Fairness and the Politics of Resentment (original) (raw)
Related papers
For Whose Benefit? Fear and Loathing in the Welfare State
Journal of Political Marketing, 2014
This article contributes to the debate on the relationship between marketing and propaganda through an analysis of social marketing as a mode of governing in permanent campaigning. The working hypothesis is that social marketing operations are agitational rather than propagandistic. The conceptual approach stems from a comparison of propaganda and marketing with Fordist and post-Fordist modes of production and governance. The research into the role of agitation involves an empirical study of the UK government campaign against benefit fraud, the most expensive of its kind. Using a combination of methodologies, the political context is framed through a discourse analysis that charts the historical emergence of the problem of benefit fraud and the material effects of this discourse on welfare spending allocation, content analysis is used to identify correspondences between different newspapers’ rhetoric and policy under different governments, and semiotic analysis helps to decode the message of the campaign against benefit fraud, as it relates to the overall government’s strategy on this issue. The study offers insights into the political strategy of the government of New Labour between 1997 and 2010 and its resort to agitational techniques, exposing the limitations of government marketing and public relations in the context of an overall crisis of its political legitimacy, in both economic and political terms.
Critical Sociology, 2024
This article examines the politics of welfare in Britain from 2010 to 2019. Drawing on Gramscian literature, the first section outlines an original framework of the 'divide-and-rule' politics of welfare during the 1980s and 1990s in the United Kingdom. The second section examines the return of welfare restructuring in Britain following the 2008 global financial crisis, focusing on Universal Credit. It contends that a significant escalation of coercive social policies within the social security system undermined previous social antagonisms underpinning the political coalitions of neoliberal welfare reform. Alongside deepening economic stagnation and dislocation exacerbated by austerity after 2010, it argues that this coercive turn intensified an unfolding crisis of legitimacy. The third section examines the politics of welfare amid an unfolding social crisis in Britain. It argues that despite burgeoning socio-political discontent and the emergence of the counter-hegemonic project of Corbynism, 2016-2019 was characterised by an interregnum. With the defeat of Corbynism amid protracted Brexit negotiations, this included a period of political impasse in which popular support for welfare reform, austerity and neoliberalism were in decline, but without an attendant shift in the balance of political forces to advance an alternative hegemonic project. As a result, a deepening social crisis continued to unfold.
Class Inequality in Austerity Britain: Power, Difference and Suffering
Palgrave Macmillan eBooks, 2012
Within the whirlwind of media output which highlights the hardships generated by "austerity", alongside the continued repetition of images of the underserving poor embedded within TV shows such as "Benefits Street", the collection of chapters presented in Class Inequality in Austerity Britain brings to the forefront some of the real challenges and issues which are faced by people living in disadvantaged communities today. Media representations of those hit hardest by the financial crash in the UK tend to introduce the viewer or reader to previously stable and secure middle class households who now struggle to maintain the lifestyle to which they are accustomed. The challenges experienced by disadvantaged communities are the starting point of the discussion which runs throughout this book. In doing so it brings to the reader considered analysis of how individuals and households experience a range of psychosocial harms, within a context of long-term neo-liberal politics. The initial chapter by Atkinson illustrates how across the income scale all households are making adjustments to their daily lives in terms of their ability to meet living expenses. Through the application of Bourdieu's concept of hysteresis (the disconnection between what is objectively possible and subjectively desired), Atkinson demonstrates that whilst all households are altering consumption practices, it remains those within the "dominated class" who are experiencing the greatest distance between their subjective desires and what is objectively achievable. He argues that this results in the experience of not only "economic violence", as they lose their ability to attain their desires, but also the "symbolic violence" which accompanies this loss. This discussion of symbolic violence, the discreet ways in which a particularly pernicious, but subtle, attack is launched at the status of lower income individuals, households and communities, is one of the core themes running through a number of chapters in the book. This ensures that a strong and coherent spine is maintained throughout the discussions (not always the case in an edited text).
Populism, Prejudice and the Rhetoric of Privilege
Nordicum-Mediterraneum. Icelandic E-Journal of Nordic and Mediterranean Studies, 2017
The paper aims to show, by means of a close look at the most recent samples of political discourse in Europe and America, how much and how frequently populists set up their narratives around a relatively small number of patterns, such as the worship of the people, a (more or less) overt appeal to prejudice and the rhetoric of privilege. In so doing, it offers some useful insights into the nature of contemporary populism.
National Case Study: Welfare Reform, Austerity and Social Rights in the UK
In assessing the aims behind one of the most controversial planks of the UK Coalition Government’s welfare reform agenda – a housing benefit penalty for under-occupation, commonly known as the “bedroom tax” - Laws LJ stated that in addition to the perceived imperative of saving public funds, the change was also seeking to “shift the place of social security support in society.” There was no elaboration by the court on what was meant by this “shift:” whether it was from the national to the local, of responsibility and risk to the individual and household level, in the perceived meaning of “fairness,” or to a smaller state. It was merely an indication that there was something more to the “core augmentation” of the “mantra of austerity” than simply saving money. This chapter is focused on how the courts have engaged with this “shift” in the UK.