A Case Study of State‐Level Policymakers’ Discursive Co‐Constructions of Welfare Drug Testing Policy and Gender, Race, and Class

Abstract

Welfare provision is distributed based on determinations of recipient worthiness, commonly assessed by racial‐ and gender‐specific characterizations of the poor as constructed through policy discourse. Social constructions of the poor contribute to the construction of welfare policy discourse and subsequently welfare policy. Welfare drug testing policy raises questions of the co‐constructions of race, class, and gender and welfare drug testing discourses. This case study of state legislators’ discourse on welfare drug testing explores these ideas. Using an intersectional perspective, we examine how categories of race, class, and gender give meanings to policy discourses concerning drug testing of welfare recipients, and conversely, how policy discourses concerning welfare drug testing give meanings to categories of race, class, and gender. We find a move away from explicit racialized and gendered discourse, and toward implicit constructions of race and gender, with a predominant explicit focus on constructions of social class in the characterization of an unworthy, suspect, and deviant poor population. The constructions of race, gender, and particularly social class effectively co‐construct welfare drug testing discourse, which justifies welfare drug testing policy in order to manage the derelict poor.

Poverty for profit: Comparing the former Australian Coalition Federal Government's representations of Coronavirus Supplement and Cashless Debit Card recipients

“…It should be noted that as of 6 March 2023, the Labor Federal Government replaced the CDC with the mostly voluntary SmartCard (remaining involuntary in the Northern Territory, as well as Cape York and Doomadgee in Queensland) [1]. However, the findings of this study remain instructive, as they highlight hostile and anti-welfare recipient discourses that problematise individuals receiving social security payments evident in many Western Anglophone countries [2][3][4] and point to the importance of promoting critical literacy among policy makers, the helping professions, and society generally.…”

“…The findings from this inquiry indicate that governments and policymakers have used discourse to try to establish their own (perceived) moral superiority and to manufacture a dichotomy between the poor and everyone else that rationalises paternalistic and punitive welfare policy while othering the impoverished. Othering is a process that is synonymous with humiliation, ostracism, exclusion, stigmatising, and shame, in which the othered are represented as 'lessthan' [3,57,58]. Policymakers often draw upon othering as a discursive tactic to 'bolster policy discourse' [3], feed into 'discourses of an underclass' [58], and to frame particular groups as 'threats' [57].…”

“…Othering is a process that is synonymous with humiliation, ostracism, exclusion, stigmatising, and shame, in which the othered are represented as 'lessthan' [3,57,58]. Policymakers often draw upon othering as a discursive tactic to 'bolster policy discourse' [3], feed into 'discourses of an underclass' [58], and to frame particular groups as 'threats' [57]. All of these linguistic devices were evident in ACFG discourse.…”

Experiences of child welfare social workers in addressing substance use among maltreated young mothers to prevent child maltreatment

“…Although regulations (e.g. policies limiting lactation support for mothers with positive toxicology reports) are not explicitly racist, classist or xenophobic, the regulations are especially concerning because they amplify health inequities driven by current and historical racism, classism, xenophobia and negative perceptions of unmarried pregnant women (Amundson & Zajicek, 2018; Kravitz et al, 2021; Perlman et al, 2020). Research has demonstrated the decision to screen for substance use during pregnancy is frequently the result of the healthcare providers' social profiling of patients (Kravitz et al, 2021; Perlman et al, 2020; Perlman et al, 2022).…”

“…Although regulations (e.g. policies limiting lactation support for mothers with positive toxicology reports) are not explicitly racist, classist or xenophobic, the regulations are especially concerning because they amplify health inequities driven by current and historical racism, classism, xenophobia and negative perceptions of unmarried pregnant women (Amundson & Zajicek, 2018;Kravitz et al, 2021;Perlman et al, 2020).…”