Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T13:02:36.888Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Fragility of Self-Respect: Emotional Labour of Workfare Volunteering

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2013

Thomas Kampen ,
Judith Elshout  and
Evelien Tonkens
Thomas Kampen
Affiliation:
Amsterdam Institute for Social Science Research, University of Amsterdam E-mail: [email protected]
Judith Elshout
Affiliation:
Amsterdam Institute for Social Science Research, University of Amsterdam E-mail: [email protected]
Evelien Tonkens
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology and Anthropology, University of Amsterdam E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article contributes to our empirical understanding of self-respect in rising meritocracies by focusing on the experiences of unemployed, low-skilled people recruited as workfare volunteers in the Netherlands. As many theorists have argued, the long-term unemployed struggle to maintain self-esteem. We found that workfare projects that introduce them to voluntary work can help them regain self-respect through four types of emotional labour: feeling respected through their newfound status, enjoying a craft, being able to perform in less stressful working environments, and taking pride in the meaning bestowed by voluntary work. But the emotional labour necessary to experience their situation more positively also increases the risk of experiencing negative emotions, thereby posing new threats to the fragile self-respect of unemployed citizens.

Keywords

Workfaremeritocracyself-respectemotional labourvolunteer work
Type
Themed Section on Welfare State Reform, Recognition and Emotional Labour
Information
Social Policy and Society , Volume 12 , Issue 3 , July 2013 , pp. 427 - 438
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arrow, K., Bowles, S. and Durlauf, S. (2000) Meritocracy and Economic Inequality, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Ball, S. J., Bowe, R. and Gewirtz, S. (1996) ‘School choice, social class and distinction: the realization of social advantage in education’, Journal of Educational Policy, 11, 1, 89–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bessant, J. (2000) ‘Regulating the unemployed: Australia's work-for-the-dole scheme’, Journal of Australian Studies, 24, 64, 75–84.Google Scholar
Boudon, R. (1974) Education, Opportunity and Social Inequality: Changing Prospects in Western Society, Paris: Armand Collin.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. (1989) ‘Economisch kapitaal, cultureel kapitaal, sociaal kapitaal’, in Pels, D. (ed.), Pierre Bourdieu, opstellen over smaak, habitus en het veldbegrip, Amsterdam: Van Gennep, pp. 120–41.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. and Passeron, J. C. (1977) Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture, London: SageGoogle Scholar
Brady, M. (2011) ‘Researching governmentalities through ethnography: the case of Australian welfare reforms and programs for single parents’, Critical Policy Studies, 5, 3, 264–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, E. (2001) ‘The rhetoric of “rights and obligations” in “workfare” and “citizens’ income”: paradigms/discourses in Denmark in a labour history perspective’, working paper, Aalborg University, Aalborg.Google Scholar
Collins, R. (1979) The Credential Society: A Historical Sociology of Education and Stratification, New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Cruikshank, B. (1996) ‘Revolution within: self-government and self-esteem’, in Barry, A., Osborne, T. and Rose, N. (eds.), Foucault and Political Reason: Liberalism, Neo-Liberalism and Rationalities of Government, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 231–51.Google Scholar
Cruikshank, B. (1999) The Will to Empower: Democratic Citizens and Other Subjects, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Dean, M. (1995) ‘Governing the unemployed self in an active society’, Economy and Society, 24, 4, 559–83.Google Scholar
Dean, M. (1999) Governmentality: Power and Rule in Modern Society, London: Sage.Google Scholar
De Botton, A. (2004) Status Anxiety, London: Hamish Hamilton.Google Scholar
Dillon, R. S. (1997) ‘Self-respect: moral, emotional, political’, Ethics, 107, 2, 226–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dronkers, J. (2007) Ruggengraat van ongelijkheid: beperkingen en mogelijkheden om ongelijke onderwijskansen te veranderen, Amsterdam: Mets and Schilt/Wiardi Beckman Stichting.Google Scholar
Dubois, V. (2010) The Bureaucrat and the Poor: Encounters in French Welfare Offices, Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Fuller, R. W. (2003) Somebodies and Nobodies: Overcoming the Abuse of Rank, Gabriola Island: New Societies Publishers.Google Scholar
Gilbert, N. (2002) Transformation of the Welfare State: The Silent Surrender of Public Responsibility, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, N. and Gilbert, B. (1989) The Enabling State: Modern Welfare Capitalism in America, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goul Andersen, J., Guillemard, A. M., Jensen, P. H. and Pfau Effinger, B. (eds.) (2005) The Changing Face of Welfare: Consequences and Outcomes from a Citizenship Perspective, Bristol: The Policy Press.Google Scholar
Hampton, J. (1997) ‘The wisdom of the egoist: the moral and political implications of valuing the self’, Social Philosophy and Policy, 14, 1, 21–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hochschild, A. R. (1979) ‘Emotion work, feeling rules, and social structure’, American Journal of Sociology, 85, 3, 551–75.Google Scholar
Korteweg, A. C. (2009) ‘The politics of subject formation: welfare-reliant women's response to welfare reform in the United States and the Netherlands’, in Marston, G. and McDonald, C. (eds.), Analysing Social Policy: A Governmental Approach, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 107–26.Google Scholar
Li, T. (2007) The Will to Improve: Governmentality, Development and the Practice of Politics, Durham and London: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Lippert, R. K. (2005) Sanctuary, Sovereignty, Sacrifice: Canadian Sanctuary Incidents, Power, and Law, Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
Margalit, A. (1996) The Decent Society, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Marston, G., Larson, J. E. and McDonald, C. (2005) ‘The active subjects of welfare reform: a street-level comparison of employment services in Australia and Denmark’, Social Work and Society, 3, 2, 141–57.Google Scholar
McDonald, C. and Marston, G. (2005) ‘Workfare as welfare: governing unemployment in the advanced liberal state’, Critical Social Policy, 25, 3, 374–401.Google Scholar
McDonald, C., Marston, G. and Buckley, A. (2003) ‘Risk technology in Australia: the role of the job seeker classification instrument in employment services’, Critical Social Policy, 23, 4, 498–525.Google Scholar
Mitchell, K. (2006) ‘Neoliberal governmentality in the European Union: education, training, and technologies of citizenship’, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 24, 3, 389–407.Google Scholar
Newman, J. and Tonkens, E. (2011) Responsibility, Participation and Choice: Summoning the Active Citizen in Western Europe, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Newman, K. (1999) No Shame in My Game: The Working Poor in the Inner City, New York: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
Rappaport, J. (1985) ‘The power of empowerment language’, Social Policy, 17, 2, 15–22.Google Scholar
Rawls, J. (1971) A Theory of Justice, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, N. (1999) Powers of Freedom: Reframing Political Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
SCP (Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau) (1998) Sociaal en cultureel rapport 1998: 25 jaar sociale verandering, The Hague: SCP.Google Scholar
Sennett, R. (2003) Respect in a World of Inequality, New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Serrano Pascual, A. (2007) ‘Activations regimes in Europe: a clustering exercise’, in Serrano, A. Pascual and Magnusson, L. (eds.), Reshaping Welfare States and Activation Regimes in Europe, Brussels: P.I.E. Peter Lang, pp. 275–317.Google Scholar
Soss, J. (1999) ‘Welfare application encounters: subordination, satisfaction, and the puzzle of client evaluations’, Administration and Society, 31, 1, 50–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soss, J., Fording, R. and Schram, S. F. (2009) ‘Governing the poor: the rise of the neoliberal paternalist state’, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Toronto.Google Scholar
Swierstra, T. and Tonkens, E. (2006) ‘Meritocratie en de erosie van zelfrespect’, Krisis, 7, 3, 3–23.Google Scholar
Swierstra, T. and Tonkens, E. (2008) De beste de baas? Prestatie, respect en solidariteit in een meritocratie, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Van Berkel, R. (2006) ‘The decentralisation of social assistance in the Netherlands’, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 26, 1, 20–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van de Werfhorst, H. G. and Hofstede, S. (2007) ‘Cultural capital or relative risk aversion? Two mechanisms for educational inequality compared’, British Journal of Sociology, 58, 3, 391–415.Google Scholar
Walters, W. (2000) Unemployment and Government: Genealogies of the Social, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warburton, J. and Smith, J. (2003) ‘Out of the generosity of your heart: are we creating active citizens through compulsory volunteer programmes for young people in Australia?’, Social Policy and Administration, 37, 7, 772–86.Google Scholar
Wieck, A. (1983) ‘Issues in overturning a medical model of practice’, Social Work, 28, 6, 467–71.Google Scholar
Young, M. (1958) The rise of meritocracy, 1870–2033: an essay on education and equality, London: Thames and Hudson.Google Scholar