A feminist vision of welfare programs as learning communities
By Shauna Butterwick,
University of British Columbia, Canada
Overview of the Problem
A great deal of adult learning occurs within the spaces of welfare programs, many of which are framed by dominant neoliberal concerns with cutting costs and reducing welfare loads. Far from being exemplary adult education environments or learning communities where the lived experiences, knowledge, and specific needs of participants serve as the building blocks for program development, these programs are often cheap, short term and promote the shortest route to get a job, any job. Many IA recipients are poorly served by current welfare programs, but it is useful to focus on the position of single mothers on IA, as it is well understood how central women's role is to economically and socially healthy communities including children's learning.Single mothers on income assistance (IA) are not well served by this approach; indeed they are now positioned as morally suspect and undeserving of public support.
What principles might inform the transformation of neoliberal welfare policies and training programs into adult learning communities that support the goals of equity, economic security, poverty reduction and social justice? The paper begins with a brief overview of the ideology of neoliberalism, then touches on notions of the learning society and concepts of community, before outlining a framework for a socially and economically just post-industrial welfare state that would support the notion of welfare programs as learning communities. It concludes with two examples of welfare programs that reflect the notion of a socially just learning community.
Neoliberalism
Fueled by a neoliberal ideology that focuses on reductions in spending, the privatization of public services, and individual choice, the welfare state in Canada (and other industrialized nations), has undergone major transformations. As governments retreat from providing public services, the market is positioned as the primary engine of change, ignoring and denying the structural aspects of wealth and poverty. Individual success and economic security are seen to be achieved through meritocracy and making good choices. Giroux (2004) outlines how under the individualistic orientation of neoliberalism, social issues have become 'private miseries' (496). He further outlines the hegemony of neoliberalism in its positioning as neutral, apolitical, and un-ideological (Giroux 2005).
This imaginary has targeted impoverished single mothers and significantly increased their marginalization and economic deprivation. While at one time these women and their children were considered deserving of assistance, now they are increasingly regarded as morally suspect and undeserving (Chunn & Gavigan 2004). Neoliberal ideologies in the context of globalization have also induced radical labour force changes that have abandoned worker protections and undermined unionized work sites and rapidly increased low-waged part time jobs where women are the majority of workers. 'Declining welfare state provisions have combined with the total marginalization of many already poor families from the economic market-place to render an underclass not seen in the developed world since the 1930s' (Caragata 2003: 559-560). Neoliberal ideology with its rabid individualism has also undermined communities, that is, an orientation towards interdependence and collective life. Economic gaps between the poor and those more fortunate create exclusive kinds of communities where there is little interaction across these economic borders.
The Learning Society and Community
This neoliberal paradigm contrasts sharply with notions of the learning society or learning community. Griffin and Brownhill (2001) trace the idea of learning society and community outlining three models: cultural, technological and democratic. The cultural model identifies values around learning such as the humanistic approach articulated by Hutchins (1968: 134):'everyone man and woman at every stage of grown-up life, had succeeded in transforming its values in such a way that learning fulfillment, becoming human, had become its aim and all its institutions were directed to this end'. A technological model sees learning as central to 'evolving patterns of life in work, family, community' that is 'made possible by developments in communications technology' (59). Citizenship and participation in democratic institutions and processes are foregrounded in the democratic model. Such an orientation is evidenced in Ranson's (1994: 59) call for 'the creation of a learning society as the constitutive conditions of anew moral and political order [where] the values and processes of learning are placed at the centre of the polity'.
Community is another key concept that offers a powerful counter narrative to the neoliberal agenda. Alexis de Toqueville, a French Count who visited the US in the mid 1800s, noted how groups were naming the problems, deciding how to solve them, and positioning themselves as key actors in their solution, key elements to notions of a learning community (McKnight 1992). More recently, the idea of community has become part of the resistance to the emphasis on individualism and self reliance as noted by Williamson (1998). He conceives of community as key to the good society where 'people can be valued, their autonomy respected, their interdependence acknowledged and their differences tolerated' (95). Like Noddings (1996), he also calls attention to the exclusionary aspects of community and how it can 'become destructive, unable to bear the weight of expectation that the closeness it promises will solve all the problems of the human needs for love, recognition and support" (95).
Towards a socially just learning society
Examining welfare programs as signifiers of a learning society from a social justice perspective expands the vision beyond the narrow goals of 'get a job, any job' to democratic social inclusion wherein the wider goals are “full participation and inclusion of everyone in a society’s major institutions, and the socially substantive opportunity for all to develop and exercise their capacities and realize their choices” (Young 1990: 173). In what follows, an expanded framework is outlined in order to examine how neoliberal reforms reinforce many inequalities, not just economic. Young's (1990) conceptualization of five faces of oppression: exploitation, marginalization, powerlessness, cultural imperialism and violence, is key to this analysis. Exploitation refers to a structural relation wherein some people can only exercise their capacities under the control of others. Marginalization occurs when individuals or groups are excluded, not only from paid labour, but other aspects of social life. Powerlessness is closely related to the previous two oppressions and refers to not having the opportunity to exercise power, of always having to take orders from others, and of being disrespected as a result of one's lower status in various hierarchies. Cultural imperialism refers to how norms reflect the wishes and experiences of the dominant group which leads to the silencing, trivializing and pathologizing of the experiences and perspectives of the oppressed. Violence comes in the form of threats to both person and property including physical, but also emotional assault.
Under welfare reforms fueled by neoliberal ideology, we can see how all of these oppressions work together in powerful ways to maintain the oppression and marginalization of single mothers on IA. A tragic example of how welfare reforms have positioned single mothers as unworthy of support and how access to learning has been criminalized is the case of Kimberley Rogers, an Ontario single mother on assistance who, in the spring of 2001, was placed under house arrest for receiving both welfare benefits and a student loan. She committed suicide as a result (Chunn & Gavigan 2004).
Single mothers on assistance suffer exploitation and marginalization when they are forced to work in the informal economy (such as child minding, prostitution, sweat shops) to bring in extra income (although in many jurisdictions, this is considered illegal). The same problems are linked to workfare orientations that force single mothers to take any low waged job even though their poverty might actually be worsened as result. They are at risk of violence given their poor health, inadequate housing and general lack of security in their lives. They face a form of cultural imperialism that promotes a middle class life style and the narrow notion of who counts as a deserving citizen (tax paying worker). For racialized women, many programs are based on Eurocentric notions of family, community and success and do not reflect their lived experiences. They are often powerless to intervene or declare their needs and perspectives; their resistance to state intervention and regulation and struggles to fight for themselves and their children are portrayed as criminal activities, as was the case of Kimberly Rogers.
To operate effectively in the welfare debates, illustrating how reforms buttress these multiple forms of oppression is crucial, as is the articulation of an alternative vision. Nancy Fraser (1989) outlines how 'welfare wars' will be 'largely about, even against, women' (144) given that they make up most of the clients and the welfare system workers. The fiscal crisis of the state has come together with another long-term structural reality - the feminization of poverty. Feminist welfare activism requires that we recognize that demands for the reinstatement of lost programs are problematic given that 'the benefits they provide are system-conforming ones that reinforce rather than challenge basic structural inequalities' (145). Advocacy efforts must illustrate how some requests end up supporting the dominant regime of 'public patriarchy', while calls to eliminate welfare reinforces 'private patriarchy' (146). Fraser (1997) cautions welfare advocates to recognize how, in a climate of neoliberal reform, individual choice (and blame) is emphasized and how within this ideology 'dyadic relations of mastery and subjection [have shifted] to more impersonal structural mechanisms … [that enables] the reproduction of subordination even as women act increasingly as individuals who are not under the direct command of individual men' (234-235).
Recognizing the complexities of fighting for and against the welfare state, Fraser (1997: 6) brings together the politics of recognition with the politics of redistribution. The former addresses issues of cultural domination, while the latter addresses economic inequality. She emphasizes the necessity of combining these two approaches to create a new gender order based on a complex notion of gender equity. 'We should treat [gender equity] as a complex notion comprising a plurality of distinct normative principles … each of the distinct norms must be respected simultaneously in order that gender equity be achieved'. (45) These norms are outlined in her seven principles: anti-poverty, anti-exploitation, income equality, leisure-time equality, equality of respect, anti-marginalization, and anti-androcentrism.
Anti-poverty, Fraser argues, is 'the first and most obvious objective' and one that is 'crucial to achieving gender equity' (45). 'A welfare state should at least relieve suffering by meeting otherwise unmet basic needs' (46) and preventing poverty would be a major advance in any postindustrial welfare state. As has been noted, cuts to welfare rates and services leave a large gap between the resources required to meet basic needs and what is actually provided. Fraser does not stop with this key principle, however, noting that there is still a danger that antipoverty efforts could exploit or further stigmatize single mothers. These tendencies have been noted in earlier discussions of program components, particularly those that maintain single mothers' vulnerability to exploitation by unmonitored wage subsidy programs and situations where employers use them as cheap labour. To achieve this goal, she identifies the second principle of anti-exploitation and the need for a rights based, not simply needs based approach, one where obtaining support is not based on the discretion or whim of a husband, employer, or state official.
Reducing poverty and exploitation must also be combined with her third principle--income equality--which requires 'a substantial reduction in the vast discrepancy between men’s and women’s incomes' (47), an issue that is urgent given the continued gap between the wages of men and women of approximately 70 percent. Achieving this principle requires, as discussed earlier, active labour market development including pay equity measures and a recognition that there is no compensation at all for much of women’s work. Fraser’s fourth principle focuses on leisure time and the problem of 'time poverty' with more women undertaking both paid and unpaid primary care work. 'The leisure-time equality principle rules out welfare arrangements that would equalize incomes while requiring a double shift of work from women but only a single shift from men' (47-48). As noted earlier, having a well supported publicly funded child care system would help to support this principle. Equality of respect would challenge welfare programs that trivialize women’s activities and contributions exemplified by assumptions that women with children do not work. Much of the recent reforms do not recognize the labour, time and resources single mothers on assistance need to adequately care for children. Closing offices and requiring mothers to travel on the bus to other locations at great distance from where they live is an example of this lack of recognition.
The anti-marginalization principle is Fraser’s sixth point, one that would prevent women’s marginalization and promote women’s participation in all spheres of life, not just paid work, but including politics and civil society. Policies that promote the more equal sharing of the important work of elder and child care and regarding it as a social and not simply private responsibility would help, as would initiatives to bring single mothers on assistance as equal participants to the policy making arena. Achieving this principle requires the 'dismantling of masculinist work cultures and woman-hostile political environments' (48). Her final principle, anti-androcentrism, challenges views that present men’s life patterns as the norm. 'Social policy should not require women to become more like men not to fit into institutions designed for men, in order to enjoy comparable levels of well-being' (49). Much of the emphasis on 'get a job any job' reflects the narrow image of an entry level worker who is young, male and unencumbered by caring responsibilities. Fraser notes that all of the principles interrelate and the nature of their interconnection will depend on the context. 'The goal should be to find approaches that avoid trade-offs and maximize prospects for satisfying all—or at least most—of the seven principles'. (49)
This paper concludes with two examples which exemplify how a socially just learning community is foundational to achieving the mutual goals of poverty reduction and social democratic inclusion. These cases also illustrate the challenges and importance of recognizing multiple forms of oppression and how addressing all of them is foundational to creating a learning community
The Sandy Merriam Women's Shelter, Victoria, B. C.
Between 1995 and 1996, a group of low income and homeless women learned construction skills and helped to build the Sandy Merriam Women's Shelter in Victoria, BC.This project reflects one of the principles that de Toqueville observed at work in the 1830s in the US, that is, the women who were to be served by the housing project also became the active agents involved in building the shelter. It also illustrates how a coalition which included municipal and provincial government ministries and many different agencies (social planning, skills training, housing, victim services) came together to work collectively to support the project. Women on IA and homeless women were invited to apply for the Construction Workplace Based Training Program. Over fifty applicants responded and twenty-one were chosen to participate in four months of classroom instruction, many were single mothers and of Aboriginal ancestry. Twelve of the women were then selected to carry out the six month (extended to seven) reconstruction of the home where the women applied their classroom instruction in renovating the older house, working alongside journeyed carpenters, most of whom were also women.
This multi-faceted project was aimed at women who suffered 'multiple barriers to work'. In the first four months of training, the women upgraded their math, learned how to work in teams, undertook physical fitness and life skills training, and learned some basic construction skills. They also received one-to-one mentoring. A key staff member was a First Nations life skills coach. The women found that the program improved their self-esteem, self-perception, and communication skills, and also increased their sense of the possibility for long-term work. Several moved off social assistance. The Shelter not only housed some of the women upon completion; it also employed some of them. Several others enrolled in a variety of apprenticeship programs at the local College.
While in many ways inspiring, the program faced significant difficulties illustrating some aspects of oppression outlined by Young and the need to go beyond Fraser's first principle of anti-poverty. For example, participants who were the sole care givers of their children had childcare problems associated with the early morning shifts and long hours at the construction site. Other women struggled with recovery from addictions, violence and post-traumatic stress issues. For example, during the project, one trainee, Sandy Merriam, for whom the Shelter is now named, died from an overdose. While Sandy's death motivated the women to finish the house, it illustrated a limited understanding of recovery. There were untimely staff changes and difficulties in accepting how some participants remained in crisis reflecting a limited understanding of participant's marginalization and experiences of violence. Tensions mounted when construction budget and deadlines were not met, an example of how market priorities were imposed on the project. Overall this project illustrated Fraser's principles of anti-poverty as most of the women left welfare and found work that