Division by Occupation and Racial Implications of the Social Security Act
Visual media appears to focus more on the divisions between generations created by the Social Security Act of 1935 than the divisions it creates between racial and gender groups; however, the decision to exclude domestic and agricultural workers from eligibility reinforced social and political hierarchies, deepening divisions. The Social Security Act forced lawmakers to make value judgements across various identities such as previous occupation, which has implications in race and gender identity.
Agricultural and domestic workers are disproportionately minority and women workers, often due to a history of oppression such as with sharecropping practices in the South. Thus, when these occupations were excluded from the Social Security Act, the value judgements made may have reflected the long-established social divisions between race and gender identities. Some scholars argue that the exclusions in the act were racially motivated in addition to just having racial implications, as Southern democrats may have put pressure on other lawmakers to limit eligibility (Stoesz, 2016).
While the differences made in terms of eligibility may have been reflective of racial and gender divisions, they are potentially more directly reflective of occupational divisions (Davies & Derthink, 1997). Some scholars argue against the idea that racial divisions were the direct cause of eligibility exclusions, as many other occupations such as government workers and self-employed doctors and lawyers were also excluded from benefits (Dewitt, 2010). Instead, they posit that structural differences between industries may have led to these exclusions because of the desire for administrative simplicity and efficiency. Agriculture and domestic workers were not organized in the same unionized manner that other industries were, thus making it difficult to coordinate the distribution of benefits. However, this value judgement potentially prioritized administrative efficiency over equity of benefits.
Whether the exclusion of domestic and agricultural workers from Title II of the Social Security Act of 1935 was racially or administratively motivated, it strengthened divisions between races and classes. Excluded workers were denied billions of dollars in benefits. Many of these formerly excluded groups were later included in social security benefits in amendments made in 1950 and 1954 (Stoesz, 2016).