Introduction
Bourdieu’s concepts of Habitus, field and capital enable us
to see resistance as the exercise of forms of capital within the pre-defined
rules which set the parameters of effective action in the social world (Bourdieu 1990; Bourdieu and
Wacquant 1992). The idea of capital is
useful as a concept with metaphorical transferability from economics as it provides
agents with forms of currency that enable them to negotiate outcomes for themselves
within the rules of the social exchange.
The interests of the dominant constrain the efficacy of
capital to the extent it reflects the symbolic values prevailing in Habitus and
which are enforced through legislative and administrative mechanisms.
Through exploring the ways in which interests hold varying
degrees of value within the dominant “symbolic value economy” it is possible to
identify the basis of conflict and resistance in welfare contexts. Particularly
in public service relationships in which capital only has efficacy when it
holds symbolic value that is legitimated by the “rules of Habitus”.
The idea of interests as relative symbolic positions within
the field of possible positions within Habitus adds depth to the ideas of
capital because it identifies the symbolic locations of the drivers of behaviour
and attitudes within the fields of social relation. ,
The following analysis explore the forms in which interests
are reflected in the field of symbolic exchanges in employment services and the
way in which self-consciousness of “interests” contributes to conflict and
resistance.
This analysis forms one part of the multifaceted responses
to the research questions:
The research question “what forms of resistance are
exercised by unemployed people?
Is the concept of
resistance a useful heuristic device that contributes to understandings of
people's engagement with work and welfare?
What are the
implications of the nature of people's engagement with employment services for
social policy?
Individuals function within the social economy using
historically/politically endowed forms of capital
Bourdieu’s theory of “structuring structure” involves the
use of the interrelated ideas of Habitus, fields and rules and capital in
social exchanges. Agents occupy roles in these fields and learn the symbolic
value of the rules through their exposure to Habitus. By and large, people
adopt the symbolic values of Habitus automatically during the process of
conditioning. Thus Habitus is dynamically reconstituted in the process of
learning how to be in and part of the world.
Habitus, like the concept of culture, creates our “distinct”
sense of identity, of belonging to time, place and other people. We learn about
the rules that define the parameters of the behaviour that is acceptable,
within the “distinction” afforded by our social position. We learn rules of the games in the various
social fields we encounter, and about how to exercise the forms of capital we
have to negotiate in favour of our perceived interests. Interests reflect subjective attachment to
symbolic values with in the social field.
Rules operate through different dimensions creating limits
on acceptable behaviours. Through
Habitus they inculcate or deposit inherent, intrinsic and tacit knowledge and
rule adherence that create limits to
perceived acceptable behaviour such as the norms and values that inform our
perspective. Rules therefore create some
intrinsic limits to what we do because by knowing the rules, or playing by the
rules, even unconsciously, we help to reproduce the limits on permissible
behaviour. In this way by playing by the rules, we also help to recreate them.
The field of Habitus are governed by implicit rules which
have symbolic power only to the extent they are acknowledge and reproduced
through inter-subjective relations; that is they exist only to the extent they
are socially legitimated and have value in the eyes of others.
For example as Siisianen summarises, economic and cultural capital have their own modes of existence (money,
shares; examinations and diplomas); whereas symbolic capital exist only in the
"eyes of the others". It inevitably assumes an ideological function:
it gives the legitimized forms of distinction and classification a
taken-for-granted character, and thus conceals the arbitrary way in which the
forms of capital are distributed among individuals in society (see Bourdieu
1986; 1987; 1998a; Joppke 1987, 60). P.13-14 (Siisiainen 2003).
Effective action is only resourced using forms of capital
that are valid in any given exchange, whether it be economic, social or
cultural. Capital can only be effectively deployed if it holds currency within
the field of its exchange according to dominant beliefs, ideologies or values.
The symbolic value of the forms of capital is upheld by the
rules that govern the forms of social exchange, such as the law, the economy or
other institutions which can assume a taken for granted nature. Roles and
positions in the social field can be prescribed by the forms of capital agents
possess, that is their symbolic distinctions, and assume varying degrees of
power according to what is “valued”.
What is valued is provided with greatest symbolic power in the form of
dominant interests
Bourdieu, conflict, interests and resistance
The structure of Habitus also takes on external hard
qualities through the institutional expression of the will of dominant
interests such as governments. They are enforced externally and manifestly
enforced by agents and artefacts of the state where rule setting has been
perceived as necessary to control behaviour and to effect eventual changes to
attitudes and beliefs for example is the case with welfare dependence. Consequently the instruments of “discipline”
shift and are subject to specific interventions based on current
interpretations of the nature of social problems.
While the rules of Habitus represent the interests of the
dominant this does not prevent the growth of interests that are counter to
these rules. Where these rules are “alien”
to the interests of the dominated, they can be clearly observed in their
externally expressed forms. Where the
rules are not alien, they are often taken for granted and are harder to observe
except through self-conscious reflection.
Therefore on one hand, agents are endowed with the systems
of meaning which provide the constraints and enablers on the limits of
behaviour, yet on the other, the field of social exchange provides the location
in which struggles over interests are fought. The degree in which individuals
are able to obtain power to represent their interests, locally and
collectively, is dependent on how successfully they are able to mobilise forms
of capital at their disposal.
Bourdieu’s idea of Habitus is a “structuring structure” in
which the reproduction
of social structures is never one-to-one reproduction but extended and creative
reproduction directed by the habitus. Bourdieu 1977). Quoted in (Siisiainen
2003). Habitus is reproduced but also adapted as a
result of conflicts over interests.
As Siisiainen reports Bourdieu’s own response to the
question of how change is possible within Habitus was based on the idea that
conflict was built into society.
But there is also
change. Conflict is built into society. People can find that their expectations
and ways of living are suddenly out of step with the new social position they
find themselves in... Then the question of social agency and political
intervention becomes very important" (Bourdieu 2000, 19). Quoted from P. Sisstenain (Siisiainen 2003).
Application of this
theory to the research
In the analysis of the case studies of this research it is
possible to identify the misalignment of interests between the dominant and the
subordinate to be the location of sites of ongoing conflict. These battles take
place in service contexts in which rules and attitudes (obtained from Habitus)
are mediated through inter-subjective exchanges in which the relative symbolic positions
of different interest are represented by
agents who themselves occupy positions relative to those interests. The outcomes of service exchanges are
therefore co-constructed during the exchanges in which these positions of
interest are mobilised as forms of capital.
In these situations agents mobilise the forms of capital
they possess according to their symbolic value in order to attempt to negotiate
outcomes the better align with their interests. The effectiveness of their
capacity to achieve better outcomes depends on the dynamic interactions that
take place between themselves and workers who are also agents operating according
to the rules which assign the relative value of the forms of capital available.
Rules are interpreted and mediated by workers who exercise
interpretations that vary according to their position within the field of
symbolic relations and their role as agents of the state obligated (at least in
part) to uphold the rules. At the least
empowered extreme their” agency” they strictly adhere to rules and guidelines
because they have to; they mediate the rules with interpretations based on
their values; or they realise and articulate the symbolic values inherent in
the exchange and impress new versions of the rules and advocate for improved
versions of them. They employ the
capital that inheres in the institutional forms they represent to uphold the
rules.
Similarly, rules are interpreted and mediated by service
users who also exercise value based interpretations that reflect their
interests. Using various forms of
capital they seek to find ways to work within the rules to get the best
outcomes for themselves. This involves
the use of various forms of capital, as well as becoming expert at the rules so
they know where the rule boundaries in order to question the application of the
rules in service settings; they mediate the rule interpretations with their own
interpretations and attempt to instil their own values into the encounter. Finally they employ reflexive capabilities in
order to identify the symbolic values of the exchange as a strategy to
manipulate symbolic capital to achieve their goals.
When their efforts are frustrated by the intransigence of
the rules in their service encounters they embark of forms of resistance to try
to get complaints about the rules listened to, complain about discriminatory
treatment and escalate the conflict to symbolic battles between interest groups
and advocates.
There are similarities between workers and service users in
the levels of discretion and resistance which reflect the way in which rules
have articulated as well as symbolic dimensions. The responses of agents are therefore
informed by the position they occupy within the social relations and the amount of power they have to act according to their
own interests. This suggests that the higher the awareness of misalignment
of interests in social life there is more likely to be resistance or advocacy.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Using Bourdieu’s ideas of Habitus, field and rules, capital
the following section explores the interplay between symbolic and hard rule
“structures” as they have appeared in the stories of the research
participants. The analysis pays
particular attention to the ways in which the external rules imposed through
welfare to work are resisted by the research participants, in struggles for
recognition of their interests and which result in conflicts in service
encounters.
The analysis illustrates the ways in which capital is
deployed in these conflicts, and what enables these individual struggles
convert into collective struggles.
Symbolic rules in this research
The field of symbolic relations is predetermined with the
inherited conditions and positions that hold higher or lower value according to
the norms of the day, and the perspective of the agent relative to these norms.
Some of these intrinsic rules over “what is right” were echoed by all the
research participants in their articulation and adherence to social mores of the
work ethic and participation.
They parents were all at pains to describe how busy they
were and the beneficial nature of their social and community activity and how
much work they had been doing, for some at the expense of their children’s
care. Leanne in particular talked at length about how legitimate her
activities were and also that the forms of activity she undertook were of a
socially beneficial nature.
So presently I am attending
weekly ESP ‘training’ sessions where I am advised on how to look for work as I
am considered one of the most employable job seekers. Really!? I am also working approx. one day a week
enjoying doing Project work for a school in partnership with our local health
department and local university. I have
also picked up another short term role for this term facilitating two
orientation sessions at our local TAFE provider. I’m spending at least two full days per week
writing job applications, addressing key selection criteria. Oh, and you know, I’m also caring for my
children! (Leanne).
However, because of the introduction of new welfare to work
measures which changed the external conditions for the parents, they were able
to identify a symbolic shift in their social position based on a new value
associated with single parenting of welfare dependence. This symbolic shift caused the parents to
pursue strategies to restore the legitimacy of the role and to obtain symbolic
realignment of structure with their interests.
For the parents the rules
of welfare to work are in profound conflict with their interests, interests they
readily articulate because of their parenting roles. They observe the ways in which the rules are
designed to change their behaviour and in the longer term their attitudes;
again in which ways they find inappropriate to their circumstances.
While the external rules provide the form in which they
encounter these changes, the parents identify their symbolic source as being
derived from the discourses of the underclass.
Leanne mentions how she feels she is now being treated as “one of those,
the undeserving poor”, while Kelly’s lament draws on the paternalistic
discourse, of tough love, both having as their target, citizens failing to live
up to the right moral standards.
Through ascertaining a shift in symbolic position the
research participants identified a change to the symbolic value of single
parenting. The women to varying degrees were able to articulate the symbolic
conditions they felt were unfairly prejudicing their treatment.
They report shock once they realise they are now classified
as job seekers, rather than parents. Kelly described it “as if someone had
waved a magic wand and the value of parenting had changed overnight”.
The women’s reactions to the stigma they perceive is
informing the view others hold of them
suggests the capacity to reflect on these attitudes, and behave in ways
to counteract them, such as Leanne who goes to great lengths to legitimate her
activities in ways which conform to dominant standards of achievement. She does
not want to be or seen to be part of the underclass, even when she knows the
idea of the underclass is being socially constituted and is not really the way
people in her low income area think or behave.
While this behaviour can be interpreted to suggest they are
inadvertently reifying the dominant idea that being welfare dependent is
negative and therefore contributing to its reproduction, for them it is more
the case they find the new state unjust. This is based on their experience of previous
social conditions in which there were not exposed to the punitive forms of
conditionality, received a liveable level of benefit, and felt more socially
valued because of the legitimacy of their social and community activity.
For Rosie and Leanne who had initially willingly
subordinated their own interests to the extent that this had compromised their
teenage boys safety the indignation at the way their new status informed the
way they are perceived was strong. Rosie also clearly identifies the new
construction of single parenting, and the profound impact this has had on her
personal circumstance. She hates being seen in the queue at Centrelink, a
feeling echoed by all the participants because of the way just by being there
they feel they are being judged as less socially worthy.
The misalignment of symbolic values is reflected in the
rules of “Habitus” which are in a state
of transition as in some cases they encounter aspects of the system that
accommodate their parenting needs in very blunt ways, such as the exemption
from activity over the school holidays, but in other ways, the role is
invalidated, such as when Kelly cannot attend an appointment because she is
looking after a sick child or when she chooses to help the teacher at the
school administer the NAPLAN exam.
Although Habitus might deposit in us expectations about our
social status, Bourdieu acknowledge how changes in these conditions create
grounds for resistance (Siisiainen 2003), as opposed to the acceptance
that is reported by people like Kevin who have not experienced this change.
Kevin ’s story provides an interesting contrast in which mainstream
values are internalised. Because of he has been long term unemployed since he
was in his late teens, he feels lie he has “failed” to live up to social
standards. There are contradictions where
he displays the capability for reflection and objectification of himself; while
contrasting this with the reality and pain of his lived experience and that of others
with whom he associates.
He explains the stigma is there, and that it is deserved
because people like himself have not realised normal social goals. Yet on the
other hand, he knows there are good reasons why he and others with mental
illness and drug or substance abuse have not realised society’s expectations.
He articulates the symbolic lens through which he and people like him are
perceived, at times agreeing with it, but at others being sarcastic about it. There
is indignation at the way he feels he is being labelled, while at the same
time, strong evidence of his internalisation of being a failure
For Kevin there is no
prior more highly values state to return to only an objectified version of the
successful individual informing his outlook and he therefore seems to be unable
to articulate his interests as a state of rights.
Unlike Kevin the idea that single parents should be treated
like “job seekers” has not been internalised by any of the parents.
This way of reflecting on the externally constituted change
to their social position shows how they are conscious of the ways in which the
discourses of unemployment have symbolic power to denigrate “inactive” social roles,
classifications which all the participants, even Kevin who seems to have
internalised his sense of failure, attempt to resist in different ways.
The parents “recognise” their own misrecognition, an idea
that draws into focus Bourdieu’s own ideas on the subject because while he
talked about misrecognition being the source of much social suffering he also
identified the ways in which minorities are complicit in their oppression (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992). The way in which Habitus enables agency or
resistance is an area which Bourdiueu’s theory has often been criticised for being
incomplete (Jenkins 1982; Shusterman 1999; Siisiainen 2003; Jenkins 2010)
but as this analysis argues can best be understood in terms of interests.
In the analysis of the parents stories in particular, they
are actively aware of their own misrecognition suggesting they possess the form
of awareness of the symbolic conditions that are a prerequisite to social
change.
Results in forms of negotiated outcomes; with contributions from workers
and individuals
Levels of mediation – the role of the rules
The frontline of service
delivery is the battleground on which the conflict between the interests of
individuals and authorities are played out.
Whether by intent or not (see for example Barnes and Prior(Prior 2009)) individuals and workers
influence outcomes in the ways they interpret and apply policies and
rules.
The structure of Habitus is
enforced externally through rules that are reinforced by institutional agents
and artefacts of the state. This forms in which rules of Habitus are manifest
in daily life are part of structuring structure, and designed to reinforce the
rule of the dominant. The rules prescribe the limits of acceptable conduct and
are designed to reinforce behavioural patterns that are desirable. Subjects of
welfare conditionality need to know how to play according to these rules otherwise
they risk losing their payments.
These instruments of rule
document prescriptions for conduct AND
provide a resource which the participants access in order to learn more about
the game and how to obtain outcomes that best align with their own
interests.
Despite knowing the rules
there was strong sense of alienation from the rules – they did not reflect
common sense or even the natural sense of obligation or participation –
particularly for the parents who had many other demands on their time. This
misalignment between the rules and their interests becomes the sites of
contestation in their service encounters in which they deploy forms of capital
to attempt to negotiate better outcomes for themselves.
All the participants showed strong knowledge of these hard
rules, particularly those which had changed the external conditions of
permissible behaviour such as the 15 hours of work-based activity and Newstart
benefits.
Those rules that they did not automatically know they
actively researched showing the capacity and tenacity to find out specific
information about their social security rights and entitlements. Knowledge of
these rules provides them with the information they need to assess whether the
way they have been treated by the system is fair or not, and even to gain
extensive insight how the system works.
Mediating the rules
Initially Kelly also exercised her capital and resources to
negotiate better outcomes for herself within the constraints of the system
rules. However, when she realises the hard rules of welfare to work leave her
no option but to spend less time with her daughter, she adopts strategies to
opt out to the best of her capacity. She leaves her home town and a three
bedroom house behind in search of low rent places in other locations. These
opting out strategies run counter to the desired outcomes of policy makers, and
are enabled by the way Kelly deploys her unique assets:
I know that I can make ends meet by going
back to basics, but not everyone is able to live like that. I guess this makes
me fairly unique that I have learnt how to live back to basics and feel
confident that I can do that, whereas a lot of women don’t have the material
independence to survive like that and need to take on jobs to keep their living
standards at a level like that. (Kelly)
She considered her
advantages to be a result her education, adaptability, and the financial and
material sacrifices she was prepared to make in order not to have to compromise
the time she had available to spend with her daughter. The willingness to compromise material
standards of living extended to her moving into a one bedroom converted garage
I’ve got a contact through a friend who has
a one bedroom converted garage cabin place, we were living a 3 bedroom, now we
are going to live in a little cabin, and that won’t compromise our happiness,
and I’ve rather do that than have that lifestyle than live in the 3 bedroom
house where I was having to you know not see my daughter very much because of
that and work long hours. (Kelly)
Kelly’s story shows the
way in which an individual’s capital can be mobilised to different ends, than
for example Leanne’s, within the system rules. Her uniqueness is derived from
the combined value of the forms of capital and how they are deployed in
relation to system rules, which is reflected in her personal confidence she can
live back to basics where others can’t.
In Leanne’s case, this willingness
to conform to dominant value systems of work and participation informs a large
part of the strategies she adopts to mobilise her capital to negotiate outcomes
that align with her interests better. Leanne initially adopted
strategies to change her circumstances to accommodate the system rules, using
strategies to work within the them to her best advantage. For example she
attempted to find ways to get her voluntary work with the school formalised,
upgrade her qualifications and helps her school to establish an
after-school-care program.
While initially
accommodating, Leanne reports weariness, and a change in attitude based on her
long term experiences has caused her to not to accept what she is told about
system rules, especially when she finds there appears to be a level of
arbitrariness to their application.
My attitude has gone from originally trying
at all times to follow directions and do the right thing … to seeing the
situation as a challenge. I listen to
what the ‘experts’ inform me, then check and double check the information. So, I no longer believe what I’m told.
(Leanne)
Leanne discussed how
based on this experience she has learnt how to play by rules that prevent her
from getting in trouble, that resemble the everyday forms of resistance that resistance
noted by Scott (Scott 1986) such as keeping quiet so as
not to cause any further trouble. This
shows the strategies than can be adopted to re-interpret and mediate rules to
serve her interests better, either by actively playing according to the rules
or by playing along. Leanne knows where
hard rules are concerned she can get better outcomes if she learns to adapt the
rules to provide the best fit to her circumstances.
Repeated exposure has taught me to be
respectful and compliant in order to financially survive but to also look for
and use any discrepancies to question decisions. (Leanne)
Influencing the rules through exercise of symbolic capital
Leanne shows great skill
at researching the rules to improve her chances. Knowing the rules contributes
to her social and cultural capital and enabled her to adapt her conditions and
circumstances to get better results. She also learns the more she knows about
the rules, the better she can get them to suit her own interests.
When Leanne researched
the rules to find out her JSCI classification, a task that takes many hours to
complete. she was outraged to find she was classified has hard to help. This
was a category she vehemently rejected as part of her conscious identification
of the symbolic values that consigned her to a category of welfare dependence
as discussed above.
Because she is educated,
and has undertaken her own research in community welfare she is particularly
conscious of the ways in which welfare recipients are negatively construed in
welfare exchanges particularly as reflected in the attitudes of workers. Being
able to reflect on the symbolic power of this category enabled her to develop
more sophisticated strategies to mobilise her capital.
The following example
shows how she deploys symbolic capital to re-align the attitudes of workers
that have left her frustrated. The example is based on an incident where she
was threatened with a participation report for not attending an interview for
another job she was overqualified for. Leanne prepares herself to attend the
office dressed as if for the job interview, in order to garner for herself the
respect she feels she won’t be given if she had not adopted the dress code of
the employed.
So
… rocked up to the JSA Monday morning, dressed as if for an interview, asked to
speak to the worker (who was away) and ended up talking to the manager. I briefly explained why I was there and this
is where she ‘implied’ I’d be risking participation failure. I bluntly asked who’s decision that was and
was told it was up to her discretion.
THIS
time though … I was prepared, asked for 10 minutes of her time, sat down with
my job application folder and professionally went through my qualifications,
explained (again!) the type of work I was currently doing (even though I’m
still classed as unemployed) and went through (and showed evidence of) all the
jobs I had applied for and intended to apply for. That’s when she made an appointment for me
with HER manager and I went through the whole process again.
I
left the second appointment feeling confident, went and brought a take-a-way
coffee, hopped into my car and cried. I
think it was stress relief. (Leanne)
Mobilising symbolic capital in this way enabled Leanne to
negotiate a better outcome for which she rewarded herself by buying a large
coffee. At the same time the emotional duress she reports provides an
indication of the symbolic violence involved in her awareness of her
misrecognised state; it causes her pain to have to go such great lengths to be
recognised.
This dramatic example shows how important it is to deploy the
right forms of capital in conflicts in social settings, particularly in the
welfare exchange. Being able to deploy symbolic capital has enabled Leanne to
obtain temporary respect and respite from the ongoing surveillance of welfare
to work administrators.
This example also illustrates how to being able to identify
the symbolic conditions governing the field of social relations can play a
significant role in securing better outcomes for agents. Leanne shows great
skill at being able to identify and articulate the ways in which the symbolic structure
of Habitus limits her options, particularly in the service relationship where
she is able to anticipate the inter-subjective interpretations that will be
formed from what some might consider minor details like her dress.
This knowledge was not unique to Leanne, Rosie too spoke of
the efforts she made to ensure her CV and job search files were presented
professionally, so that she appeared ready to work and organised in interviews.
She mentioned these as deliberate strategies she employed to garner better
outcomes from service exchanges.
While many of the intrinsic rules of soft structure Habitus
are followed automatically, upon reflection their symbolic power can be
articulated and mobilised effectively as capital to influence outcomes in
social exchanges. Through reflection and articulation they take tangible forms
which can become the subject of contestability through individual and
collective struggles for recognition.
Leanne’s experiences illustrated the importance of knowing
how to deploy capital effectively according to its symbolic power. As someone
whose interests a poorly represented within the framework offered by welfare to
work her strategies form part of an ongoing struggle to have her poorly
recognised interests better represented. The core struggles identified are for
better recognition and accommodation for the role of parent which has been
subordinated to the new and externally upheld rules of qualification for parenting
payment.
Kelly: exiting and conflict
However both strong
knowledge of the rules and the field of symbolic relations, does not guarantee
success on the field it often in fact led to more conflict in service
exchanges,
Kelly also was able to
anticipate the symbolic qualities of her service exchange and reason courses of
action to optimise her outcomes. This capacity was demonstrated by all the
participants with varying degrees of self-consciousness.
However, Kelly’
experiences also show how the limits to the effective mobilisation of capital
are mediated through street level encounters.
She finds the rules regarding participation reports that involve the
threat of withholding her payment unfair and unreasonable. Her stance on this
places her in immediate conflict with her worker where the relationship
deteriorates to the point that Kelly feels she cannot go back.
The rules in question
have denied her the right to attend a sick child or refuse an appointment that
was not an official requirement and upon investigation she learnt that these
requests had been discretionary, and that in fact, her worker had been wrong,
according to her employer, to make these decisions.
Before the matter had
been resolved however, Kelly’s outrage had been fuelled to the extent that she
advised Centrelink she was moving so she could change her provider, in advance
of the dates of her actual move and avoid her next appointment scheduled for
the day following the interview. Like
Leanne, by knowing this system rule, she was able to play the system rules to
get better results for herself. Being
expert at the system rules provides welfare subjects provides them with more
resources to know what rules to play by, for example to play by the rules, play
along, or as in Kelly’s case, to get around them because of the social and
economic mobility.
Kelly
reported that for her, the removal of this one hostile worker was a significant
enough victory for her to feel vindicated, despite her consciousness there were
potentially literally hundreds of other people experiencing the same conditions
because of the rules of welfare to work.
In her case she was able to achieve re-alignment of her interests by
pursuing the incident to its ultimate form of negotiated interpretation by
involving the most senior personnel in the review, but it took great personal
perseverance to escalate the issue to that level that only her unique capital
assets enabled.
Low capital
In contrast, Kevin who
lacks capital to the extent he is unable to stay in the line long enough to
claim the right form of benefits, and to correct mistakes in Centrelink’s
paperwork, provides an illustration in which lack of capital can have a
negative impact on service outcomes.
Kevin’s opting out
involves responses he notes as “crashing” that is disengaging mentally, when
waiting in Centrelink queues or seeing other service providers. This
involuntary opting out involves losing presence because, as he repeatedly
emphasised, the point of the system is not really to respond to the needs of
the “unworthy” rather than to keep them active and jumping through hoops in
order to “deserve” welfare. While Kevin is unable to locate the source of the
stigma he frequently mentions in actual treatment he has received, he is able
to locate it as present within discourse. He cannot go further to explain
why or how this affects him, and others
like him. It’s effects are like those suggested by Honneth (Honneth 2004), are to reinforce the
self-loathing with which he approaches service encounters, and the low
expectation that services are actually there to help people like him.
Capital then is important
in welfare settings as it contributes to how effectively the individual is able
to negotiate outcomes that align with their own interests. The possession of
this capital is dependent on the outcomes of a two way exchange however, and
only validated inter-subjectively if for example the corresponding worker,
acknowledges the symbolic power of that capital, and has the inclination or
discretion to adapt their responses.
Co-construction of rule application and discretion
The incidents discussed above showed the importance of the
inter-subjective interpretations of workers to the outcomes in welfare
exchanges.
The orthodoxy regarding street level bureaucrats and
discretion is that it is mediated by the cultural situatedness of workers, and
their perceptions and attitudes towards the deservingness of their clients.
Research into the employment service street level workers
has shown that this discretion has been progressively eroded as system rules
have become more and more detailed and proscriptive, to the extent this is now
a major concern within the employment services sector (see for example (Ziguras, Considine et al. 2003;
Ziguras 2004; McDonald and Marston 2005; Nevile 2008; Considine, Lewis et al. 2011).
The behaviour of employment services workers is also subject to hard rules they
must follow, and reinforced through monitoring and surveillance which leaves
them challenged to exercise discretion in most contexts.
Querying the rules has
the effect of creating conflict in service encounters, a problem widely
reported by the participants who have found a high level of defensiveness in
both Centrelink and Employment service provider behaviour as a result. This defensiveness is a result of the
requirement for these workers to implement rules according to strict guidelines
and therefore to guard the interests of the authorities they represent. As their application of the rules was under
scrutiny it is understandable they should occupy a position in which their
actions stand up to external examination.
There
is an inherent tension here between whose interests workers serve which
reflects the way in which employment service design is weighted towards
assuming there are high levels of work avoidance amongst job seekers, as
opposed to being weighted towards being there to support their needs. The irony
of this was reflected by both Leanne and Kelly who experienced only hassle and
no help.
Symbolic reinterpretation of the rules
Interestingly however, while system documentation is highly
prescriptive there are areas in which workers are allowed to apply discretion
in relation to decisions to lodge a participation report. They can lodge a
participation report when they are not satisfied the job seeker has provided a
valid excuse, or evidence of sickness for example. Rules are always applied in
dynamic contexts involving a worker’s subjective interpretation of the rules
and of the intentions of the person with whom they are working.
The rules are based on assumptions of work avoidance which
reinforce the symbolic value of job seeker social position. The ways in which this weighting is played
out in the dynamic intersubjective relations between workers and clients
illustrates how the conflict between interests between agents and authorities
is constructed in a two-way exchange of views between workers and clients.
Kelly
clearly felt the judgements of her employment consultant were mediated by that
worker’s attitudes particularly because the participation failure was based on
a judgement of welfare avoidance, behaviour that belongs to the symbolic
category of welfare dependent. She like
Leanne went to great lengths to correct this interpretation which she perceived
had been influencing decisions in service encounters. However despite a CV that
made her more qualified at the type of work than her consultant, she was not
able to effectively influence the worker to be more flexible as Leanne had.
The
worker exercised intransigence towards her interpretation of the rules that
caused the conflict in the service relationship to escalate, and which made
Kelly exit the situation. This example indicates how different outcomes can be
achieved in similar situations because of the different roles and positions
agents and workers occupy within the social field. This worker’s interpretation
of the field of did not enable Kelly to get better alignment with her interests
whereas it had for Leanne.
While
it did not serve Kelly’s immediate interests, her willingness to escalate her
complaint eventually resulted in the incidents which caused her distress being
investigated by the employment service agency.
The investigator who interpreted the events decided that appropriate
weight should have been given to her excuses and greater recognition of her
parenting commitments and professional background. The worker who had refused this recognition
was dismissed.
Mediating the rules
Workers do have some discretion over their work. They have
the option of lodging a contact report instead of a participation report and it
is up to the judgement of the worker whether they believe the job seeker has a
reasonable excuse. This permits a significant degree of discretion to operate
in this exchange which has been left deliberately open for the workers to
exercise judgement about “validity” of excuses, and to assess avoidance type
behaviour.
The perception of service users that discretion in relation
to participation failures is inappropriate suggests they hold concerns that
individual bias enters into the equation, a view mentioned by Kelly in
particular.
Well I was on the phone for an hour and a half, thinking my payment’s
suspended, I’ve got no money to pay rent, or feed my daughter, this is all through one decision from this
one lady who is quite honestly does not like me. How can one person have so
much power? I was really stressed. I was shaking in my body, for a moment
For
Kelly there was a clear difference between the way in which workers were
required to administer system rules by following scripts at Centrelink to the
experience with her employment service consultant. The contrasting view from
the participants can be explained by the shift in control from the safety of a
knowable and documented system, to decisions based on worker assessment of the
validity of activity or excuses. If as
was this case in Kelly’s experience, the worker gets it wrong, there is an
immediate loss of trust and feeling of being unsafe.
The
lack of trust is an issue that has been identified elsewhere, as the
relationship between job seekers and workers has shifted from one of helping to
hassling (McDonald and Marston
2005; Marston and McDonald 2008), backed by threats to financial security which is already
a significant cause of concern for the women.
This
situation is not helped about the high level of contestability over the
definition of “reasonable excuse” regarding a participation failure where the
research participants believed the subjective interpretations of their workers
were also weighted towards the assumption of work avoidance which because, in
many cases, this is what is required by their employers. The participants gained this view about the
assumption because of the ways in which they observe themselves having become
to be constituted as job seekers and welfare dependents.
Participation
failures are subject to investigations by Centrelink personnel who pursue a
script to evaluate whether the job seeker had an excuse for non-participation
which consists of a long list of possible variables relating to the
individual’s personal circumstances.
During this process job seekers disclose information to Centrelink staff
they may not have to their employment service agency, or which they did
disclose but found it was dismissed as unsatisfactory.
Centrelink
impose a high rate of overturn of employment services decisions based on this
information which indicates a more “disinterested” process of investigation
that is not weighted so highly on the assumption of work avoidance, but of
social security law and entitlement.
This area of discrepant interpretations of the two agencies is the area
of ongoing negotiation and investigation by the agency authorities because of
the ways in which conflict is escalated from the employment services agencies
to Centrelink causing the latter to shoulder a high workload of investigations. Based on this analysis however, it is
unlikely they will resolve these discrepencies until their workers are basing
their judgements from rules informed by the same interests.
Complaints
Complaints processes are
a feature of employment services and Centrelink systems design and a formal
channel through which welfare recipients can challenge decisions about their
treatment. However, the existence of the mechanisms does not guarantee the
participants in this research confidence their complaints will be resolved to
any degree of satisfaction.
Although designed to
provide a safety mechanism for service users, complaints processes do not offer
them much comfort their interests will be represented or legitimated. The
symbolic way in which the employment services system was stacked against the
interests of the women was also evident in the way they reported what happened
if the escalated complaints.
Claudia for example, who
following the becoming a widower, has been frustrated by apparently arbitrary
nature of a 30 hours a week participation requirement that applies to her
circumstances, feels the need to exit her service relationship because of the
hostility and rudeness she experiences.
She made her complaints
known but at each tier of the complaints processes, found the rules would not
be changed and continued not to suit her interests. Like Leanne, she was
obliged to take job offers for jobs she was overqualified for, and if she
didn’t she was threatened with participation failures she could not afford
since NewStart was already below her fortnightly costs.
For Claudia, although she
tried to change provider, she was not permitted to and was obliged to endure
returning to the same provider who had been disrespectful towards her. This
contributed to her sense of having lost control of her own circumstances, and
the depression and anxiety that made her
feel like she couldn’t cope.
When Rosie complained,
she was told she should get off welfare if she did not like her treatment by
the manager to whom she had escalated the complaint. While this is the only option for all of the
parents if they do not want to be subject to the rules welfare conditionality
it illustrates a high level of hostility from a service provider who is actively
guarding the interests of the state and reinforcing the low regard in which
“society” holds people on welfare.
Kelly moved house again
so she does not have to go back.
Which is why I’ve sort of like thought oh
well I’ll leave because then I can deal with the complaints, because then I
don’t have to go back in there, and there’s also the anxiety of going back into
it, it becomes a hostile environment.
From the distance of her
new location Kelly felt it was safe to prosecute her complaint, because she
would not be subject to ridicule or hostility at future service exchanges at
the employment service. Her view that this was how she would be treated was
based on her experience practicing as a psychologist, giving her insight into
the attitudes and perspectives she anticipated in her workers. Unlike Leanne,
she felt it was pointless to pursue any further relations with them and that
the best outcome for herself was to exit.
Emotions such as being offended results in behaviours for social change and
new social movements
The contrast the parents experience
between a state lost, and one to which they wish to return may underpin the
strong sense of injustice they have experienced. However, the struggle is not
only to change hard rules to obtain better alignment with their own interests
but through collectivisation, the parents seek to change social attitudes so
that single parenting is treated with greater legitimacy at political and
administrative levels. That is they
consciously seek to change to field of symbolic relations they perceive informs
the ways in which they and parents like them are being treated.
Rosie for example
proposed the introduction of parent specific services an idea she had developed
based on her observations about the anti-discriminatory measures that had been
provided for people with disabilities and “multiculturalism”. She felt the provision of “culturally”
sensitive services would protect single parents from the discrimination and
prejudice they encounter in social contexts because of the negative social
attitudes about them.
For the parents involved
in this research their strategies to protect their interests converted from
frustration into forms of advocacy as they found no scope for the satisfaction
within the system rules. There was an
emotional driver behind this transition to advocacy and collectivisation. This
harm and the indignation that is apparent throughout their stories indicates
the points at which there is transition from a struggle for personal
recognition to drive the motivation to engage in advocacy and collectivisation.
When the participants spoke
about their indignation at the humiliations they experience they were angry at
the injustice of the arbitrariness they encountered against their sense of
entitlement to fairness and recognition of their role as parents. The greatest indignation
is reserved for the ways in which the system settings diminished the value of
caring and were based on an assumption of inactivity of moral decrepitude.
When
the emotional side gets in it makes me feel incredibly, incredibly worthless
and angry that the government and the world - that they can do this to a women when we do
everything we can for our kids, we put our kids first.. It's just unfair that
society does this full stop. (Rosie)
The research participants
were asked about their interest in advocacy, and in all cases, indignation has
driven them to seek ways to vocalise their concerns about the policy settings
to which they are exposed including through participation in this research. Three
of the four participants in this research were recruited via a Facebook Group
(SPAG) which is providing the venue for the collectivisation of action by
parents wanting to fight the government’s policy settings for single parents.
Through the strength of
her social networks, Rosie like the other participants feels a responsibility
to advocate on behalf of others and feels that social change will come about
when the rest of the community get offended.
They need to get offended about what’s
happened and feel what I’ve been feeling all these years because I think once
they get offended they’ll start making noise and getting some change happening.
(Rosie).
Their opposition to the
new identity of job seeker and welfare dependent results in the women
progressing their resistance in service encounters and complaints, to social
advocacy and collective action as they seek to reclaim the legitimacy the role
of single parenting held previously. In
this respect their struggle is about restoring the status of single parenting
and to re-legitimise the idea that dependent people deserve to be supported
properly by the welfare state.
Conclusion resistance
In the way these
struggles have been documented in this research it is possible to see in motion
historical processes which enable the transition of external “alien” rules, to
rules that change to reflect the historically contingent dominant interests of
the moment. The example offered by the
parents is one where rules are in transition; new external rules in the form of
changed eligibility and participation requirements imposed a symbolic change in
status that had not been absorbed into “Habitus” in the form of inherited
expectation.
This point about changes to external circumstances is
particularly relevant to the experiences of the women involved in this
research. The kinds of transition identified in this context does not occur
without resistance or struggle as the analysis has indicated. The parents do
not willingly subordinate their interests, nor become complicit in their own
oppression.
On the contrary because minority interests provide the
source of ongoing conflict, access to forms of capital, including digital
capital, enable individuals to embark on behaviour to change external rules and
intrinsic structures of discrimination and domination. The participants’
responses to welfare to work involve them in the engagement with both forms of
resistance as they seek change the rule settings and the attitudes informing
them.
This analysis concludes the interrelated concepts of
Habitus, field, rules and capital are useful heuristics for describing the
dynamics of social exchange in welfare settings. It also identifies the ways in
which agents can act within these dynamics to facilitate change to actual
structures of Habitus so that the interests of minorities are better
represented.
The street level sites of
the external enforcement of new and oppressive rules provides fields in which
trans-historical struggles for recognition and domination are enacted. The
analysis has shown conflict and resistance arise when individuals whose
interests are not satisfactorily represented within the prevailing context of
rules.
By exploring the way in
which conflict between interests informs street level exchanges, and the
struggle between symbolic positions in the field of social relations between
the dominant and subordinate, it is possible to build understand of the causes
of resistance in employment services contexts.
The implication for
individual’s engagement with employment services is that this conflict will
endure until they feel that services are there to actually help them rather
than impose rules that are contrary to their own perceived interests. Rules
which reflect the policy makers desire to control and change behaviour of
agents who do not actually conform to the symbolic construction of the social problem
will to be experienced as unjust and provide the source of conflict.
References
Jenkins, R. (1982).
"Pierre Bourdieu and the reproduction of determinism." Sociology
16(2): 270-281.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Hi there, comments on this blog are moderated, don't let it put you off just make sure they are appropriate. Thanks!