Social Policy. Fiona Williams
2017; Care Collective 2020) and for the possibility of a social commons (Ostrom 1990; Mestrum 2015; Newman and Clarke 2014; Coote 2017; Gough 2017). Prefigurative activism is now understood as part of the methodology of Utopian thinking (Levitas 2013; Cooper et al. 2020). Postcolonial critiques interrupt the dominant readings of globalization and of welfare regimes that ignore its history in a colonial world order whose logics of racial, gender, sexual and bodily subordination and dehumanization have been carried into contemporary geo-social politics (Mignolo 2011; Bhambra and Holmwood 2018; Shilliam 2018). Within social policy, Mbembe’s (2019) powerful concept of necropolitics, which refers to the state’s capacity to decide who is and who is not disposable, illuminates an understanding of the relationship between welfare policies and the situation of migrants, asylum seekers and BAME groups more generally (Mayblin et al. 2019).
Piecemeal and marginal to mainstream welfare theory as they may be, these new developments have influenced critical thinking in social policy. I have suggested elsewhere (Williams 2016) that these constitute ‘five turns’,2 to: (i) agency, understood in relational rather than individualist terms; (ii) political ethics of care, of ecology, and of decoloniality; (iii) the global, post-/decolonial and geo-political relations of welfare states; (iv) prefigurative politics; and (v) the (re)turn to intersectionality. What they have in common is their attention to the complexity and multiplicity of power and inequality and to the connections between cultural, social, economic and political marginalization. They are informed by local and transnational activism. They provide new lenses on an understanding of possibilities of humanness and society’s ethical obligations, and, in doing so, they point to possibilities for future social policy. What each of these ‘turns’ means will become clear in the description of the book’s structure that follows.
Structure of the book
The book is divided into three parts: Orientation discusses the theories that influence this book and my main frames of analysis. Analysis applies these theories and frameworks to three different areas: the welfare austerity decade in the UK, the question of agency, and the transnational political and social economy of care. Praxis discusses the implications of political ethics (of care, ecology and decoloniality) and contemporary prefigurative politics for a future eco-welfare commons.
Chapters 2 and 3 contribute to explaining the book’s orientation. In chapter 2 I first elaborate and provide an explanation for the point I have made in this chapter: why it was that the theoretical and political insights of feminist, anti-racist and other critical-thinking analyses remained on the edges of the core theories of the discipline. I argue that there were a number of contradictory dynamics involved in this (re)marginalization which came not only from within the discipline but also from social, economic, political and intellectual developments over that time. The second part of the chapter considers possibilities for enhancing the explanatory power of new critical developments in social policy in order to bring these marginalized issues into the centre of social policy analysis. This involves combining an intersectional analysis with critical approaches to social policy. While acknowledging the limitations of some applications of intersectionality, I argue that its strength for social policy lies in its potential to unearth – through lived experiences and struggles – the multiple complexities of social power and inequalities (around gender, race, ethnicity, class, etc.) as well as participatory and transformative possibilities for social justice. It challenges fixed and essentialist approaches in which social positions or economic systems are seen as given, natural or overdetermining. It emphasizes relationality, the contingencies of time and place, and the contested, contradictory and unsettled nature of phenomena, and it prioritizes ideas that emerge from the margins and inform resistance. At the same time, I argue that it is important to recognize the times and places when the salience of one particular form of inequality is greater, in social justice terms, than the others. It is also important to place an intersectional reading in an understanding of welfare states’ relationship to a capitalism that is patriarchal, extractivist and racially structured. It is here and in critiques of the social relations between providers and users of welfare that critical approaches to social policy can strengthen intersectionality.
Chapter 3 synthesizes this combination of intersectionality and critical social policy approaches into a framework for analysing contemporary welfare states. I argue that those analyses of recent developments in neo-liberal and austerity welfare as emerging from the 2008 financial crisis of capitalism are not able to explain the particular forms of gender, race, class and disability-related inequalities that are its consequence. Building on but critiquing Fraser’s feminist reinterpretation of Polanyi’s analysis of the history of capitalist crisis, I propose that we should contextualize austerity welfare in terms of four intersecting crises, all of which threaten human and planetary sustainability: the financialized crisis of capitalism; the crisis of care and social reproduction; the crisis of the environment and climate change; and the crisis of the external and internal racializing of national borders. Within this frame I develop a second framing for analysis of social policies at the national level. This articulates the key organizing principles of contemporary welfare states as family, nation, work and nature. It is the social relations, changes and contestations in these four domains that unsettle welfare governance, but at the same time these domains are among the principal vectors through which governments seek to legitimize their attempts to resettle and restructure welfare.
The second part of the book, on Analysis, contains three chapters. In chapter 4 I apply the family–nation–work–nature analysis to the decade which starts in 2010 with austerity and ends in 2020 with the Covid-19 pandemic. (The pandemic struck as I was over half-way through the book, so references to it are largely time limited to the late summer of 2020.) The analysis focuses on three clusters of social policies during the era, each of which mutually connects one of the four domains of family, nation, work and nature to one of the others. Thus, the first section draws out the intersecting inequalities that are linked by ‘hard work’ and aspects of family, care and intimacy – the depletion and devaluation of care, the responsibilization of parenting with the attribution of blame, the intersectional effects of austerity on BAME women, and, in contrast, the recognition of relationship diversity. The second focus is on bordering practices in a post-racial context. ‘Post-racial’ refers to the perspective which regards the issue of race, anti-racism and multiculturalism as a thing of the past, something that is settled. As Goldberg (2015: 34) defines it: ‘The post-racial is the racial condition in denial of the structural.’ I show how this perspective reinforced assimilation and integration in ways which were Islamophobic while, at the same time, instituting bordering practices that increasingly set minority groups in the population apart and subject to surveillance and to restrictions in their social and civil rights. This includes the well-known case of the Windrush betrayal. The term ‘bordering’ refers back to external bordering practices against migrants and asylum seekers (discussed in chapter 3) which became the template for the governance of other social groups. This attempt to settle a ‘post-racial’ common sense signals the creep of necropolitics through ‘nation’ and ‘nature’, which is discussed in the third section through three different events: the Grenfell Tower fire; the politics of welfare ethno-nationalism in the Brexit debate; and, last, the Covid-19 pandemic. I show how all three clusters of policy were constituted through a style of governance that was incompetent and indifferent. Its method of gaining public consent for policies was depriving and dehumanizing in two ways: first, a shape-shifting of liberal values of fairness, equality and tolerance which gave rise to quite the opposite outcomes; and, second, the exercise of the classic underserving/deserving divide. As the decade wore on, this binary became more dependent on ethno-nationalist populism. The pandemic was to expose many of the inequalities and incompetencies that marked the decade.
Where chapter