Welfare Convergence, Bureaucracy, and Moral Distancing at the Food Bank

Abstract

This paper seeks to extend geographic thinking on the changing constitution of the UK welfare state, suggesting the need to supplement ideas of the 'shadow state' with an analysis of the blurring of the bureaucratic practices through which welfare is now delivered by public, private and third sector providers alike. Focusing on the growing convergence of the bureaucratic practices of benefits officials and food bank organisations, we interrogate the production of moral distance that characterise both. We reveal the ideological values embedded in voucher and referral systems used by many foodbanks, and the ways in these systems further stigmatise and exclude people in need of support. Contrasting these practices with those of a variety of 'ethical insurgents', we suggest that food banks are sites of both the further cementing and of challenge to the injustices of Britain's new welfare apparatus.

Food banks and the production of scarcity

“…We should note here that we also encountered incidents when managers and volunteers in both Trussell Trust and independent food banks acted "outside of the rules": giving food to those without a voucher or to someone who had already exceeded the allocated number of visits; issuing vouchers on the spot; or "twiddling the figures" in their data returns to the Trust so the food bank did not exceed the number of vouchers it was allowed to assign itself, for example (see also May et al, 2019). Yet, these individual acts of "subversion" were themselves rationed according to perceptions of moral worth and deservedness and, while enormously beneficial to the individual client, do nothing to challenge a system of rationing itself.…”

“…The affective and emotional as well as material effects of these cuts have now been well documented (for a review of work by geographers, see Hall, 2019) but it is worth summarising something of their nature and scale once again. Under the auspices of austerity, Coalition and Conservative governments instigated a freeze on public sector pay (affecting over five million people); capped, scrapped, froze, or reduced the value of 45 welfare benefits; sanctioned 3.8 million welfare claimants; and reduced the Revenue Support Grant paid to local government by 77%resulting in cuts to a range of services from education and social care, to third sector welfare organisations, libraries, street lighting, and roads across hundreds of local authorities (Bounds, 2017;May et al, 2019).…”

Towards a geographical account of shame: Foodbanks, austerity, and the spaces of austere affective governmentality

“…Concurrently, it has been noted that the performance of shame in foodbanks does not exist in isolation, with Cloke et al. (2017) conceptualising foodbanks as key spaces for the emergence of alternative ethical dispositions that not only manage shame but also strive to contest it (May et al., 2019; Williams et al., 2016). In building on the insights gained from this body of literature, this paper seeks a deeper and more sustained engagement with shame.…”

“…As well as deforming shame, Gail's acts demonstrate an exercise of “ethical insurgency” at the foodbank (May et al., 2019). In turn, they reveal the existence of a shame–care nexus, where the expression and performance of shame can prompt the emergence of different affective practices that strive to disrupt the spread of shame.…”

“… 7 7 For more on these power dynamics, see Strong (2019) and May et al. (2019); for a broader discussion of the nexus between research, volunteering, and care, see Williams (2016); and for a critical account of the intertwinement of austerity, care, and research methods, see Hall (2017). …”