Housing and the new governance of conduct

133

113

Social injustices, structural and personal crises as well as intensifying stress on some citizens seem increasing preoccupations in contemporary society and social policy. In this context, the concept of vulnerability has come to play a prominent role in academic, governmental and everyday accounts of the human condition. Policy makers and practitioners are now concerned with addressing vulnerability through an expansive range of interventions. As this special issue draws attention to, a vulnerability zeitgeist or ‘spirit of the time’ has been traced in contemporary welfare and disciplinary arrangements (Brown, 2014, 2015), which now informs a range of interventions and approaches to social problems, both in the UK and internationally. As prominent examples, ‘vulnerable’ people are legally entitled to ‘priority need’ in English social housing allocations (Carr and Hunter, 2008), vulnerable victims of crime are seen as requiring special responses in the UK criminal justice system (see Roulstoneet al., 2011; Walkgate, 2011), ‘vulnerable adults’ have designated ‘protections’ under British law (Dunnet al., 2008; Clough, 2014) and vulnerable migrants and refugees are increasingly prioritised within international immigration processes (Peroni and Timmer, 2013). There is a long tradition in the field of social policy of critiquing the implications of particular concepts as mechanisms of governance, from poverty (Townsend, 1979; Lister, 2004) and social exclusion (Levitas, 1998; Young 1999) to risk (Beck, 1992; Kemshall, 2002) and resilience (Ecclestone and Lewis, 2014; Wright, 2016). Yet while vulnerability seems to be one of the latest buzzwords gathering political and cultural momentum, critiques and empirical studies of how it is operationalised in different policy and practice contexts are less well elaborated.

Section: Vulnerability and Social Controlmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Many Faces of Vulnerability

Brown¹,

Ecclestone²,

Emmel³

2017

133

113

“…Individuals therefore need not be assigned to either powerful or powerless groups (Thompson, 2007), rather they simultaneously undergo and exercise power (Foucault, 1980). Empowerment work with families may consequently necessitate a detailed consideration of networks of power within the family (Tew and Nixon, 2010), and an awareness that 'empowerment cannot be shared equally across a family with multiple difficulties' (Adams, 2008: 105), but also surrounding the family, as communities become part of the broader governmental project of developing autonomous and self-regulating citizens (Flint, 2006). Rowlands (1997) advocates the consideration of gendered power relations within any model of empowerment, combining critical social theory and social psychological perspectives to explore the ways in which internalised oppression creates barriers to women's exercise of power.…”

Section: Thinking About Empowermentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dimensions of Family Empowerment in Work with So-Called ‘Troubled’ Families

Bond-Taylor¹

2014

The Troubled Families Programme has provided an impetus for interventions with families with multiple disadvantages. This article identifies the prevalence of a government discourse of 'empowerment' around such interventions, which fails to reflect the contested nature of the term.Qualitative interviews with families supported by the programme and their keyworkers offer an insight into their experiences and a valuable alternative to government rhetoric. It is argued that government discourses equate 'family empowerment' with responsibilisation, seeking to reduce the resources deployed in supporting families whilst strengthening state power to define acceptable forms of family life. By contrast, family and keyworker discourses of 'empowerment' are founded in the redistribution of resources towards such families, advocacy strategies, psychological support and an understanding of power relations within and beyond families, which enable families to resist specific attempts at the exercise of professional power, albeit remaining subject to a more general exercise of state control.

“…Researchers have pointed out New Labour's emphasis on regulating citizens' conduct by way of conditions and sanctions (Rose, 1999(Rose, , 2000Deacon, 2002Deacon, , 2004Crawford, 2003Crawford, , 2009Flint, 2004cFlint, , 2005Flint, , 2006aFlint, , 2006bFlint, , 2009Rodger, 2006). For example, under Labour, the use of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders and a host of other sanctions designed to regulate individuals (including tenants and rough sleepers), was part of a project apparently informed by popular appeal ('neighbours from hell'), and demands for change from the workers and tenants' groups at the front-line (Flint, 2002(Flint, , 2004a(Flint, , 2004b(Flint, , 2009Flint and Nixon, 2006;Rodger, 2006;Squires, 2006;Squires and Stephen, 2005).…”

Section: The Role Of 'Behaviourism' For Policy and Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

Conditionality and Homelessness Services; ‘Practice Realities’ in a Drop-in Centre

Dobson

2011

This article provides insights into the client−practitioner interaction, as understood through the eyes of those working at the front-line in a Drop-in Centre for homeless clients. Through a case-study analysis of 'official' techniques and informal approaches, it is argued that conditional practices are present in contemporary support practices. However, the picture is fragmented, with practitioners arguing for, but also deviating from, conditional strategies that aspire to shape client behaviour. Choices about appropriate responses are occasionally permeated by 'top−down' policy messages that aim to responsibilise and generate change in clients. However there is evidence of 'bottom−up' drivers informed by experiences of working with clients at the grassroots. These 'practice realities' shift an analysis of conditional tactics from just a moralising and disciplining approach, and suggest a more complex set of events at the front-line. Insights add to ongoing commentary about an apparent policy emphasis on rectifying the behaviour of citizens at the sharp end. Conclusions highlight the role of complexity for understanding therapeutic and disciplining elements in policies and practices. Such debates are especially relevant where they connect to the care and control of individuals understood by practitioners as both transgressive and vulnerable.