In another perspective, though not entirely, the individual does not exist for the state or the construct of the nation or the society which involves a collection of other individuals. Man, the individual has always been a single motive and source of power of progress and evolution. This could be viewed in this sense: Issues such as civilization and others have often been issues among individuals or groups of individuals against the state or even against the society. Often, the human thought has always been forged by certain factors such as the tradition, the custom and at times misguided philosophies mainly for self-interest purposes of those in power (the ruling class and the state). Individuality may be termed as the cognizance of individuals by recognising entire self. Individuality is innate and present in any other human being (as a nature of growth) in the society. The state and the various social institutions often come and go, but individuality often persists. However, note that the existence of individuality is often due to the inherent basics involving the sense of independence and dignity (Fromm, 2013). Otherwise, it is quite important to note that individuality does not refer to the mechanistic and detached traits that may at times be treated as some singularity by the state. One thing about individuality is that it is the origin of all values including the different aspects of life. Individuality is a whole, growing, changing yet constant entity. As seen before, individuality is often inherent with a certain form of sociality which often leads to the formation of different social groups in the different contexts (Fromm, 2013). Usually, the higher authorities or rather the state often necessitate the need to take care of these social groups which often form the society. According to scholars, such acts by the state are usually referred to as state welfare (Fromm, 2013). Apparently, this essay attempts to outline the role of the state, family and the individuals in the society. To cover these issues in the most effective way possible, the essay attempts to provide an explanation on certain society oriented issues such as welfare state, Neoliberalism and the relationship between Neoliberalism and the Welfare state.
.
The essay first begins by defining welfare state (as a sense of building a foundation) Role of the State, Family, and Individual in Society Introduction Welfare state usually refers to a set of government programs that are usually meant to promote the well-being of the citizens in the different possibilities of life in the current individualized, industrialized society (Reading, n.d). Most of the welfare states are usually known to provide a direct state assistance to the poor individuals in the society either in kind(this may include social service and housing finance), cash (social assistance) or even social insurance against certain financial eventualities of certain biological and occupational risk such as old age, unemployment, illness, injury, accident and so on. It is also known in most of the welfare states, a significant effort is usually directed towards regulating against the different forms of socioeconomic inequalities especially in the basic income distribution with the help of the secondary redistribution (Reading, n.d). In other words, such programs often involve the government expenditure on social programs that are usually due to continuous funding from taxation as well as tax expenditure (Reading, n.d). Tax expenditure may involve tax deduction for certain charity contribution, social insurance, negative income taxation (for the poor). In order to function in the most effective way possible, different states usually deploy different aspect of a political ideology known as Liberalism, in the modern world, Neoliberalism (Mendes, 2103). Neoliberalism on the other hand refers to a certain political theory (economic in nature) that advances the notion that the human welfare can well be taken care of by liberating individual entrepreneurial skills and freedoms within a particular institutional framework that is often characterised by a strong and reliable free markets, property rights, free trade and so on (Wilson, Spies-Butcher, Stebbing, St John, 2013). Normally, so as to advance the practice in the most effective way possible, the state is usually tasked with the responsibility of creating an appropriate institutional framework as well as providing means to secure it.
.
Usually, a proper institutional framework often guarantees both the integrity and quality for money (Mendes, 2103). The institutional framework also must consist of proper legal structures and functions required to safeguard private property rights as well as to ensure proper functioning of markets or even their creations. However, recently, there has been quite a lot of concern regarding the direction of neo-liberalism which has been seen as negating the very foundation it advocates for. In Australia for example, the concept advocates for an efficient and lower taxation system including the balancing of market forces, but often negates this for example by funding community services organisations less which implies less welfares state (Wilson, Spies-Butcher, Stebbing, St John, 2013). In such a situation, it would be better to practice the theory of social citizenship which can play a role or two in deconstructing the different aspects between efficiency and redistribution that dominate the political ideology (Wilson, Spies-Butcher, Stebbing, St John, 2013). How neoliberalism has criticized welfare state Certain researchers have often linked neoliberalism to some form of inefficiency (Wilson, Spies-Butcher, Stebbing, St John, 2013). Most of these researchers believe that neoliberalism has highly become incompatible with some of the traditional and social ethos of liberalism. In other words, neoliberalism represents a rift between the older forms of liberalism because of the manner in which it revokes the social contract and therefore leaving less room for a significant social relationship (Mendes, 2103).
.
Neoliberalism according to certain researches is also known to detach economics from issues such as ethics and social costs. Also, it makes a mockery out of democracy by unweaving the very fabric that the welfare state is made from. It interprets profit making as a necessity for democracy and consumption as the main form of citizenship. Neoliberalism is also known for its ways of a handful of personal interest to gain control of as much as social, political and economic life for the purpose of making maximum profits (Mendes, 2103). Neoliberalisation and Privatisation Other researches often see neoliberalism as a phenomenon that combines the free market ideology with the abolition of the social state and protection, privatization of public properties and the deregulation of certain economic activities (Mendes, 2103). According to these researches, the basic narratives of neoliberalism are usually factors such as privatization, commodification, deregulation and others such as the selling of state functions (Mendes, 2103). Also, in relation to issues of privatization, neoliberalism is known to support certain factors related to the relieving of the government ?s oversight of free enterprise or rather trade and consequently not adhering to the requirements of the balances and checks for the purpose of mitigating against social damage which may occur due to policies relating to no interference by government .
This often leads to the reduction or withdrawn funding of the various social services by the government or even regulating government involvement in different activities that involve private property enterprise. Practical examples of this include the recent incidents involving the move to privatize certain Australian organizations such as the DHS, Centrelink, Child support services Medicare among others. Apparently, the recent privatization has been attributed to the federal government ?s national commission audit ?s recommendations. Different departments and agencies are said to be braced for the announcement of more of the commission ?s such directives on privatization (Wilson, Spies-Butcher, Stebbing, St John, 2013). The selling off of the centerlink has been quite a bigger blow to the Defense departments (Wilson, Spies-Butcher, Stebbing, St John, 2013). Others such as the replacement of the Australian public Service Commission with the shared service departments have also been quite detrimental to the members of the public including the public servants. It is therefore anticipated that nearly 20,000 public servants could either lose their jobs or even be absorbed into the new policies as a result of privatization which the Sociologists believe that could only be the few examples of the detrimental impacts of neoliberalism (Wilson, Spies-Butcher, Stebbing, St John, 2013). References Road to social work . (n.d). Road to social work. n.p. pp. 32-53. Fromm, E. (2013). Man for himself: An inquiry into the psychology of ethics (Vol. 102). Routledge. in Australia (The Australian newspaper ?s war on welfare): Dissent summer. pp. 58-62. Mendes, P. (2103). Key critics of the welfare state Niebuhr, R. (2013). Moral man and immoral society: A study in ethics and politics. Westminster John Knox Press. Reading, K. (n.d). The role of the state. n.p. pp. 135-143. Wilson, S., Spies-Butcher, B., Stebbing., A & St John., S. (2013).Wage-Earners ? Welfare after Economic Reform: Refurbishing, Retrenching or Hollowing Out Social Protection in Australia and New Zealand?: social policy & administration. 6(47) pp. 623-646.
