There are many simple right wing ideas that have powerful popular appeal. Often, this is because they have a large degree of recognisable truth about them, for large numbers of the population. One of the most prevalent of these ideas at the moment, peddled fairly ruthlessly by the right wing media, and used by the government and it's supporters to justify a programme of slashing social provision for the needy, is the notion of a 'Dependency Culture'. Put simply, this is the idea that if society provides support for individuals they will come to be overly dependent on that support to the point where large numbers of people live purely on benefits with no expectation of supporting themselves. The most familiar recent representation of this idea is the character of Frank Gallagher in the Channel 4 series 'Shameless'.
Those who disagree with the conclusions the right draw from this should not waste their time trying to argue that this phenomenon, and this problem, does not exist. Most people have come across genuine Frank Gallagher types and the reality is generally far worse than the fiction. The real weakness of the use of the dependency concept to justify welfare "reform" (i.e. cuts) is the idea that a culture of dependency is something isolated to those on benefits, and to the poorest and most needy in society.
Excessive dependency (and I use that term to exclude those with genuine and
clear dependency on others, such as the young, disabled, or elderly) is a
psychological condition. It is not an economic issue. It is not isolated to the
poor or the unemployed. In fact, it is extremely common, in this country at
least, among those employed by private companies.
I have worked in many private companies. I have worked in more than one so-called 'Tier-1' investment bank. I have worked in a fast-food 'restaurant'. Every workplace I have ever worked in has broken down roughly as follows in terms of its workforce: 10% highly productive and conscientious people, who essentially keep the place running; 50% reasonably competent people who require leadership guidance and will not break sweat unprompted; 30% "useless", "waste of space" (not my terms, these are generally the descriptions of their colleagues), or people whose absence would have no negative effect on the productivity of the place. Then there is generally around 10% who have negative productivity, that is, their presence does nothing but waste the time of their colleagues and the other resources of the company or institution. Many of those with negative productivity are, perversely enough, highly effective at distraction, spin, deflection and political manouevring, generally aimed at furthering their career goals and masking their own lack of genuine effectiveness. They are sometimes highly respected people in senior positions. (We have seen the effects of this only too well in our recent economic history.)
I dare say that the scenario and employee breakdown I have described above will be familiar to most people. There is a perception, peddled by those who support an anti-public sector agenda, that the public sector is inefficient, whereas the private sector is a model of efficiency. This is a laughable idea to anyone who has actually worked in a private company of any size.
The psychological make-up of those employees who make up the less productive element described above is often similar. They see their employer as a kind of parental institution that is there to look after their needs. They often have a perception of injustice (that they are not sufficiently respected or rewarded financially) and are highly sensitive to the merest slight or request for greater initiative or effort. One former colleague of mine, a very nice man on a personal level, was notorious for doing the absolute bare minimum required on any work task and going into a slight panic whenever he was given the smallest assignment. Come the end of the year he would invariably be in a lather over the size of his bonus (or his lack of a bonus). His railing got to the point where, one night in the pub, I challenged him as gently as I could by discussing the concept of a bonus and asking him why he expected one. He was genuinely astonished that I was not in his corner.
I would argue that people such as this former colleague of mine are actually supported by society to a far greater degree than the average person claiming benefits. These people are more educated, and more sophisticated in general, to the point where they have got themselves jobs and built up CVs. But those who are content to sit back and pick up their salaries without any attempt to contribute to the productivity of their company or insititution are making the best use of the bureaucracy and complexity of modern society in exactly the same way as someone who deliberately manipulates the welfare system for maximum personal gain. The Daily Mail does not rail against these people. Many of them (and I base this on personal experience) actually read the Daily Mail. Some probably work for the Daily Mail. Such people are found in all professions. The former Chelsea footballer Winston Bogarde was the most notorious example of a player who secured a lucrative contract and was then content to pick up huge wages for years on end without ever actually playing any competitive football. A glance at the vacation record of George W. Bush while in office will show that it compares favourably with the vacation allowance of the average U.S. salary slave.
I am not trying to argue that society should not support these people in the way it does. Everyone needs a place to live, an income, health-care. In my view, if not that of Mitt Romney, people have an entitlement to these basic things. The alternative is allowing people to starve in the gutter while we step over them (which arguably we are already doing in a more metaphorical sense, it is just isolated to parts of the Third World). Neither does the solution lie in making it easier to fire people, as proposed by right-wing “think tanks” and apparently endorsed by the Prime Minister. The “firing people” solution depends on any number of dubious assumptions, including a) that the hirers and firers themselves are fantastically competent people and can make rational decisions, b) that there is a generous supply of super-competent people waiting to take the places of those who are fired, and c) that throwing people out of work and onto benefits is somehow good for the economy, demand and growth (a belief demonstrably held by this government but by no respected economists).
I have worked in many private companies. I have worked in more than one so-called 'Tier-1' investment bank. I have worked in a fast-food 'restaurant'. Every workplace I have ever worked in has broken down roughly as follows in terms of its workforce: 10% highly productive and conscientious people, who essentially keep the place running; 50% reasonably competent people who require leadership guidance and will not break sweat unprompted; 30% "useless", "waste of space" (not my terms, these are generally the descriptions of their colleagues), or people whose absence would have no negative effect on the productivity of the place. Then there is generally around 10% who have negative productivity, that is, their presence does nothing but waste the time of their colleagues and the other resources of the company or institution. Many of those with negative productivity are, perversely enough, highly effective at distraction, spin, deflection and political manouevring, generally aimed at furthering their career goals and masking their own lack of genuine effectiveness. They are sometimes highly respected people in senior positions. (We have seen the effects of this only too well in our recent economic history.)
I dare say that the scenario and employee breakdown I have described above will be familiar to most people. There is a perception, peddled by those who support an anti-public sector agenda, that the public sector is inefficient, whereas the private sector is a model of efficiency. This is a laughable idea to anyone who has actually worked in a private company of any size.
The psychological make-up of those employees who make up the less productive element described above is often similar. They see their employer as a kind of parental institution that is there to look after their needs. They often have a perception of injustice (that they are not sufficiently respected or rewarded financially) and are highly sensitive to the merest slight or request for greater initiative or effort. One former colleague of mine, a very nice man on a personal level, was notorious for doing the absolute bare minimum required on any work task and going into a slight panic whenever he was given the smallest assignment. Come the end of the year he would invariably be in a lather over the size of his bonus (or his lack of a bonus). His railing got to the point where, one night in the pub, I challenged him as gently as I could by discussing the concept of a bonus and asking him why he expected one. He was genuinely astonished that I was not in his corner.
I would argue that people such as this former colleague of mine are actually supported by society to a far greater degree than the average person claiming benefits. These people are more educated, and more sophisticated in general, to the point where they have got themselves jobs and built up CVs. But those who are content to sit back and pick up their salaries without any attempt to contribute to the productivity of their company or insititution are making the best use of the bureaucracy and complexity of modern society in exactly the same way as someone who deliberately manipulates the welfare system for maximum personal gain. The Daily Mail does not rail against these people. Many of them (and I base this on personal experience) actually read the Daily Mail. Some probably work for the Daily Mail. Such people are found in all professions. The former Chelsea footballer Winston Bogarde was the most notorious example of a player who secured a lucrative contract and was then content to pick up huge wages for years on end without ever actually playing any competitive football. A glance at the vacation record of George W. Bush while in office will show that it compares favourably with the vacation allowance of the average U.S. salary slave.
I am not trying to argue that society should not support these people in the way it does. Everyone needs a place to live, an income, health-care. In my view, if not that of Mitt Romney, people have an entitlement to these basic things. The alternative is allowing people to starve in the gutter while we step over them (which arguably we are already doing in a more metaphorical sense, it is just isolated to parts of the Third World). Neither does the solution lie in making it easier to fire people, as proposed by right-wing “think tanks” and apparently endorsed by the Prime Minister. The “firing people” solution depends on any number of dubious assumptions, including a) that the hirers and firers themselves are fantastically competent people and can make rational decisions, b) that there is a generous supply of super-competent people waiting to take the places of those who are fired, and c) that throwing people out of work and onto benefits is somehow good for the economy, demand and growth (a belief demonstrably held by this government but by no respected economists).
So firing everyone is not the solution. I believe a solution
could start with a more vigorous challenge to the way that the right-wing,
often (as with the current government) represented by the most privileged in
society, focus the apparent outrage people feel at having to collectively
support others on the poorest and most vulnerable, ignoring the fact that this
“dependency culture” is everywhere.
In an ideal world, everyone would have the
psychological makeup, and opportunity, to achieve an appropriate balance
between dependency on others and self-sufficiency. But we do not live in an
ideal world, or a neat world. There also needs to be some recognition that the
diversity in motivation and achievement is natural and will always be there to
some degree. An Olympic athlete does not complain that not everyone can run as
fast as them. But many high-achievers and entrepreneurs seem to believe that
everyone should be like them, without thinking through what this would actually
mean.
Small children will go crazy at the slightest perception of
unequal receipt of care or treats in comparison with their peers. Sibling resentment can and
does last into adulthood, but it is generally accepted that part of a healthy
process of growing up involves learning to accept that people may need to be
treated differently according to their needs. Despite this, many adults
maintain a rage towards the more economically dependent that would not extend,
for example, to adults with learning difficulties.
Adults who deliberately try to take and not give to society (and this of course includes many in full time employment, and many in politics, as well as the minority of those on benefits who defraud or grossly exploit the welfare system) have what I would call emotional maturity difficulties. Those who rage against them for having these problems have their own, different kind of emotional maturity problem.
Those who are truly self-sufficient, who truly contribute as much to society as they take from it - and how many in office make-work jobs, how many who were born wealthy can honestly claim that? - should be grateful to have this gift, and feel sympathy for those who do not, just as they feel sympathy for those who have other challenges which can affect their sense of self-worth.
Adults who deliberately try to take and not give to society (and this of course includes many in full time employment, and many in politics, as well as the minority of those on benefits who defraud or grossly exploit the welfare system) have what I would call emotional maturity difficulties. Those who rage against them for having these problems have their own, different kind of emotional maturity problem.
Those who are truly self-sufficient, who truly contribute as much to society as they take from it - and how many in office make-work jobs, how many who were born wealthy can honestly claim that? - should be grateful to have this gift, and feel sympathy for those who do not, just as they feel sympathy for those who have other challenges which can affect their sense of self-worth.
The ideology we are currently asked to swallow goes
something like this. If you are born into a wealthy family, sent to the best
schools, supported by your family both financially and through connections,
well then that's just your good luck. You have never depended on anyone. If you
are born into an average affluent family and have found yourself a position in
the make-work office economy that large parts of Britain have become, where you
will be paid a steady salary despite delivering no discernable benefit to the
pension funds that own your company, then that's your good luck too. If however
you find yourself at the bottom of the economic spectrum (usually due to a predictable
combination of a disadvantaged family background, poor education, or other ill
fortune) and expect society to provide for your basic needs - housing, food,
healthcare, education - then you are an unfortunate symptom of Dependency
Culture.
So what is the solution? In the longer term, I believe that greater recognition
of the importance of emotional stability, maturity, and independence in both
infant care (which every year is becoming more utilitarian and geared toward
the needs of parents' jobs or careers than the needs of infants) and education
would be a step in the right direction. It is one of the paradoxes of right-wing ideology that self-sufficiency and the entrepreneurial spirit are held up as the supreme virtues, while the developmental and educational tools which provide that - proper infant care, instilling of confidence, and teaching children to learn and develop for themselves - are frowned upon and replaced with utilitarian approaches to infant care, and a maniacally codified, one-dimensional, competitive, and commodified system of education. Recognition of where this problem truly lies, a sense of perspective on its real gravity, and a proper unmasking of the naked self-interest and greed at the heart of the current distorted propaganda, is the first step to making an improvement.
