British Studies Units 2017

UNIT TITLE: Modern British Society (EL10684) LECTURER: Malcolm Skene

STUDENT:__John_(Yunhan)_Wang_____________________________________________

TITLE:_ Does the discourse of the "culture of dependency" promote an unfair perception
those in poverty?

Word count: _1442____________

I certify that by submitting this assignment through Moodle, I have read and understood the entry in my
University of Bath Student Handbook on Deadlines and on Cheating and Plagiarism, that all material in
this assignment is my own work, except where I have indicated with appropriate references, and that
none of it has been or will be submitted for assessment in another unit. I agree that, in line with
University Regulation 15.3 (e), if requested I will submit an electronic copy of this work for submission to a
Plagiarism Detection Service for quality assurance purposes.

By submitting electronically, you agree to the above statement and need not provide a signature.

Date:_4/20/2018________

Assignment received on time / late (date:_________) (delete as appropriate)

Length of assignment: Too short / About right. / Too long (delete as appropriate)

Outstanding Good Satisfactory Weak Fail

70% & above 60% - 69% 50% - 59% 40% 49% 39% & below

Clear and logical

structure

Answering the question

precisely and fully

Understanding of the key

concepts
A balanced response,
considering different
points of view

Evidence of own thinking

on the topic

Structured and
considered argument

Effective use of source

material

Clarity, accuracy, and

fluency of language

Harvard referencing and

Reference List
*Please note that all marks are subject to confirmation by the

Board of Examiners

Mark
awarded

Additional comments:
 In the UK, poverty has been an issue that has spanned generations. In the discussion on

poverty in the UK, a common discourse is the “culture of dependency”. This discourse, which at

its core is the theory that poverty is passed down culturally within families and originates within

the people in poverty, is one that has penetrated the public consciousness. Politicians have used

this theory to explain poverty and garner support, and policy-makers have used this theory to

base policies on. As a result of this, a divide of “us” and “them” has been created between the

general public and the unemployed/impoverished. Many in the public hold the belief that those

on welfare are leeching from the state and their tax money, and this belief is further reinforced by

messages from politicians and the media. However, this discourse is one that creates misguided

ideas, such as the belief that poverty is a result of one’s own improper choices, and that there

exists tri-generational families that have never worked. Furthermore, it avoids the overarching

issues that cause poverty, and use the impoverished as a scapegoat. Ultimately, the discourse of

the “culture of dependency” perpetuates an unfair perception of those in poverty, one that

alienates and stigmatises rather than uplift and support.

The first issue that the “culture of dependency” discourse creates is a misguided belief in

the general public that those who live in poverty are a result of their own improper choices, and

that it is their fault that they are in poverty. This stems out of the terms used to describe people in

poverty– “worklessness” and “dependency”, most significantly – which implies that the state of

poverty originates from the individual himself, and that it is because of this individual’s

behaviour and bad choices that he is “dependent” on the state for support, like a child is

dependent on their parent (Wiggan, 2012). Examples of this discourse are easy to find among

politicians; a prominent example is in the rhetoric of Conservative MP Iain Duncan Smith. When

speaking on his approach to fighting “persistent poverty”, he describes recipients as being

“parked” on benefits, going as far as to make the statement that, “aspiration, it seems, is in

danger of becoming the preserve of the wealthy” (Association, 2010). On a closer examination of

his language choice, it can be seen that he uses the word “parked” to imply that these people who

are on benefits don’t want to move off of it. Furthermore, when he talks about “aspiration”, he

makes it out as if only the wealthy have aspirations, and that it is the fault of those in poverty that

they do not “aspire” for greater things, such as employment or the desire to be self-sustaining

and not reliant on state handouts. At its core, his language choice places the burden of poverty on

the people in poverty themselves, suggesting that they are the reason for their problems. It can

then be seen how this kind of discourse makes its way into the consciousness of the general

public, as he is an individual with a platform to speak on and supporters who will listen to his

words. As well, his words will be covered by the media, who will perpetuate this discourse of

“dependency” further, even to people who may not be his supporters, but will read his words.

The reality of the situation in the UK, however, is that unemployment tends to occur in cycles,

known as the “low-pay/no-pay cycle”. In this cycle, people who are searching for employment

move between low-paid/quality jobs and benefits, staying on Job Seeker’s Allowance for an

average of 13 weeks at a time (Thompson, 2018). If anything, this cycle demonstrates a

determination to find employment, despite the barriers that are posed by the UK labour market.

Another myth that the “culture of dependency” discourse perpetuates is the idea that there

is a segment of the UK population which has never worked over three generations. Ideas such as

this promote the “us” and “them” divide that has been created in the UK between some of the

general working population, who may view benefit takers as “leeches”, especially if they believe

that these “leeches” have lived their whole lives on state handouts. In fact, in 1997, at an

audience at Aylesbury hosing estate, Tony Blair repeated this myth himself, stating that, “Behind
the statistics lie households where three generations have never had a job”. This “three

generations” idea has become a pervasive statement in the debate regarding poverty in the UK,

and has been repeated by government, police, and politicians, including the aforementioned Iain

Duncan Smith (Shidrick, 2017). It has become an appealing explanation to the poverty and

unemployment problem in the UK as a convenient way to explain away the problem as

something ingrained in the culture of the unemployed. However, when the statistics are

examined, it can be seen that the “three generations” idea is categorically false. Evidence from

the Joseph Rowntree Foundation states that out of the 1% of working age households where both

members were workless, 9% of this 1% of households have two generations where both have

never worked. In summary, out of the 20 million working age households in the UK, less that

0.1% have not worked for two generations, with no evidence at all of the existence of families

with three generations that have never worked. More significantly, the “culture of dependency”

that the “three generations” statement implies are no where to be found when families who have

been out of work for extended periods of time were examined (Shidrick, 2017).

Overwhelmingly, these families preferred to be in jobs rather than benefits, with unemployed

parents being keen for their children to find work and have a better quality of life than them.

Finally, the “culture of dependency” shifts focus away from the overarching social and

political institutions that are a catalyst for poverty in the UK, and instead use the people in

poverty as a scapegoat for their own struggles. The labour market across the UK is in a poor

state, with a shortage of employment available. As well, the majority of positions available to

those who are young or have few skills are “flexible”, meaning varying hours of work, the

possibility of night shifts, and the risk of being let go at any time by the employer. Combine this

with low pay, and the possibility of other responsibilities such as caring for family, and it is
simple to see how it may be difficult to find/hold a job, no matter how much one may want to

work. Furthermore, the UK has one of the highest class inequalities in the developed world, with

the gap between rich and poor growing with each generation, as advantages and disadvantages

are inherited and self-perpetuating. A child born to a well-off family will have access to private

tuition, while their counterpart born to a working-class family will have no choice but to attend

an underfunded school. From the get-go, the well-off child will have an advantage in society, and

face less hardship and responsibilities than the child of the working-class family. These

advantages carry over into adult life, and the cycle begins for another generation (Editorial,

2017). Clearly, this is a societal issue that must be addressed, and is a direct cause of

generational poverty. The truth of the matter is that there are more families in the UK on benefits

who are working than families on benefits who are not working. In 2012, 5.1 million families

who were on welfare were also out of work, compared to 6.1 million families who were on

welfare but still working (Aldridge, 2016). Clearly, this is indicative of a fault in the system

rather than in the families themselves, when such a large proportion of families who are working

still require the aid of the government to get by.

The discourse of the “culture of dependency” is one that unfairly paints those in poverty

in a negative light. It can be easy and appealing to buy into this discourse, as its target is one that

holds little power in society at large. However, to do so plays into the status quo and the class

divide that has so plagued the UK since its inception. By looking more broadly, it can be seen

that poverty and unemployment is heavily influenced and reinforced by social and political

institutions, as opposed to the people themselves. Thus, the “culture of dependency” must be

abandoned, as it disregards the basic value and humanity of those who are in poverty. Regardless

of class and income, all should be given an equal opportunity to prosper.

References

Association, P., 2010. Iain Duncan Smith vows to tackle 'absurd' welfare dependency. The

Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/may/27/iain-duncan-

smith-welfare-dependency

Aldridge, H. et al., 2016. Monitoring poverty and social exclusion 2012. JRF. Available at:

https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/monitoring-poverty-and-social-exclusion-2012

Editorial, 2017. When it comes to inequality, the UK is regressing back to Edwardian times. The

Independent. Available at: https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/editorials/inequality-

ifs-report-getting-worse-bank-of-mum-and-dad-class-education-a7888606.html

Shildrick, T., 2017. Are 'cultures of worklessness' passed down the generations? JRF. Available

at: https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/are-cultures-worklessness-passed-down-generations

Thompson, S., 2018. The low pay, no-pay cycle. JRF. Available at:

https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/low-pay-no-pay-cycle

Wiggan, J., 2012. Telling stories of 21st century welfare: The UK Coalition government and the

neo-liberal discourse of worklessness and dependency. Critical Social Policy, 32(3),

pp.383–405.