ABSTRACT
On August 22, 1996, President Clinton signed into law the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) that ended more than 60 years of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). The PRWORA was the fi rst piece of radical social welfare legislation since the inception of the social welfare program. While the politicking of the process that ended welfare as we knew it intrigued me, I was more intrigued by the actual signing process that took place in the Rose Garden. What struck me was that two “Mammies”⎯(at least one of which was horizontally challenged (that is, plump), grinning black1 women⎯fl anked President Clinton. Additionally, these women were encircled by a group of (white) men. Why? Why was it necessary to use these stereotypical images of welfare recipients to justify PRWORA? What message was President Clinton sending to the American public? These were the types of questions that plagued my mind for days after Public Law 104-193 was signed into effect. President Clinton’s use of these women as signs of social welfare led me to question the use of cultural images and symbols in the policy-making process. My focus is not on the visual representation of black women. Instead, I concentrate on the textual representation of black women in the framing of social policy. My rationale for focusing on text is that language facilitates the expression of attitudes and values. This analysis looks at social relations that underpin the framing of social policy.
