The Psychoanalyst and the Welfare State a Round Table Discussion

The Appellation “welfare state” has acquired, in at least some circles, an unmistakably pejorative coloration. Aside from the many obvious invidious political motivations, what has made it possible to attach negative connotations to welfare, surely a worthy aim of any government? Why should not a government be concerned with the well-being of its citizens and be prepared to assist them in every possible way to attain maximum opportunity for satisfaction of basic needs?

Part of the answer seems to be what Max Weber called the Protestant Ethic, translated in our own country into the Spirit of Rugged Individualism which holds that it is virtuous never to need assistance and reprehensible to receive it. Elevated to the level of a folk mythology, these views permeate all levels of our society, among those who suffer under it as well as among those who bask in its benefits. The appeal to the virtues the myth proclaims is persuasive to politicians and voters, and even to patients.

The pejorative coloration comes also from the association of welfare with charity because of the charitable functions of certain agencies of government which have been given the euphemistic label, “Department of Welfare.” This source of negative connotations is truly unfortunate. Restricted for the most part to the doling out of a subsistence level pittance, welfare departments arc an easy target for criticism and a burden resented by more affluent taxpayers. Only in the very recent past has any serious attention been given to the basic causes which reduce people to dependence on welfare. Psychiatric disability accentuates economic handicap and looms large among these causes, as preliminary studies in New York City have already demonstrated. No one will argue that charity is a satisfactory way of life, although it can, at times, be life-saving. In discussing the psychoanalyst and the welfare state we must be perfectly clear that we do