Moralising Poverty

The 'Undeserving' Poor in the Public Gaze

Serena Romano

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• eBook ISBN: 9781317379843
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Medicine
• Subtopic: Health Care Delivery

Do we judge the poor? Do we fear them? Do we have a moral obligation to help those in need? The moral and social grounds of solidarity and deservedness in relation to aid for poor people are rarely steady. This is particularly true under contemporary austerity reforms, where current debates question exactly who is most 'deserving' of protection in times of crisis. These arguments have accompanied a rise in the production of negative and punitive sentiments towards the poor.

This book breaks new ground in the discussion of the moral dimension of poverty and its implications for the treatment of the poor in mature welfare states, drawing upon the diverse political, social and symbolic constructions of deservedness and otherness. It takes a new look at the issue of poverty from the perspective of public policy, media and public opinion. It also examines, in a topical manner, the various ways in which certain factions contribute to the production of stereotyped representations of poverty and to the construction of boundaries between 'insiders' and 'outsiders' in our society. Case studies from the UK and Italy are used to examine these issues, and to understand the impact that a moralising of poverty has on the everyday experiences of the poor.

This is valuable reading for students and researchers interested in contemporary social work, social policy and welfare systems.

1 Introduction

The undeserving poor: those who are not excused

Human beings ‘function as cognitive misers’ (Massey, 2007: 9). We tend to think in ‘categorical terms’ and to construct general schemas through which we can easily classify, interpret and thus understand the world around us. The deserving/undeserving poor dichotomy, one of the main subjects of this book, is but one of the binary schematic categorisations that help us decode and assess reality. However, it contains two distinctive traits: it is predominantly constructed on moral boundaries (Steensland, 2010) and has profound implications for the actual treatment of the ‘objects’ of the classification – the poor.

It could be argued that the notion of undeserving poor is the result of our society’s paradoxical attempt at aiding those in need while, at the same time, limiting solidarity only to those who conform to social expectations in terms of deservedness and merit. The very existence of a category of claimants who are deemed not ‘deserving’ of social support is, in fact, a fundamental mechanism of most systems of redistribution. It is regulated by the general basic assumption that certain categories of individual can be ‘morally excused from work’ (Handler, 1993: 859) on account of their assumed vulnerable status or condition, thus qualifying as worthy poor, while others, notably those who are considered responsible for their own poverty, do not ‘deserve’ collective support. Historically, and at a very general level, the aged, sick and infirm – together with children and widows – would fall within the former category, while all other able-bodied individuals would belong to the latter group.

These categories and their social significance have been subject to profound transformations throughout the centuries, but the idea of undeserving poor has never disappeared completely. This might seem to be preposterously inconsistent with the very ideals and objectives of the most important redistributing institution in capitalist society: the welfare state.

Social policy programmes, in theory, are meant to enhance social inclusion and not exacerbate social divisions, let alone exclude those in a condition of need. Limiting solidarity only to the deserving ones might seem unfair; but – and this is the main rationale for this book – what does ‘fair’ mean? How narrow is the category of those ‘excused from work’ and how is this defined? Are social and political categorisations centred on ideas of ‘deservedness’ and solidarity informed by morality alone or are there other factors such as economic, political and social convenience? How do these ideas change across space and time?

In order to answer these questions, a clear explanation of the concept of ‘undeserving poor’ is necessary. At least two definitions can be provided, depending on the perspective used. Firstly, the term ‘undeserving poor’ may refer to those persons who are excluded from social insurance schemes and who, as a result, find themselves relying on residual and stigmatising social-assistance programmes. According to Aaronson (1996: 214), this is the general rule in the US, where ‘welfare is, in short, what happens to individuals whom we perceive as the undeserving poor’. This notion is strictly linked to the identification of welfare programmes with social assistance (or ‘social welfare’) schemes, predominantly used in the US. The second and most common interpretation of the undeserving poor as a concept is centred on the complete exclusion of certain categories of claimants from the system of public relief. Understood in these terms, the ‘undeserving poor’ notion contains both a normative and a descriptive element.

From a normative point of view, the undeserving poor category includes all those who should not be eligible for welfare benefits (regardless of whether they actually receive the payments or not) because their behaviour, condition or socio-economic characteristics are considered unworthy of public support. From a descriptive perspective, the term undeserving poor indicates those who are not part of the welfare system, precisely because of the aforementioned factors. Looking at the transformations of social policy and solidarity actions from the perspective of the undeserving poor is a powerful and fascinating sociological lens for our discussion. The contradiction regulating society’s attitude towards the poor (which reads: only the worthy, deserving ones should be helped) is a fundamental mechanism not only of welfare systems but also of society in general. It can be argued, as Gans (1994) does, that if the undeserving poor continue to exist as a social phenomenon today, it is exactly because they perform a number of ‘useful functions’ in society, albeit to the exclusive advantage of the non-poor population.¹

The first and most predictable function is an economic one. Welfare budgets are intrinsically limited and so is the capacity of states to protect their needy citizens, the result being that priority is given to those who pass the ‘deservingness’ test, be it explicitly formulated or implicitly assumed in the eligibility rules regulating social assistance programmes.

Secondly, the undeserving poor – meaning those who fail to demonstrate their efforts in fulfilling a given society’s expectations – are a strong societal instrument of social cohesion for the non-poor population. Welfare policy, Handler and Hasenfeld remind us, is part of a ‘moral system’ that first defines ‘who are the deviants’ for the dominant groups, and then excludes and stigmatises them as the system’s outcasts (1991: 12, 16). The exclusion of undeserving claimants from actions of solidarity and relief is thus, first and foremost, a ‘societal reminder’ of acceptable social values and modes of behaviour and an instrument of norm reinforcement for society as a whole. Moreover, the undeserving poor constitute convenient public ‘cathartic objects’ of scapegoating (Gans 1994: 272) in times of social, moral and economic crisis.

Thirdly, the presence of undeserving poor, and the rhetoric around them, may perform an action of ideological legitimisation of the political agenda. Negative representations and stereotyped classifications of the undeserving poor based on their alleged irresponsible and deviant behaviour can validate political narratives centred on the need to cut down on their ‘dependence’ on the system and provide psychological relief to the public for their exclusion from the welfare system.

Last, but no less important, deserving/undeserving dichotomies can also perform the function of social control by the welfare state, which rewards those who comply with the values and rules of the dominant group; sanctions (through exclusion from social policy programmes) those who fail to live in accordance with the said rules; and influences the behaviour of those who want to remain in the system.

Overview of the book

Having clarified one of the most important themes of our discussion, it is worth noting that this book does not concern itself merely with the undeserving poor; it also deals with the moral and social backgrounds of different societies’ approaches to solidarity. As such, it intends to augment the existing literature on the moralising dimension of poor relief and solidarity, and discuss the relationships between poverty, social policy, media and public opinion. Three predominant questions underpin this study:

• Is deservedness as a dimension a universal, recurrent and constant component of poor relief actions?

• How do the cultural, economic and social characteristics of a given country impact on the construction of public solidarity and its underlying moral discourses in different contexts?

• Do stereotyped representations of the poor and negative attitudes towards the ‘undeserving’ welfare claimant emerge especially in times of (economic/political/social) crisis?

By providing both theoretical grounds and empirical evidence for the understanding of the moral dimension of solidarity and anti-poverty actions, with their multifaceted dynamics, this book breaks ground in support of the latter argument. In fact, the overriding argument of this work is that the moralisation, if not criminalisation, of the undeserving poor is a revolving element that occurs cyclically in societies – and especially so in times of ‘moral panic’. Conceptualised by Stanley Cohen in his study on the sociology of deviance, moral panic is defined as the situation created when:

[a] condition, episode, person or group of persons emerges to become defined as a threat to societal values and interests; its nature is presented in a stylised and stereotypical fashion by the mass media. … Socially accredited experts pronounce their diagnoses and solutions. … Sometimes the object of the panic is quite novel and at other times it is something which has been in existence long enough, but suddenly appears in the limelight.

(Cohen, 1972 [2002]: 1)

The notion of ‘moral panic’ fits particularly well within the scope of this work as it perfectly summarises the main features of the public construction of the undeserving poor in times of social crisis. This notion will provide a fundamental analytical key to understanding the recurring exacerbation of hostility towards the undeserving poor in times of social and economic crisis. It will also help illustrate the extent to which, in some countries, the new wave of austerity measures triggered by the recent global economic crisis has restored the old stigmatising narrative centred on the deserving/undeserving dichotomy.

It is certainly true that, since the introduction of the very first poor-relief actions, governments have always been torn between whether to provide some relief to the poor, risking that welfare payment could ‘undermine the will to work’ (Flora, 1981: 343), or to deny it and face the threat of social disorder. However, in the past, the criminalisation of the undeserving poor was predominantly physical. Able-bodied individuals who failed to prove their willingness to work would either be banned from the community and imprisoned (as was the case for vagrants) or confined to the workhouse (especially after the seventeenth century). By contrast, as this book contends, contemporary forms of ‘punishment’ inflicted on the undeserving poor imply two main elements: their exclusion from public forms of relief – by means of stricter eligibility and conditionality rules required for access to social benefits; and the exacerbation of the symbolic moralisation, if not demonisation, of people reportedly undeserving of social protection, and their increasing public stigmatisation.

In this book, all these themes will all be examined from the multidimensional and cross-sectional perspective of morality. It is not by coincidence that the title of the book contains the term ‘moral’, which is inherently ambivalent, especially when associated with the word ‘poverty’. Yet caveats should be made regarding the scope of our discussion: the reader will not find a systematic review of anti-poverty schemes, and experts in this particular domain may find the description oversimplified. Also, the volume itself is by no means a comprehensive account of poverty and its economic, social and psychological backgrounds. Rather, it looks at the relationships between morality, poverty and social inclusion/exclusion from three major standpoints:

• the ‘moral dimension’ of poor relief actions and solidarity;

• the public representation of the ‘undeserving’ poor and their alleged moral characteristics as depicted by the media and understood by public opinion; and

• the socio-cultural, moral and economic-based construction of boundaries between insiders and outsiders in our society.

Drawing the moral line: power, politics and culture

This book discusses the moral and social grounds of solidarity and deservedness in society. As such, it is concerned not solely with the representation and treatment of the ‘undeserving’ poor, but also with the overall relationships of solidarity and antagonism between the poor and the non-poor population. One of the most widespread misconceptions about anti-poverty policy is that it has always been a neglected domain of public policy, mostly uninteresting to the general public. Quite the contrary, historian Nicholas C. Edsall points out that before the advent of the modern welfare state, ‘no body of legislation was of greater importance to the average [English]man than the laws for the maintenance and relief of the poor’ (1971: 1): a ‘considerable burden’ in local taxes for the non-poor and the only possible form of relief distress for the destitute, he notes, poor legislation has always been at the centre of heated discussions.

Social reformer and influential member of the Fabian Society, Beatrice Potter Webb (together with her husband Sydney), was one of the first academics to provide a critical discussion of the ‘continuously shifting and perpetually developing legal relationship between the rich and the poor, between the “Haves” and the “Have-nots”’. Her idea that the Poor Laws of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries would deal not with the ‘obligations of the rich to the poor’ but with the ‘behaviour of the poor to the rich’ (Webb, 1928: 3) is somewhat illustrative of the optimistic view of the late Victorians that moral divisions between the poor and the non-poor were essentially a prerogative of pre-modern approaches to poor relief actions and of their faith in social progress. It is a fact that for a long time in the history of relief actions the poor, deserving and undeserving alike, have been subject to stigmatising and excluding ‘othering’ practices that weakened rather than empowered their social, economic and political rights, exacerbating their social division from the rest of society. The Victorian Poor Laws (1832) rule that denied middle-class men who received poor relief the right to vote is only too fitting an example of the multifaceted forms of social, political and economic mechanisms used to deter the public from using collective resources of support and, at the same time, of its divisive function in society. However, and despite the long tradition of poverty studies, the specific relationships between moral definitions/classifications, public policy design and the treatment of the poor in society are still unexplored, especially with regard to the processes through which deservedness is constructed, represented and legitimised.

Individualism vs solidarity?

In trying to fill the abovementioned gap in poverty studies, this book predominantly draws on original research material collected between 2014 and 2016. Although several sections of the book cover the moral backgrounds of poor relief and solidarity in general, the text is designed particularly to provide an in-depth analysis of Italy and the UK. Two emblematic cases of different approaches to poor relief and social inclusion actions – the Italian and British pathways and their current experiences – will guide us in our journey across the moral and social background of poverty relief and solidarity. There are a number of reasons for this particular comparison: for example, the lack of comparisons of this very kind in the existing literature, but most notably the alleged distance between these two countries in their experiences of poor relief and solidarity. Britain has been a pioneer in Europe in its adoption of formal legislation for poverty relief and, regardless of its approach, was indisputably the first country to assume the ‘principle of public responsibility’ for poverty, to quote Edith Abbott (1938: 260). In contrast, Italy has been one of the slowest of the industrialised countries to accept the role of so-called ‘legal charity’ and to institutionalise public solidarity for the poor. At the same time, Italy is generally looked at as the archetype of a social protection model centred on informal and ‘spontaneous’ channels of solidarity, first and foremost those provided through family and kin relationships, whereas the British model is often depicted as centred on an alleged culture of individualism and self-reliance. Investigating the roots of the apparent, almost mythical, opposition between the Catholic roots of a charitable and ‘humanitarian’ compassion and the ‘disciplinary’ state of poor repression is one underlying objective of this comparison. This book will illustrate that, in spite of their divergences in terms of outcomes, both countries present common characteristics, among which is the historical transition from the physical repression of poverty to its prevention. While the overall theme of the book is the moralisation of poverty, these two cases, with their different past and present approaches to poor-relief actions, provide an interesting key for analysing how different underlying cultures and moralities of solidarity may inform public policy actions and collective solidarity in different ways.

The moral and social bases of solidarity

An important aspect of this book is the resilience of moralising discourses on poverty and solidarity in the public sphere concerning political narratives, public opinion and the scientific world alike. The recurrent and cyclical re-emergence of knowledge frameworks centred on assumed distinctive traits on the part of the poor are perhaps the most indicative element of the never-ending story of their moralisation. Even in the second half of the twentieth century, for example, scientific accounts of poverty would frequently base their interpretations on assumed ‘moral’ and ‘cultural’ characteristics of the poor. One of the most popular sociological studies on the Italian social system, Edward Banfield’s The Moral Basis of a Backward Society, advanced precisely this idea. Famously, Banfield attributed the diffusion of ‘backwardness’ and extreme poverty in the pseudonymous Montegrano – a small Italian village where he conducted his field work – to the villagers’ ‘inability to act together for their common good … transcending the immediate, material interest of the nuclear family’. Such an inability, Banfield contended, was essentially derived from the population’s ‘cultural, psychological and moral conditions’ and, in particular, from their inscribed ‘ethos of amoral familism’ (1958: 9–10). Similarly, but in a completely different context, Oscar Lewis’s (1959) anthropological work on the relationship between poverty and an alleged ‘subculture’ of deviance among Mexican families is another example of the persistence, in contemporary times, of scientific paradigms centred on cultural and moral modes of behaviour of the poor and their assumed origin in the familial context.

It is true that, with critiques evidencing...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• List of figures
• Acknowledgements
• 1. Introduction
• PART I: The moral background of poor relief and solidarity in public policy
• PART II: Narratives of deservedness
• PART III: Insiders and outsiders
• References
• Index