2. A Sketch of Roman Charity. Lecky, op. cit., Vol. II, pages 73-75. Fowler, Social Life at Rome, pages 36-39.

3. Motives and Methods in the Care of the Poor in the Book of Psalms.

4. A Sketch of Jewish Charity in the Middle Ages. Proceedings, National Conference of Charities and Correction, 1883, pages 323 ff.

CHAPTER III

DEPENDENCY, PAUPERISM AND POVERTY

WHEN we hear someone say that a person is dependent what

does the term "dependent" mean to us? Is he a helpless child, dependent upon his father for support? Is he a helpless cripple, dependent upon his wife? Or is he a pauperized man who could support himself, but who is so lacking in self-respect and ambition that he is willing to let the public provide for him? There are different kinds of dependents. Some furnish us no social problems; others are a challenge to our social machinery. Likewise, the terms "pauperism" and "poverty" mean one thing in the mouth of one person and quite another thing when used by someone else. As popularly used, all these terms are vague. Sometimes "dependency" and "pauperism" are used synonymously. At other times "poverty" and "pauperism" are used interchangeably. In the interest of clear thinking definite meanings should attach to these terms.

DEPENDENCY

As indicated above, there are varieties of dependency. A child supported by his father is not dependent in the same sense as a pauper in the almshouse. A wife supported by her husband is a dependent, but not in the same sense as if on the death of her husband, lacking relatives and unable by reason of sickness of a family of small children, she must be supported by the overseer of the poor, or a relief society. An aged father supported by his son is dependent, but not in the same sense as a lazy father, still able to work, who insists that his son support him because he is his son. All these are cases of dependency. What then differentiates one from the other? How shall we classify them?

There are three principal kinds of dependents besides a cross-classification. They are natural dependents, customary dependents, and legal dependents. Cutting across all these is another, normal or abnormal dependents.

Natural Dependents. Natural dependents are such by reason of

the ties of nature, filiál, marital, or parental. A child is naturally dependent upon its parent. Birth makes that dependency upon the mother most direct; natural selection has determined that the young is also dependent upon the father, although to a less extent, especially in the more primitive tribes of men. The aged parent is dependent upon the child. This dependency is less directly natural than the child upon the parent, in that the child's support of the parent is not often the result of natural selection, but of social motives. However, the dependency may rather be considered natural than customary or legal. The wife also is bound to her husband by natural ties-the ties of sex. Perhaps natural selection has had something to do with the establishment of dependency, although social ideas, customs and traditions. account for its continuance. So also with the support of an incapacitated husband by the wife. Again, the blood-relative is supported in certain circumstances by relatives. This dependency is more remotely natural than either that of the child or the parent. Social factors, such as intimate acquaintanceship, customary group sanctions, and fear of the gods, all enter in to produce the sense of obligation to help the unfortunate. But here again there is a natural bond between the benefactor and the beneficiary and natural selection probably has produced in some degree this dependency.

Customary Dependency. Customary dependency is that which arises by reason of social custom in the care of the unfortunate. As associations developed in social groups, such as secret societies, lodges and churches, special obligations of these groups to support an unfortunate member grew up. We shall see in a subsequent chapter how the church and the medieval guilds undertook this task. In modern society such associations recognize similar obligations. Moreover, with the development of civil society, neighborhood groups, even when kinship ties are lacking, recognize the obligation to care for unfortunate people in the neighborhood. All these are examples of customary dependency. Another is the obligation which some people have felt to help any beggar upon the street.

Legal Dependency. Legal enactments are of two sorts. Those things which have been sanctioned by custom finally are enacted into law, provided they are of such nature that they are of interest to the whole group and provided that the customary sanctions are not sufficient to compel universal obedience. After society has developed to such a degree that problems which are new to the experience of the group have risen, and for which there are no customary sanctions,

such relationships are then regulated by law. The first of these generalizations is illustrated by the legal regulation of the support of one's own kindred; the second by the enactment of laws governing the support of strangers.

A man's child is a natural dependent upon him. It is also a legal dependent, as well as a customary dependent. A man's wife is a customary dependent. However, the law in most countries has made her also a legal dependent. In some states other relatives than child and parent are a legal obligation to support; in others, other near relatives are customarily looked upon as having the duty of supporting dependents, but there is no legal obligation to do so. Thus, all natural and some customary dependents are legal dependents. The tendency is for all customary as well as natural dependents to be made the dependents of the individual obligated by nature and by custom to support them. That tendency was checked, however, in the development of the care of the unfortunate in the case of certain customary dependents, by the state taking over the functions of guild

and church.

When, through the failure of the church and the guilds to meet the problem of dependency, and when the state developed a more complete sovereignty, as will be noted in a later chapter, laws were passed which, while still leaving with private individuals and private organizations the right to care for their own members, yet provided for the public support of those who were without relatives or relieving organizations. Hence, legal dependents are of two classes: (1) those dependents whose relatives or members of their families are obliged by law to support them, and (2) those persons who are without private means of support but who by law must, in the interest of the general welfare, be supported by the state.

Normal and Abnormal Dependency. Still another classification of dependents must be made. Dependents may be divided into normal and abnormal. The child supported by his parent, during the period of his childhood when unable to support himself; the wife supported by her husband, and the aged parent cared for by his child are normal dependents. In the ordinary circumstances of life such people are dependent. It is true that with the development of society it is becoming a question whether the aged parent is a normal dependent. So far, however, as the dependency is due to the infirmities of age, and by reason of the fact that up until recently the support of aged parents was considered an inevitable obligation of life, we can call

the aged parent a normal dependent. Hence, what we mean by a normal dependent is one who by reason of the ordinary incapacity of age or sex is aided by a natural supporter. Normal dependency is synonymous with natural dependency, except in such cases as parent, spouse, or child who shirks his duty to contribute what he can to his own support.

On the other hand, the abnormal dependent is represented by the pauper in the poorhouse, the child who must be supported by someone else than his own father or mother, or someone in loco parentis, by the widow or family supported by the Charity Organization Society. The abnormal dependent may be either willingly or unwillingly dependent upon others. The old rounder who lives off the public, as Washington Gladden said, "making a living by looking for work and successfully failing to find it," and the man who has been injured at work and has to be helped by private or public charity are both abnormal dependents. One, however, is abnormally dependent by reason of circumstances over which he has no control, while the other is such partially at least by reason of his own willingness. Hence, abnormal dependency is that which results in abnormal social relationships, whether by reason of circumstances outside or within the dependent's control.

The different varieties of dependency may, therefore, be represented by the following diagram:

Legal.

Natural.

Aboormal.

Custismary.