This essay examines Dorothea Lange's iconic 1936 photograph "Migrant Mother" and the controversy surrounding its subject, Florence Thompson. Drawing on Jennifer Keene's commentary, the paper critiques judgmental attitudes toward the poor and defends Thompson's dignity against unfair characterizations. It argues that poverty has diverse causes and therefore requires diverse solutions — from income equity reforms and community-based programs to educational transformation and entrepreneurship support. The essay connects the challenges of poverty during the Great Depression to contemporary anti-poverty efforts, emphasizing that personalized, creative approaches rather than one-size-fits-all policies are essential to meaningful and lasting economic progress.
Dorothea Lange's iconic picture of the Great Depression in America is titled simply "Migrant Mother." The title depersonalizes the image of Florence Thompson, who Jennifer Keene claims was "angry and bitter" that the photographer never asked her name, nor used the photograph to help the poor. According to Keene, Thompson believed that Lange profited from the photo without fulfilling an original promise to inspire government aid for the poor. On the other hand, Thompson's two youngest children are also depicted in the photograph, taken in 1936. One of those daughters claims that it is only through self-reliance that economic independence is possible, suggesting that government aid is not necessarily the best or only way to help the poor.
Indeed, the best way to help the poor at any time is to provide a diverse range of programs and resources. The "poor" should never be lumped together as a homogenous group. There are many reasons why people are poor and many different means of helping individuals achieve their personal goals.
It is insulting to suggest, as Keene does, that Thompson might not be viewed as "deserving" of aid because she had a teenage daughter. Likewise, Keene wrongly suggests that the photograph showing a suitcase full of clothes would have also made Thompson seem less than deserving. There is no reason why either of these factors should matter, especially in the 1930s. In that era, women did not have access to birth control or abortion as they do today. This negates the notion that she should not have had three children. In fact, Thompson may have had her two youngest children before she realized what dire economic times had befallen her.
No one — either in the past or today — should pass judgment on Thompson. To judge the poor is demeaning and does no justice to the range of possible scenarios that led to a person's economic circumstances. Furthermore, Keene suggests that a teenage daughter might have been viewed as a source of labor, rather than as a young person in need of an education. Solving the problem of poverty will certainly not entail child labor, which often restricts access to upward social mobility through higher education.
While it is impossible to know exactly what Dorothea Lange intended with her photograph, it is certain that she was concerned with the plight of America's poor. As a photojournalist, Lange knew that her image was a powerful one. Whether or not she wanted to use her photo for personal gain is not the central issue. Lange had every right to sell her photograph and use it to promote her career. What does matter is the fact that the media picked up on the image and used it as a visual symbol of the Great Depression.
Representing the Great Depression, the photograph became highly politicized. Although most Americans do not know Thompson's name, most are familiar with her face. The use of the image to promote New Deal programs is understandable, although it would have been more ethical to credit Thompson and pay her royalties. Perhaps Thompson could have become more involved in political activism aimed at preventing poverty; but perhaps, like many Americans, she was not politically inclined to do so.
The poor are deserving of help for ethical reasons, but also for reasons related to improving the quality of life of all Americans. It is in the best interest of the nation as a whole to reduce poverty. However, there are no one-size-fits-all solutions. For some, a low-income but steady job is sufficient for economic and personal well-being. For others, an entrepreneurial program would be the best option. For others still, enrollment in post-secondary education would be the key to eradicating poverty. There are as many solutions to poverty as there are poor people in the world.
"Income equity, community centers, and local reform"
"Schools, innovation, and the American Dream"
You’re 65% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.