Responsibilisation at the Margins of Welfare Services

Juhila, Kirsi; Raitakari, Suvi; Hall, Christopher

doi:10.4324/9781315681757

Cited by 44 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In public health, the emergence of welfare diseases has shifted policymaking from protection against externalities to a management of lifestyle that has the mind rather than the body as the object of intervention (Peeters and Schuilenburg 2017). And in social policy, the notion of "responsibilization" (Rose 1996) is increasingly understood in terms of state efforts to manufacture civility and self-efficacy in the margins of the welfare state through 'investment' in vulnerable people (Morel et al 2012;Juhila et al 2017). No matter how different these examples may appear at first sight, they have a common basis.…”

Section: Security and The Government Of Soulsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Smart cities and the architecture of security: pastoral power and the scripted design of public space

Schuilenburg¹,

Peeters

2018

City Territ Archit

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The architecture of security is often thought of in terms of situational crime prevention and defensible space. In this article, we argue that the emergence of smart cities and smart technology compel a broader conceptualisation of the design of security, which has the potential to transform the governance of our urban landscape. Drawing on the case of the city of Eindhoven's "De-escalate" project-in which sound, smell and lighting programming combined with data analysis is used to reduce violence and aggression in the inner-city entertainment area-we show that the securitisation of urban space can also be pursued by positive triggers for behaviour. The case allows us to rethink the architecture of security in terms of pastoral power-Foucault's notion of governing individuals and populations through care and protection. In sharp contrast with more hostile forms of situational crime prevention and defensible space, which seek to "design out" unwanted behaviour by closing off spaces, pastoral architecture is inclusive and provides "scripts" for desirable behaviour in public space. Moreover, this architecture is incorporated and designed into the existing built environment, operates through psychological triggers rather than physical ones, and is principally developed by private companies rather than the state.

show abstract

Section: Security and The Government Of Soulsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Smart cities and the architecture of security: pastoral power and the scripted design of public space

Schuilenburg¹,

Peeters

2018

City Territ Archit

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One can synthetically define responsibilization as the process of shaping autonomous individual subjects who are deemed responsible for the cause (because of their deficient choices) as well as the solution (through self‐reformation allowing for better decisions) for social issues, ranging from crime (Garland ) to consumer behaviour (Barnett, Clarke, Cloke and Malpass ). More specifically, empirical studies have shown how lower‐income populations who used to be beneficiaries of welfare policies were being asked to take responsibility for their predicament, which sometimes leads to blaming the victim (Juhila, Raitakari and Hall ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Greening the poor: the trap of moralization

Malier

2019

British Journal of Sociology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article uses ethnographic data to engage a critical reflection on the tension between individual responsibility for the environment and inequality. While research has shown that the majority of sustainable consumers are middle and upper class, educated and white individuals, the study explores how the ethical injunction to ecological sustainability is being introduced to lower‐income neighbourhoods in France. It draws on the observation of a national programme which aims at supporting inhabitants of public housing estates in the process of greening their lifestyle in order to fight climate change and fuel poverty. The paper analyses how environmental responsibilization is specific in that it calls upon a responsibility towards others, towards the common good. Using the Foucauldian concept of ‘subjectivation’, it describes and analyses the moral work implied by such behaviour change programmes. It demonstrates that a negative representation of poor households and a moral framing of the responsibility for the environment lead to a moralization of their lifestyle under the heading of ‘eco‐friendly behaviours’. A paradoxical result of such endeavours is that the social group with the least impactful lifestyle on the environment is the one which is moralized in the most intrusive and resolute manner. The article shows, however, that the tenants manage to resist the normalizing discourse on sustainable living, for reasons which are not anti‐environmentalist. This piece thus provides interesting results for sustainability studies as well as for the sociology of the regulation of underprivileged neighbourhoods.

show abstract

“…The chosen extracts of recorded meetings focus particularly on concerns of professionals (and in the second extract also family members) to support service users to lead more independent lives, while also protecting them from harm and respecting their own wishes and informed choices. This is symptomatic of the drive towards service user independence that is currently prominent in many countries in the global North, as statefunded welfare provision is squeezed by financial austerity, resulting in the 'responsibilisation' of service users, families and communities (Banks 2011;Juhila et al 2017). Yet risk aversion, including ensuring protection of the most vulnerable service users and the public from harm, is also very high on the agendas of welfare services.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%