How a community protects its members from the natural fluctuations of life reflects the values of that community. All of us rely on publicly-funded services and support systems, including pensions, education, and the NHS. It is in all our interests to ensure that this social infrastructure is robust, and that includes social security.
A "cradle to grave" vision of a social safety net frames welfare as a tool of social cohesion. Unfortunately, our system has been distorted, and has become a mechanism for division.
It recasts unemployment, redundancy, and sickness, which most people experience at some stage in their lives, as a source of shame, as the product of poor choices. It seeks to use social security to actively modify the behaviour of individuals, with little consideration given to the agencies with which these individuals must interact. It reinforces the myth that participation in the formal workplace and wealth determine social value. It fails to recognise full-time informal caring as the hugely socially productive work that it is. It strips people of agency and control.
One of the most pervasive and damaging effects of this approach is that it often defines how those who find themselves in need of social security support see themselves. When seeking the advice of our network about social security, people frequently distance themselves from others in the same situation. They feel that they must be seen as an exception if they are not to experience deep shame.
Internalising such a view is shattering to a person’s self-worth, and to the confidence and motivation necessary to meaningfully participate in society. It amounts to an unconscionable devaluation of people that makes us all poorer.
Stigma shapes the design and delivery of social security, reducing its efficacy in tackling the scourge of poverty. It can lead to perverse outcomes such as people feeling shame when they access cheaper, less healthy food, because that is irresponsible, and shame if they access higher quality food, because that is profligate.
The human impact of this is devastating, vividly illustrated in the latest reports from our network. One CAB describes a lady experiencing daily headaches, all over debilitating body weakness and other variable symptoms, deterred from accessing benefit because “she is not badly affected all the time. She worries that there may be an apparent contradiction between her being able to care for her parents but claiming to be disabled herself.”
Another CAB reports of a lady living in a small community afraid to claim disability support as she doesn't want others to know that she claims benefits or anything about her health. Finally, a third CAB describes the intense pressure being placed on a client with learning difficulties to look for work which is inappropriate for him.
So it’s time to consider how to "design out" stigma from our social safety net. We need a countervailing positive vision, one in which all of us as citizens have access to a decent income, and a system which responds in real time to our changing needs without undermining us when we most need support.
Because this is not an academic discussion: every one of us (and our loved ones) has a vested interest here. When things are going well we all like to think we’ll never need social security. "It’ll never happen to me." Until it does.
Erica Young is a social policy officer at Citizens Advice Scotland.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here