SECCION CARTELES PAGADOS
DECLARATORIA DE HERENCIA
Interviewees’ reluctance to use their benefits for anything deemed as non- essential means that they denied themselves opportunities to improve their quality of life. For example, one interviewee noted the reluctance to attend mindfulness classes due to fears of spending benefit entitlement. Another interviewee discussed ideas of spending responsibly; linking back to debates of what is deemed as ‘appropriate’ behaviour for claimants:
‘I don’t go out and buy fags and drink and drugs and I won’t got out partying. I actually invest it. The way I look at it is that I’ve invested it in my home, so I’ve got a prettier environment to be depressed in. That’s my saying. I’ve just got a prettier environment to be depressed in’ (Ruth).
The idea of spending ESA financial support ‘responsibly’ or acting as ‘responsible citizens’ linkswith debates around ‘shirkers and scroungers’ (Garthwaite, 2011). This was noted by Ruth when rejecting ideas around irresponsible behaviours of benefit claimants. This, therefore, raises questions around what is deemed as responsible behaviours and how this varies between those who are employed or receiving welfare support. As discussed earlier, the element of reciprocity impacts this distinction. Those who are perceived to contribute have the ability to increase their standard of living, whereas numerous factors influence the standard of life for those who are reliant on ESA. This is also influenced by government rhetoric which indicates that benefit claimants ‘choose’ to not seek employment, and claiming benefits is instead considered as a ‘lifestyle choice’. This has contributed towards the hardening of attitudes towards those in receipt of welfare support and is discussed in further detail in the following chapter.
Steve, who had a visual impairment and was placed in the ESA SG, discussed this idea in an example from one of his friends who felt like he was unable to go on a holiday:
‘…He missed one of the things; he missed it because he went on holiday abroad, so he told them why he missed it. And they told him you’re not allowed to go abroad when you’re on benefits and so they stopped his benefit because of that. So basically if you’re on benefits you can’t go on holiday’ (Steve).
The idea that you are a more valued citizen if you contribute economically through paid work again risks the citizenship status and equal access to rights of disabled benefit recipients, therefore meaning being unable to be employed not only affects poverty and social exclusion but the ability to engage as a ‘valued citizen’ on the whole.
This section has considered the tensions between claimants’ perceptions of contribution and being responsible citizens. This clearly influenced how claimants felt about themselves and the standard of living they should be entitled to. It was evident that a significant amount of those interviewed felt that the benefit amount was not enough to maintain a good standard of living, minus a few examples where people had described the role that benefits had in supporting a good standard of living. It is important to note that these opinions were exclusive to those who were placed in the ESA SG which offers the highest level of financial support, rather than the lower level given on the WRAG or through mainstream JSA. There was a stark contrast of opinions and experiences on living standards as they were largely dependent on personal situation. It is important to note that often claimants relied on family members for additional financial support which presented another disadvantage for people without family or community networks to support them.
6.6 Conclusion
This chapter has considered interviewees’ perceptions of the rights and responsibilities associated with claiming ESA. It has explored the clear
association between citizenship status and contribution, and the difficulties this entails for those who are excluded or unable to enter the labour market.
Additionally, it considered the barriers to employment that claimants identified as most significant when exploring job seeking and the impact being on out of
work benefits had on claimants’ standard of living. Issues around disclosure and unequal availability of opportunities were key issues for those interviewed despite significant legislation to combat this, such as DDA (1995) and The Equality Act (2010) (see chapter two). There is a clear need for citizenship debates to take into consideration varying means of contribution for those who are unable to enter employment, such as Morris’ (2005) approach, which extends beyond formal paid work. The need to fulfil responsibilities in order to be
entitled to claim ESA is a distinct area of contention for claimants who reinforce the need of ‘giving back’ but are not always able to do so, consequently meaning that the recent increase in conditional welfare arrangements for ESA claimants has the potential to be largely problematic for many disabled people.
The following chapter explores further narratives from claimants with a
particular focus on the stigma attached to being in receipt of ESA and its impact on people’s identities.
Chapter Seven: A Disabled ESA Claimant? Constructing and
Negotiating Identities
7.1 Introduction
The first findings chapter illustrated interviewee’s lived experiences of
experiencing the claims process. It explored how their experiences shaped the way people interacted with the welfare system and began to consider how people negotiate their identities as disabled ESA claimants. The second findings chapter explored claimants’ perceptions of citizenship by considering how interviewees perceived and experienced their access to rights and their mutual relationship to responsibilities. Contribution was identified as a significant element of a claimant’s perceived ‘deservingness’.
This chapter now draws upon experiences from both claimant and KI interviews to explore how claimants constructed and negotiated their identities as a disabled person and an ESA claimant. It specifically utilises Goffman’s (1968) concept of ‘spoiled identity’ and ‘discrediting’ and ‘discreditable’ attributes. It begins by considering broadly how people constructed their identities in relation to their disability and claimant status. A key theme emerged when considering people’s acceptance or rejection of identities in relation to their levels of political engagement. I present a typology which is informed by the relationship between political engagement and identities as a tool for exploring this concept.
The following sections then consider how people continued to negotiate their identities. They explore the role of stigma and shame and, explore how
processes of ‘othering’, normalising impairment effects and avoiding disclosure of claimant status all served as a way that people negotiated their identities. The following section begins to explore how interviewees initially identified themselves and the reasoning behind their constructed identities.