Responsibilisation, social work and inclusive social security in Finland

Abstract

In this article responsibilisation is studied in social work by analysing two Finnish state-level policy documents (called final report and research report) which concern a current activation initiative called inclusive social security (ISS). It is asked how social workers and clients are constructed as responsible subjects in these documents. Responsibilisation refers to the advanced liberal mode of governmentality, which aims to strengthen citizens' abilities to selfgovernance through various techniques that include the intertwined elements of surveillance and empowerment. It is demonstrated that the policy documents construct the social workers' and the clients' responsibilities partly in different ways. The final report leads activation to be based on shared responsibility and social work to be more community-based, whereas the research report strengthens more individual-based responsibility of clients and social workers. For the clients the interpretation of ISS based on shared responsibility would probably be less stigmatising and paternalistic than the one based on individual responsibilities, i.e. approaching long-term unemployed citizens as being personally 'at risk' and thus a justified target group of individualised techniques for activation. For social workers and clients future activation appears to be a wide mix of different techniques, moral expectations and possible ways of being a responsible subject.

Discourses of behavioural addiction, normalisation and techniques of governmentality in inpatient substance abuse treatment

“…On the one hand, the alternation and concurrence of the techniques of governmentality in the workers' talk charges the client in relation to herself and her environment, and on the other hand, affords opportunities to build the identity of the rehabilitant without risk of stigmatization. This manifests the alternation of external guidance and control focused on the person herself (see Kaisto and Pyykkönen 2010;Raitakari, Juhila, and Räsänen 2018). The disease discourse differs from the others in that it liberates the individual from responsibility.…”

“…The line between normal and abnormal or deviant is fluid, yet always connected to cultural beliefs of 'good' and 'ordinary', i.e. how people are expected to live their lives (Raitakari, Juhila, and Räsänen 2018). Expanding the definition of abnormal behaviour defines culturally normal in a new way (Miller and Rose 1997; see also Waltraud 2006).…”

A journey into the new employment service landscape of responsibilisation: Towards de‐personalisation of the caseworker–jobseeker relationship

“…Responsibilisation, as part of the governmentality literature, is a key concept in analyses of contemporary ‘active welfare states’ in the so‐called advanced liberal mode of governmentality. A characteristic of this mode of governmentality is ‘various techniques that include intertwined elements of surveillance and empowerment’ to ‘produce active citizenship by strengthening citizens’ abilities to self‐governance’ (Raitakari et al, 2019, p. 265). Following O'Malley (2009), responsibilisation could be conceptualised as the process through which individuals are rendered individually responsible for tasks that have previously been the responsibility of other parties.…”

Individualizing the burnout problem: Health professionals’ discourses of burnout and recovery in the context of rehabilitation

“…The neoliberal policy has increasingly placed the role of markets at the center of economic and social life, and there has been a shift in the ethos of the welfare model from universalism, solidarity and equity toward individualism and efficiency ( Marjanen et al, 2018 ). Researchers have used such notions as “active citizenship” or “responsibilisation” ( Raitakari et al, 2019 ) to conceptualize the neoliberal governance that is grounded upon the self-activating capacities of free subjects.…”

“…What kinds of discourses do HPs use to formulate, define, and explain the problem and its solutions, and how are people who experience burnout portrayed and categorized in these discourses? Based on our analysis, we reflect on whether—and in which ways—the discourses applied by HPs resonate with the ethos of responsibilization embedded in health care policy and practices ( Raitakari et al, 2019 ). To our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate the construction of burnout and the implementation of burnout intervention from a DA point of view.…”