Social Isolation as Stigma-Management: Explaining Long-Term Unemployed People’s ‘Failure’ to Network

Abstract

Social networks play an important role in helping people find employment, yet extant studies have argued that unemployed ‘job-seekers’ rarely engage in ‘networking’ behaviours. Previous explanations of this inactivity have typically focused on individual factors such as personality, knowledge and attitude, or suggested that isolation occurs because individuals lose access to the latent benefits of employment. Social stigma has been obscured in these debates, even as they have perpetuated stereotypes regarding individual responsibility for unemployment and the inherent value of paid work. Drawing on in-depth interviews with 80 unemployed Australians, this article argues that stigma-related shame is an important factor in networking decisions. First, it demonstrates that stigma is ubiquitous in the lives of the unemployed. Second, it identifies withdrawal from social networks and disassociation from ‘the unemployed’ as two key strategies that unemployed people use to manage stigma-related shame, and shows how these strategies reduce networking activities.

Emotional Compliance and Emotion as Resistance: Shame and Anger among the Long-Term Unemployed

“…Interviewees in this study described a welfare system in which stigmatisation and infantilisation were daily realities (see also Peterie et al, In Press). Arbitrary and unbending rules robbed them of agency, and requirements such as attending meetings, participating in education and training, and meeting job application quotas were often experienced as punitive bureaucratic measures, rather than pathways to work.…”

Compulsory income management: Combatting or compounding the underlying causes of homelessness?

“…Stigma may influence the attitudes of “gatekeepers who control access to housing” (Batterham :13), for example by informing property owners’ and real estate owners’ conceptions of “ideal” and “problem” tenants. Equally, it may reduce access to employment opportunities (Batterham ) or contribute to reduced health and well‐being (Peterie et al ; Pascoe & Smart Richman ), which will in turn disadvantage stigmatised individuals as they compete for scarce affordable housing. Again, social policy is an important part of this picture.…”

“…Despite this reality, conditional welfare approaches have seen the circulation and valorisation of pervasive stereotypes, which represent benefit recipients as lazy, morally deficient and ultimately responsible for their own disadvantage (Marston et al. ; Peterie et al ; Immervoll & Scarpetta ).…”

“…; Peterie et al. ), feelings of “stigma, shame and embarrassment” are thus unsurprising (Mavromaras et al. :74).…”

“…This has been reported with respect to the BasicsCard (ERA (Equality Rights Alliance) 2011) as well as the CDC (Mavromaras et al 2019), with individuals on both cards concerned that the cards publicly identify them as welfare recipients. Given the stigma that surrounds so-called "welfare dependency" in Australia Peterie et al 2019aPeterie et al , 2019b, feelings of "stigma, shame and embarrassment" are thus unsurprising (Mavromaras et al 2019:74). Equally, reports of "direct discrimination" as a result of CIM (Mavromaras et al 2019:7) accord with previous research regarding the stigma of welfare receipt (Batterham 2019).…”