Skip to main content

The unethical language of 'welfare dependency'


It is unethical to stigmatise people without foundation. Creating a stereotype, a generalised brand, in order to  demonize a group regardless of the individual and without regard for the potential harm it may do is unfair and prejudicial. It is one reason, and a major one, why racism is unethical; it fails to give a fair consideration of interest to a group of people simply because they are branded in this way. They are not worthy of equal consideration because they are different.  It seeks also to influence the attitudes of others to those stereotyped. If I said 'the Irish are lazy'; you would rightly respond that this is a ridiculous and unfounded stereotype. It brands all Irish on the basis of a prejudice. It is harmful certainly; but it is worse if I intend it to be harmful. If I intend to influence the attitude of others. And so it is with 'the unemployed'. All I need do is substitute 'work-shy' and use it in an injudicious way; to imply that it applies to a sufficiently large proportion of the unemployed, then it is unethical because it is designed to influence others against the group. It is prejudicial and harmful. It assumes or implies that the 'exceptions' are the rarer of the beast. But this is what the government is doing to those on welfare or to the unemployed, and the way the government is doing so is unethical.

When Mr Cameron and Ian Duncan-Smith refer to 'welfare dependency' they imply a certain characteristic, a flawed characteristic of a group; it sounds like a 'drug dependency'. They are not alone or the first politicians to use such a term. Labour governments have used it too. 'Welfare dependency' is seen as a fundamental problem.  But it can also be a stereotype, a tool used to mark a group,and it is harmful. What they really mean is that it becomes difficult to find work because by doing so they become economically worse off; they can't earn enough on low pay to manage the transition.

 But that is not a characteristic of the person; it is a characteristic of the circumstance. By all means change that circumstance. Make work pay. But it is  how this is done that matters. Better it is done by paying a 'living wage' then by trying to drive people into work by cutting their benefits. The latter is harmful and cruel and assumes that jobs are easily available.  Creating a living wage is a better strategy because 1) it doesn't seek to stigmatise people, 2) it is not harmful and 3) it is good for the economy because it make workers more productive.

In his speech to his party conference Mr Cameron said "there is only one real route out of poverty and it is work." He is right of course, which is why creating real jobs is the answer; and that can only come with a real strategy for growth. Real jobs with a living wage.

But Mr Cameron chose his words carefully because he implied that those in poverty were themselves to blame for not working, or not working hard enough. This is why just a few sentences later he said we had to get rid of 'welfare dependency'; language again! 


 But then we have the people living behind closed curtains. What was Mr Cameron seeking to achieve by his remark, repeated by government ministers? The narrative of 'scroungers' lurking lazily behind closed curtains is a demonizing stereotype designed to influence attitudes of those who are employed against those who are not; and it is unethical. It seeks to justify harming this group by stigmatizing them and making it easier for voters to believe it is right to cut their benefits or force them to work for low wages or indeed no wage at all. After all, they are diseased with welfare dependency or flawed in character as 'work shy'.

Language matters in ethics. We need a better language; a language that reflects the realities of circumstance and not of the person. Language matters in ethics. Politicians should address circumstances, create jobs, ensure a living wage and take account of individual circumstances that affect the well-being of families. They should stop using unethical language.

Comments

  1. There is no greater fear than losing a steady handout and then being forced to work for a buck. Self-esteem or annoying alarm clocks are not needed for those that choose to suck on the big nipple. More than one hundred million recipients depend on Obama for their survival; he is the great provider and jungle king.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am sure for some that is so. But for many a greater fear is of losing a job as recession bites deeper. The rise in unemployment in the UK wasn't because suddenly hundreds of thousands decided they would rather live on unemployment benefits. In the UK too we have another problem. The majority of people receiving benefits do work, and many of them have more than one job. Their problem is low pay. It would be better for us if we stopped subsidising business through the benefit system and insisted they pay at least a living wage. 'Dependency' is a circumstance, not a human frailty.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

The secret life of Giant Pandas

Giant pandas, Ailuropoda melanoleuca , have usually been regarded as solitary creatures, coming together only to mate; but recent studies have begun to reveal a secret social life for these enigmatic bears.  GPS tracking shows they cross each others path more often than previously thought, and spend time together.  What we don't know is what they are doing when together.  Photo by  Sid Balachandran  on  Unsplash For such large mammals, pandas have relatively small home ranges. Perhaps this is no surprise. Pandas feed almost exclusively on bamboo. The only real threat to pandas has come from humans. No wonder then that the panda is the symbol of the WWF.  Pandas communicate with one another through vocalization and scent marking. They spray urine, claw tree trunks and rub against objects to mark their paths, yet they do not appear to be territorial as individuals.  Pandas are 99% vegetarian, but, oddly, their digestive system is more typical of a carnivore. For the 1% of their diet

Work Capability Assessments cause suffering for the mentally ill

People suffering from mental health problems are often the most vulnerable when seeking help. Mental health can have a major impact on work, housing, relationships and finances. The Work Capability Assessments (WCA) thus present a particular challenge to those suffering mental illness.  The mentally ill also are often the least able to present their case. Staff involved in assessments lack sufficient expertise or training to understand mental health issues and how they affect capability. Because of  concerns that Work Capability Assessments will have a particularly detrimental effect on the mentally ill,  an  e-petition  on the government web site calls on the Department of Work and Pensions to exclude people with complex mental health problems such as paranoid schizophrenia and personality disorders. Problems with the WCA  have been highlighted in general by the fact that up to 78% of 'fit to work' decisions are  being overturned on appeal. It is all to the good that they