Human services policy shifts from spend-and-share to sink-or-swim attitudes

Human Services

"Spend and Share" vs. "Sink or Swim" Attitudes

In understanding the differences between the "spend and share" public mood of the 1960s and the "sink or swim" attitudes of the 1990s, four distinct reasons for the change in public opinion can be listed. Canadians in the 1990s witnessed a great call for change and shift toward the sink or swim mentality, and this can be largely attributed to: issues of national identity, anxiety over jobs, the emerging of the global economy, and new technologies and fundamentally different demographic forces rapidly changing these Canadians' respective social space (Reid, 1996, p.5).

Making Election Decisions as a Voter

In making the decision to vote in an election or abstain from the vote, certain factors such as the candidates' own stances on the issues as well as the views held by these candidates' respective parties play a major role in people's decisions to vote. Social policy attempts to address political issues such as income support for the destitute and poor, abortion, treatment for substance abuse, and other contentious issues, which often rallies voters with aligning belief and value-systems to get to the polls in order to elect officials who most closely represent their own beliefs (McKenzie and Wharf, 2010, p. 1). In such instances, both candidate and party alignments play a massive role in making the decision to vote, and can sway a voter from choosing one candidate over another. For example, Voter A supports a woman's right to procure an abortion. Party A and its candidates largely support the right to abortion. Candidate A, running as a Party A contender has mixed feelings on the subject and often sides against abortion. Despite the abortion issues, Voter A aligns himself with many of the platforms upon which Candidate A runs, but finds the abortion issue to be a prevalent issue in deciding who to vote for. Candidate B, on the other hand -- also running as a Party A Candidate, doesn't hold all the same values as that of Candidate A, but supports abortion. This facet of Candidate B's platform causes Voter A to shift his way and cast a vote for this candidate in the polls.

III. Standpoint, Family Forms, and Family Status

In understanding the concept of "standpoint," as described in Unit 1, one can better understand this concept's relationship with family forms and family status. In beginning to delve into this connection, one can understand that standpoint is often loaded in these contexts, with family members often fighting for the ability to bring others in the group to their side in terms of standpoint, involving not only members of the family unit but societal functions of the family as a social relationship into the mix (Holman and Loveless, 2007, p.287). In combining these two facets, strong beliefs couples with strong standing i.e. politically have the ability to cause significant friction within the group.