ABSTRACT
Social policy's neglect of ‘race’ is deeply rooted. The discipline's origins, grounded in Fabian ideals, emphasize the politics of collectivism, and the practice of state intervention to deal with social problems (Pinker, 1971). This Fabian approach assumes commonly agreed policy objectives, but fails to recognize the needs of different social groups. Further, in dealing with social problems, it emphasizes the principles of organization and administration and confines analysis to discrete policy areas such as education, health and employment (Williams, 1989). Conceptual cleavages, such as class, race, disability and gender are ignored (Williams, 1989; Squires, 1990). More specifically the ideas of early Fabianism were also marked by racial bigotry and superiority, by a belief in a hierarchy of ‘races’ and by a nationalist programme of social imperialism (Williams, 1996). For example, founders of the Fabian movement — such as George Bernard Shaw, Beatrice and Sydney Webb — were all members of the Eugenics movement. 1 The national and racialist assumptions implicit in the work of the earlier Fabians re-emerged as the discipline of social policy, and informed the development of the post-war welfare state. Internationally, it assumed the civilizing mission of imperialism and ‘the duty to help and guide the teeming millions of India and Africa to a more abundant life’ (Titmuss, 1943, p. 9). In terms of the nation state, the discipline of social policy maintained pride in Britain and the British welfare state. The 1942 Beveridge report, for example, uncritically accepted the importance of maintaining the British race and values.
