beneficial to the political dynasty because they can maintain their power.
Third, the poor coordination of functions in society, results in part from the inequalities among social groups that arises from force division of labor. This give particular social groups unfair advantage, at the expense of society (Bannagen, 2002, pg. 229). The poor are required to work at low wages, they subsidize a variety of economic activities that benefit the affluent (Gans,1971).The poor experience unfair advantage because they are the one who work more rather the rich but they get lower wage.
According to the article of F. Sionel Jose Filipinos are poor because they condone cronyism and corruption and don’t ostracize or punish crook in midst. Both cronyism and corruption are wasteful but they allow their practice because they are loyal is to family or friends, not to the larger group (as cited by Laking, 2016, pg 142).
Filipinos are attracted sometimes to the money that was given to them by a candidate official and not thinking the future. Filipinos are only given a small amount unlike the big amount that an official can corrupt. The money that was corrupted must be beneficial to the Filipinos. It is like they every single voter was given 0.001% of the total money that they can corrupt. Poor became poorer because they are given unfair advantage.