The Co-construction of Shame in the Context of Poverty: Beyond a Threat to the Social Bond

Chase, Elaine; Walker, Robert

doi:10.1177/0038038512453796

Cited by 165 publications

(217 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

197

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These are "negative value judgements that construct 'the poor' variously as a source of moral contamination, a threat, an 'undeserving' economic burden, an object of pity or even as an exotic species", for Lister (2004: 10). The practice of 'othering' by people living in poverty has become increasingly well documented in academic literature in recent years (Chase and Walker 2013;Garthwaite 2014;Patrick 2014;Pemberton et al 2016;Shildrick et al 2012;.…”

Section: Foodbank Use and 'Othering'mentioning

confidence: 99%

Stigma, shame and ‘people like us’: an ethnographic study of foodbank use in the UK

Garthwaite

2016

Journal of Poverty and Social Justice

139

150

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Foodbanks and other charitable activities are fast becoming an established part of austerity Britain. This paper is based on ethnographic research undertaken over a two-year period in North East England, exploring the lived experiences of health inequalities for residents in the most and least affluent areas. Findings show how the majority of foodbank users experienced stigma, fear, and embarrassment, which was at times aggravated by representations in ‘poverty porn’ television shows. Stigma could be overcome once people recognised that ‘other people like us’ were receiving a food parcel. Finally, the practice of ‘Othering’ was evident across the research sites.

show abstract

Section: Foodbank Use and 'Othering'mentioning

confidence: 99%

Stigma, shame and ‘people like us’: an ethnographic study of foodbank use in the UK

Garthwaite

2016

Journal of Poverty and Social Justice

139

150

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, stigma may not lead to shame where people identify strongly with the identity in question and contest others' devaluation (Major and O'Brien, 2005), or if people consider themselves a deserving claimant, and that the stigma only applies to undeserving others. This has been documented in both the US (Seccombe et al, 1998) and Britain, where claimants often regard themselves as deserving claimants while complaining about the 'scrounging' of others (Garthwaite, 2014:12;Shildrick and MacDonald, 2013:301;Dean and TaylorGooby, 1992;Chase and Walker, 2013). As we shall see, this has important implications for understanding the extent and consequences of stigma.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The stigma of claiming benefits: a quantitative study

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Stigma has long been viewed by some as essential to discourage excessive claims, yet seen by others as a cause of non-take-up by people in need and as a form of symbolic violence. More recently, there has been a resurgence of interest in the links between shame and poverty (including the role of benefits), and particular concerns about media/political rhetoric in the UK. Yet while our knowledge of benefits stigma has been enhanced by theoretical/qualitative contributions, few quantitative studies examine its extent or patterning. This paper therefore reports the results of a 2012 nationally-representative survey in the UK. It finds sub-types of stigma are reported by 10-19% per benefit, but 34% report either personal stigma (their own view) or stigmatisation (perceived stigma by others) for at least one benefit, and over one-quarter say a stigma-related reason would make them less likely to claim. One-third of claimants themselves report some degree of stigma around their claim. Against the predictions of 'dependency culture' claims, however, respondents in high-claim areas were more likely to stigmatise benefits, both before and after accounting for other factors. The paper concludes by considering lessons for future benefits stigma studies, and policy options to reduce benefits stigma.

show abstract

“…But, second, there is also a refusal to subscribe to the dominant discourse that renders less available the position of identifying as 'poor' (Shildrick & MacDonald, 2013), in part because it has been invested (by prevailing political discourse) with a corresponding affective load of shame (Youngmie, 2012;Chase & Walker, 2012). Third, this speaker is also refusing to identify as the canonical uncertain, doubtful, confessional mother/parent (pace Geinger et al, 2014), perhaps since she assesses that in this context expressing anxieties would warrant further unwanted scrutiny/intervention and pathologisation of 'family dynamics' (in particular of losing custody of children, which is a major underlying anxiety for all poor families, see also Donzelot et al,1979).…”

Section: 'Tell Your Professor We Are Good Mothers'mentioning

confidence: 99%

Subjects of, or subject to, policy reform? A Foucauldian discourse analysis of regulation and resistance in UK narratives of educational impacts of welfare cuts: The case of the ‘bedroom tax’

Burman¹,

Greenstein

Bragg

et al. 2017

EPAA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper draws on material generated from a qualitative study of educational impacts of a British welfare reform affecting housing rent subsidy, size and location commonly known as ‘the bedroom tax’ (Bragg et al., 2015), which was partly taken as a topic for study specifically because of its iconic status as a controversial and unpopular welfare ‘reform’ (or cut). The analysis draws on Foucauldian understandings of subjectification or subject-formation - as elaborated both from within and in relation to the social (Foucault, 1970; 1983; Ball, 1990; Olssen, 2006; Popkewitz & Brennan, 1998), read through new and newly available perspectives (Allen, 2015; Pêcheux, 2014). This approach is applied to discuss how those addressed by educational policy, and also as research participants, are both subject to prevailing political and practice-oriented discourses (of educational ‘problems’, and of the neoliberal frameworks by which poverty and welfare cuts are discussed), but also – at times – how they can become the subject of – in the sense of reformulating – these discourses in their accounts of everyday activities. After outlining our approach and the context for the study, we focus on four examples drawn from the narratives of the various stakeholders in the study – parents/carers, school staff and other community-based organisations as illustrations of how this discursive approach can provide rich readings of relevance to educational policy debates. From these we not only take further discussions of the production and regulation of subjectivities via social and educational policy practices, but also offer indicative glimpses of resistance to this as expressed by those who are its primary subjects, and where in one case such resistance brings our own research commitments under critical scrutiny. As such, the contribution of this article is both topic-related (concerning the educational impacts of policy) but, crucially, also conceptual and methodological, in motivating for a Foucauldian-influenced discursive approach that is sensitive to struggle and resistance.

show abstract

The Co-construction of Shame in the Context of Poverty: Beyond a Threat to the Social Bond

Cited by 165 publications

References 12 publications

Stigma, shame and ‘people like us’: an ethnographic study of foodbank use in the UK

Stigma, shame and ‘people like us’: an ethnographic study of foodbank use in the UK

The stigma of claiming benefits: a quantitative study

Subjects of, or subject to, policy reform? A Foucauldian discourse analysis of regulation and resistance in UK narratives of educational impacts of welfare cuts: The case of the ‘bedroom tax’

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About