Punishment springs from the slide between legitimate and non-legitimate dependency

2002 Eureka Prize

Jeremy Moss debunks 'mutual obligation'.

Ethics, politics & mutual obligation

By Jeremy Moss

What would appear to distinguish (in official eyes) the unobligated hospital patient and the welfare recipient is, in part, an importation of specifically moral premises.

Apart from giving something back, there is also arguably a sense that the unemployed should assume particular responsibility for their situation. This is a very important moral motivation for the scheme, and a moral map of the scheme's commitments would be incomplete without considering it.

If we look at the negative side of the public discussion of unemployment, one of the recurring themes in the unemployment or welfare debate is the image of the 'dole bludger'. Take, again, the well known comments of Tony Abbott on the unemployed being 'lazy' or 'job snobs'.

Although this is not yet an official part of government policy, ministers other than Abbott have consistently used language suggestive of 'blaming the victims' for not having succeeded in finding work.

Even the language of the Mutual Obligation scheme has this effect. For instance, the very label 'Work for the Dole' is disparaging, given the connotations of the term 'dole' (notably, 'dole bludger').

This portrayal of the unemployed distorts the very real difficulties faced by many job seekers. It essentially blames the victim for there not being sufficient jobs. As such, it is both unhelpful and insulting to the unemployed.

This sense of moral responsibility assumed by the Mutual Obligation scheme is one of the ways in which the unemployed are both morally and practically separated from other welfare recipients.

What discriminates among the classes of welfare is often not the neediness of the recipients or the seriousness of the social problem. The language used to describe the scheme's goals appeals to moral terms such as self-reliance, reducing dependency, self-motivation and respecting the individual.

Take the example of dependency. The Mutual Obligation scheme assumes that it is not only unfortunate that people are dependent on others, but that there is something morally wrong with this dependency.

Dependence is a situation most people, including the unemployed, do not find desirable. While we might agree that, ideally, everyone should be responsible for many of their own needs and not depend on others, we should be careful to note that the emphasis on reducing dependency by forcing people off social security benefits is actually an emphasis on reducing state dependency.

Consider some other contexts where dependency is acceptable. Children are dependent on their families or relatives, the aged are often dependent on others for care, as are the sick or disadvantaged. We do not normally see these cases as inherently morally problematic.

In the broader welfare sector there are plenty of welfare recipients dependent on the state for benefits who are not subject to anything like the level of condemnation as the unemployed: veterans, pensioners, people on disability pensions, women with children and so on.

In fact, according to a discussion paper released by Senator Newman, the unemployed account for less than one third of the welfare budget. What separates them, it would appear, is the moral premise that they are responsible for their situation in a way others are not (including those with self-imposed injury or illness).

This is, at the very least, contestable. Where there is structural unemployment, the unemployed are no more responsible for their condition than are other dependent groups for theirs.

Goals such as reducing dependency, creating self-reliance and giving something back are all very well in themselves, but there has to be a non-question begging account of why these cases of dependency are bad and others are not.

It is the slide between legitimate and non-legitimate dependency that enables the more punitive welfare policies to gain some of their appeal.

[read more]

© 2001-2005 The Evatt Foundation

Main Quadrangle (A14)
University of Sydney NSW 2006
Tel: +61 2 8090 1170
Fax: +61 2 8090 1171
[Privacy] [Credits]

URL:http://evatt.org.au/news/87.html
Last Modified:Tuesday, 15-Nov-2005 18:29:50 EST

The Evatt Foundation is a LaborNET site, proudly designed and sponsored by Social Change Online.
Please report any site matters to the webkeeper