1

“Youdon’townmoney.You’rejusttheonewho’sholdingit”:borrowing,

lendingandthefairpersoninNorthManchester

KatherineSmith

Abstract

BasedonethnographicresearchinHarpurhey,Manchester,inthenorthwestofEngland,thischapteraddressestheemergenceofamoraleconomyofpersonhoodamongstsomeofthepoorestpeopleinBritaintoday.Specifically,thispaperopensupawayinwhichnewconceptionsoftheviableandworthypersonemergeinthepracticeofborrowingandlendingmoneybetweenneighbours,asasortof“safetynet”intimesoffinancialprecarityandsocialstigma.Thehumiliationexperiencedregularlybypeoplewhoneedstatesupporttomakeendsmeetisrespondedtointhelocalprioritizationofwhatitmeansto“befair”andexpressandrecognizetheworthyselfinnegotiatingthetermsofaloan.Itisintheprocessofnegotiationthatwecanseeinanewlightwhatisbeingrespondedtoandfoughtforinthefaceofstigmaandprecarity.Despiteexperiencinganever-increasingthreatofpovertyanddestitution,weseeworthyselves,fairpersons,andthecreationofanalternativespaceofhopeinwhichsocialandpersonalworthcanbeexpressedandrecognized.

Keywords

Welfarereform,fairness,money,poverty,Britain,moraleconomy,personhood

Introduction

InBritain,greaterpublicwelfarespendingcutsarebeingimplementedat

agreaterratethanhasbeenseeninBritainsincebeforetheSecondWorldWar.

Thefar-reachingproductionofstructuraladjustmentpoliciesandwelfare

reformareperceivedandexpressedinpopulardiscourseasthelackof

sovereigntyandresponsibilityofgovernmenttowardsthewellbeingoftheir

citizens.Theprecariousnessofsituationsofincreasingpovertybeyondthe

controlofcitizensthemselvesaffectstheeverydaylivesandsubjectivitiesof

thoseinneedofstateassistancetomakeendsmeetinthemostintimateofways.

Itisnotsurprising,then,that,asBoltonandLaaser(2013)andothershave

noted,inthecontextofthis“disconnectedcapitalism”anddistrustofpoliticians,

claimstocitizenshipandrightstoagoodlifeandhumanflourishingareframed

aseminentlymoralones.

2

Inthecontextofincreasinglyrapidausteritycuts,materialexpressionsof

deprivationanddispossessionareacknowledgedfromsociologicaland

anthropologicalperspectivesasshared,ethnographicallyemergentconcerns.

Thisarticlebuildsonthesharedsociologicalandanthropologicalrecognition

thatwemustremaincontinuallyattentivetopeople’sexperiencesofthe

demoralizationofbeinginpovertyandarecipientofstatewelfareprovision.

Basedontwoandahalfyearsofresearch(August2013–March2016)ona

socialhousingestateinHarpurhey,Manchester,inthenorthwestofEngland,it

exploreshowproximitytoneighbourlynetworksofsupportallowsfor

expressionsoftheworthyselfinthefaceofpovertyanddemoralization.Thisis

becauseitiswithinthesecontextsthatparticularmoraleconomiesemergeand

aremaintained,whereincollectiveandindividualwell-beingcanbeachieved

anddiscrimination,sufferinganddisadvantageresisted(Bolton&Laaser,2013,

p.508-509;Macdonald,Shildrick&Furlong,2014;Narotzky,2016).

Theethnographicandanalyticalcontributionsofthisarticlearesituated

withinthebroaderprojectofunderstandingthechangingdynamicsofhousehold

economicsinthecontextofausterityandwhatisbeingfoughtforwhencallsfor

socialandpersonalwortharefelttobeignoredinBritishpublicandpolitical

discourse.Itexplorestheeverydaylivesandexperiencesofpeopleandfamilies

inpoverty,andthewaysinwhichwelfarereformsaredealtwithinneighbourly

relations.Specifically,thisarticlelooksatthewaysinwhichnewconceptionsof

theviableandworthypersonemergeininterpersonalrelationshipsbyopening

upthelocalpracticeofborrowingandlendingmoneybetweenfamiliar,long-

termandnewlyarrivedneighboursinandaroundasmallcul-de-sacattheedge

ofthemainhousingestate.Asthecontextwithinwhich“thebalancingactof

sociallifeiscarriedout”(Rapport,2012,p.75),Iexplorespecificallythemoment

ofnegotiationwhenborrowingandlendingofmoneybetweenneighbourstakes

place.Itisintheprocessofnegotiatingthetermsoftheloanthattheviableself

oftheborrowerandlenderisnecessarilymadeexplicitandintersubjectively

recognizedasapublicformofpersonhood(Lambek,2013).Negotiatingthe

termsoftheloanbetweenneighboursinvolvestheexpressionandrecognitionof

3

thecapacitytotakecontroloverone’sownself-management,assetsand

aspirationsforthefuture,eveninthemidstoffinancialprecarity.Thisprocessof

recognitionisexpressedlocallyas“beingfair”,whichisplacedinoppositionto

thewaysinwhichthestateconstructsanimageof“thepoor”,andthenecessary

performanceof“beingpoor”inthelocalJobCentreiinordertosecurestate

welfareprovisions.

Here,Iexploreatheoreticalframeworkwherebyweseethepowerofthe

relationshipenmeshedwiththecirculationofamaterialresourcethatis

collectivelyatashortage:money.Thisarticlequalifiesthepointthatmoneyand

itsscarcityisnotareliableindexforanatrophyofthemoraleconomyin

Harpurhey(cf.Bloch&Parry,1989,p.8).Rather,theattentionofthisarticleis

whattheborrowingandlendingofmoneyrevealsethnographically;thatis,a

particularmoraleconomyofpersonhood,themakingexplicitofwhatitmeans,

sociallyandpersonally,tobea“fairperson”inandthroughtherecognitionof

theworthy,viableself.Beingidentifiedasa“poorperson”andperforming

povertyintheeyesofthestateinordertosecurefurtherstatebenefits,is

negatedwhenpeoplereturnhometothecul-de-sac,throughtheexpressionand

recognitionofbeinga“fairperson”intheeyesofone’sneighboursandfamily.

Whatweseeinthisarticlearesomeofthewaysinwhichpeoplethemselves,

whosooftendealwithasenseoflackofcontrolovertheirownlivesandlife

chances,takecontroloveratransformationalprocesswhichIanHacking

referredtoas“makinguppersons”(Hacking,1986,p.234).“Beingpoor”and

“beingfair”are,thus,twodistinctperformancesintendedfordifferentoutcomes,

andfordifferentunderstandingsofthepersonandexpressionsoftheself.

Harpurhey:apost-welfarelandscape

HarpurheyisasmallsuburbanareainManchester,justthreeandahalf

milesnortheastofthecitycentre.Itishometoalargeopen-airmarket,afew

locallyrunshopsandlargegrocerystore,severalempty,derelictbuildings,a

policestation,awell-establishedandwell-attendedfoodbankbasedat

HarpurheyCommunityChurch,andasmallcollectionofpubsandsocialclubs

scatteredaroundthearea,allwithinwalkingdistance.Harpurheyalsoincludesa

4

largesocialhousingestatewithvisiblepovertyinlocalizedareas.Itisthecase

thatHarpurheyisanareathatsuffersfromongoingwelfarereformsandthe

eviscerationofpublicsectorservices.Theresultinglandscapeandlocalsignsof

physicaldecayreflectthisstructuraldisinvestment.

Ihavebeenconductingethnographicfieldworkwithneighbouring

familieswholiveinasmallcul-de-sacattheedgeofthemainsocialhousing

estateinHarpurhey.EverypersonIhavemet,whoisover16yearsold,is

currentlyonsomeformofstatewelfare.TheformsofwelfareincludeJob

Seeker’sAllowance(JSA),EmploymentSupportAllowance(ESA)andChild

BenefitandTaxCreditorDisabilityLivingAllowance(DLA),orarenowon

UniversalCredit.Theyhavealsoexperiencedthetemporarysanctioningoftheir

welfareincomeforvariousreasons.Theirlivelihoods,lifestylesandlifechances

havebeensignificantlyaffectedbyboththerollingoutofwelfarereformsbythe

previouscoalitionandcurrentConservativegovernments,aswellasthefearof

moresanctionsandcutstowelfareprovisions.

Unsurprisingly,peopleinHarpurheyfeelthattheirneedsarebeing

cruellyoverlookedingovernmentalandbureaucraticdecision-making,andthat

thisindifferenceisduetounfair,negativecategorizationsoflazy,immoral,

benefitsthievesandscroungers,thestigmatizationoftheirlocation,lifestyles

andchoices,andtheimageofthe“type”ofpersontoexpectfromplaceslike

Harpurhey.Suchcategorizationof“type”thatisenshrinedinpolicy,framesthe

welfarerecipientinwidersocialdiscoursesasexistinginanon-reciprocal

relationshipwiththestate,dependentuponitslargess,givingnothingbackto

societyinreturn.

Whilethesefamiliarstereotypicalassumptionsaboutthetypeofperson

onwelfareareunderstoodlocallyasnon-representativeofthe“good”peopleof

Harpurhey,theyare,nevertheless,assumptionsthatmanypeoplearequite

familiarwith.WithHarpurheyandsomeofitsresidentsappearingontheBBC3

televisionprogramme“PeopleLikeUs”iiin2013,itisalsounsurprisingthat

everypersonIhavemetfeelstheyareregularly“producedandpositionedas

5

textsthatfacilitatethemandatesofadidactic,profoundlybrutalandmean-

spiritedpoliticalregime”andpopularimageofpovertyanddepravity(Adair,

2002,p.451;Smith,forthcoming).Stereotypicalimagessuchasthese

representedinpopularnationaltelevisionprogrammesservetocompletethe

imageofa“brokenBritain”.

OngoingattemptstotransformthestateineffortstofixabrokenBritain

(Slater,2012)haveinvolvedthearchitectsofwelfarereformsechoinglocally

familiarstereotypicalimagesinpoliciestodealwith“troubledfamilies”,the

“chronicallyunemployed”,theAnti-SocialBehaviourOrder(ASBO)lifestyleof

thewelfarerecipient,tojustifytheimplementationandenforcementofharsh

welfarecutsandsanctions.Asaresult,thebehaviourandmovementsofwelfare

recipientsarestrictlymonitored.Theyarerequiredtomaintainregular,often

weeklycontactwiththelocalJobCentre,housingofficeand,ifclaimingDisability

Allowance,doctor’sofficetodemonstrateongoingqualificationsforaparticular

welfarebenefit.Asgovernmentimplementsfurthercuts,itbecomesmore

difficulttofittherequiredcriteriatoqualifyforstateanddisabilitybenefits.The

lossorsanctioningofbenefitsthatallofmyinformantsinHarpurheyhave

experiencedhasresultedinhomeshavingnoheatingorelectricity,theuseand

expansionofthelocalfoodbankincreasingexponentially,increased

homelessnessandinonecasesuicide.

Itiswelldocumentedinsociologicalandanthropologicalresearchthat

thestateofthepost-welfarelandscapeinBritaintodaycarriesthelegacyof

(Conservative)policiessincetheearly1980s,aperiodoftimerecognizedforits

markedshiftfromolderformsofgovernanceofthestatetowardtheclass-based

ideologicalprojectofneoliberalism,or“advancedliberalism”(Ferguson,2009,p.

166;Hyatt,2011;Rose,1993;Tyler,2007).Aspartofaconstellationofshiftsin

governanceandpoliticaltechnologies,whichNikolasRosenotablyoutlinedback

in1993ascarriedoutthroughadvancedliberaltechnologies,“advanced

liberalism”,placesanemphasisonparticularconstructionsofvaluessuchas

independence,freedomandindividualchoice,andtodayiscouchedinthe

6

conservativerhetoricofa“fairer”and“smarterBritain”(see,Cameron,2009;

DuncanSmith,2013;Osborne,2010).

Advancedliberalismsimultaneouslyproducesnewunderstandingsand

discoursesoftheproblemofpoverty,andplacesprivilegeonlocal

understandingsandknowledgeofthatproblem.AsSusanBrinHyatt(1997,

2011)andothershavenoted,thistransformscategoriesofpeoplefromthe

objectsofpolicyintothepractitionersofpolicywhoareresponsibleforrenewing

theirowncommunitiesfromthegroundup(Hyatt,1997,2011;Rose,1993,

2000;Shore&Wright,1997).Thepoor,then,empoweredtotakecontrolover

theirownadvancementandgiventhefreedomtotakecontrolovertheirown

aspirationsforagoodlifethroughentrepreneurialism,self-managementand

improvement,maythenconstitutethemselvesasparticularmoralcitizenswho

liveuptothesocialobligationof“givingback”tosociety(Hyatt,2011).Thisform

of“organizinglogic”(Sassen&VanRoekel-Hughes2008,p.7)replicatesitself

throughitsownmechanismsaswellasthroughtheeverydaypracticesofpeople

themselveswhoareconfrontedwiththisimageoftheresponsibilzedcitizen.

Itiswelldocumentedanddiscussedthatthedemocratizationof

knowledgeandthenotionofself-managementasactivecitizenship

characteristicofadvancedliberalruleresonateswithneitherlocalperceptionsof

need,norlocalperceptionsoftheresponsibilityofthestatetoitscitizens

(Ferguson,2009;Hyatt,1997;Narotzky,2016;Rose,1993;Skeggs,2012).Street-

levelapproachesinsociologicalresearchexposeandproblematizehow

advancedliberalpoliciesandprogrammesalignsocialrelationsinparticular

ways(Mcdonald&Marston,2005;Sales,2002;Wilkinson,2010),andare,here,

inconversationwithanthropologicalapproachestothestudyofwelfarereform

whichidentifytheproductionofpovertyandinequalitiesatthecenterofthe

globalsystemofadvancedcapitalism.Asteadilygrowingbodyofsociological

workhasspecificallyidentifiedtherelationbetweenthesocialandthepersonal

inthepost-welfarelandscape,andproblematizedtherestructuring,retrenching

andthedismantlingofthewelfarestateasgeneratingnewsformsofpoverty,

inequalityandstereotypes(Bolton&Laaser,2013;Chase&Walker,2012;

7

Lawler,2005).Anthropologistswhohaveaskedhownewcategoriesof

individualstobegovernedarecreated,dealtwithandresistedonlocaland

interpersonallevels(Morgen&Maskovsky,2003;Narotzky,2016;Tyler,2013;

Shore&Wright,1997;Smith,forthcoming;Wedeletal.,2005)havealsoraised

newquestionsabouttheparticularsocialrelationshipsthatmightbemobilized

(deL’Estoile,2014)aspeople,intheireverydaylives,areforcedinandoutof

particularkindsofframesandvaluationsoftheresponsiblized,moralcitizenby

therestructuringandpartialwithdrawalofafacelesssystem.Bothsociological

andanthropologicalapproachestotheproductionofpoverty,inequalityand

advancedliberalpolicyreformallowustotrackanddocumenttheintimaciesof

socialpolicy(Hyatt,2011),andtheinterpersonalnetworksofsupportin

everydaylife.Wecanfurtherunderstandmomentsofconflict,tension,

agreement,disagreement,betweenpeople,andbetweenpeopleandthestate,as

momentswithinwhichcapacitiestoliveuptoobligationsofcitizenshipand

belongingplayout.

InHarpurhey,contrarytotheadvancedliberaleconomicrationality

underpinningongoingwelfarereform,therealitiesofpovertyandthelossof

statesupportareperceivedasstemmingfromoverwhelmingsystemsof

bureaucraticmanagementreachingintoprivatelives,ratherthanemancipation

fromdependencyonstateassistance.Wecanseethisillustratedbyoneresident,

Olivia,atwenty-three-year-oldsinglemotherofathree-year-olddaughter.She

explainedtomeonedayaswesatinherlivingroom,

IfIworkmorethan16hoursaweekandearnmorethan

£100.00aweekwhileonChildBenefitthegovernment

wantsmetodeclareitsotheycancutmybenefits

accordingly.TheywanttomakesureI’monthebreadline.

It’sthesameifsomeoneislivingwithyou.AndIdon’t

meanlikeproperlivingwithyou;ifthey’restayingonyour

setteeformorethanthreedays,youhavetotellthe

council.Bylawyouhavetodeclareit.It’slikethe

governmentissofarintoyourlifetotellyouwhattodo,

8

there’snoprivacy.They’reinyourfuckinglivingroomat

2amwhenyourtoddlerwakesuptomakesurethere’sno

onetheretohelp.They’reinyourkitcheninthemorning

whenyouwanttomakesomebaconandeggsbutyou’ve

onlygotsomecerealbutnotenoughmilk.They’reonyour

phone,ifyouevenhaveaphone,makingsureyouonly

makeeveningorweekendcalls.They’relookingoveryour

shoulderatyourbankstatementswhenthepostarrivesto

makesureyouhaven’tgotanysavings.It’shorrible.

Nothing’syours.Andsowhenpeoplefallonhardtimes,

andIhonestlybelieveeveryonewillatsomepoint,people

needhelp;youneedasafetynet.Soit’saboutknowing

whoyoucangoto,howmuchyoucanhelpthemandhow

muchotherpeoplecanhelpyou.

Untilthreeyearsagowhenherdaughterwasborn,Olivialivedathomein

atwo-bedroomedcouncilflatwithhermotherandstepfather.WhenOlivia

becamepregnantattheageof19,sheappliedforacouncilhouseandwasputon

atwelve-to-eighteenmonthwaitinglistforone,whichnevertranspiredafterher

daughterwasborn.SowiththefinancialhelpofherparentsandUniversal

Credit,shenowrentsaprivatelyownedtwo-bedroomedex-councilpropertyin

Harpurhey.Oliviaishomemostdaysafter3pm,duringwhichwewoulddrink

teainfrontofasilencedtelevisioninherlivingroom.Duringourconversations,

shetoldmethatsheworkssixteenhoursaweekansweringphonesforalocal

business.Makingendsmeetisextremelydifficultforherasthe“jugglingact”of

payingbillswhilstrestrictedonbenefitsfromearningmoremoneymeansshe

cannotgetaheadfinancially.ForOlivia,workingdoesnotequatetobeingbetter

offfinancially,andworkingmorehoursbecomesacriminalpursuitifnot

declared.Sheexplainedthatforher,itwouldbeeasiertogiveupwork,receive

benefitsandstayathomewithherdaughter.Butbecauseshefeelsshecanwork

andsherecognizesthefinancialstrainsheisputtingonherparents,stayingout

ofworkwouldbeasfraudulentandimmoralasworkingafewextrahoursa

weekbutnotdeclaringittothebenefitsoffice.Tobecomea“benefitsfraudster”,

9

shefeels,isnotsimplyamatterofchoiceforher.Rather,shefeelsshehasto

workveryhardtoremainvigilanttotherisksthatexistforherwhileonstate

welfare.

Olivia’s“safetynet”includeshermotherandstepfather,andherfriends

andimmediateneighbours,tovaryingdegrees.Thewaysinwhichsheis

reflectingonwhatshefeelsistheencroachmentofthestateonhereverydaylife

andwakinghoursisnotanuncommonperceptionamongstwelfarebenefits

claimantsinHarpurhey.Theever-present,far-reachingarmsofthestatereachin

onthelivesandpocketsofpeoplewhoareatthefrontlineofwelfarereformand

technologiesofemancipation,oftenexpressedinHarpurheyas“thegovernment

givingwithonehandandtakingwiththeother”.

Oliviapointsoutherexperiencesofbeingonbenefitsandherperception

ofthestateinvadingandstiflinghereveryday,financially,sociallyandintothe

future.Yet,inthequoteaboveOliviaalsodiscussesissuesthatgobeyondboth

individualnecessityandtheencroachmentorwithdrawalofthestatefrom

society.Sheisnotsimplyreferringtothefailureor“unfairness”ofthestate’s

interferencesorthesignificanceofhavingaccesstofinancialsupport.Andsheis

notsimplymakingtheargumentthatkinandneighbourrelationsofsupport

cometofillinagapleftbythewithdrawalofstatesupport.Sheisalsopointingto

theimportanceofknowingtowhomyoucangoforhelp.Shegoesbeyond

explainingrelationshipsofreciprocityordependence,butratheraddressesthe

significanceofknowinghowmuchonecanhelpandbehelped.Sheisdiscussing

theknowledgeandmobilizationofthemultiple-interdependenciesofeveryday

socialandfamiliallife,whicharetakingonanewrelevanceinthiscontextof

precarityandstigma.Sheisalsoraisingquestionsaboutherownandothers’

feelingsofpoliticalpowerlessnessassheconstructstheconceptofthestate

“throughthemediumof[her]ownexperience,andinwayswhichareheavily

influencedby[her]owncircumstances”(Cohen,1996,p.146).Shediscusses

thesepointswiththeawarenessthat,paradoxically,thesenseoflackof

ownershipofassetsandofdecision-making,andthedevaluationoftheperson

10

whoneedstobe“managed”tosuchadegreeintoaresponsiblepersoniscoupled

withthesystematicremovalofstatesupport.AsOliviawentontoexplain,

[w]eusedtohavesocialandemergencyloanswecouldget

fromthegovernment.Butthey’vestoppedthosenow.We

lendoffeachotheraroundhere.Ifwe’restuck,ifwe’re

shortandweneedsomehelp,it’showwegetby.Andyou

knowthekindofpersontheyarethen.Youknowthat

they’llbefairandthey’llunderstandyou’restuck.People

needeachothermorenowadays.It’saboutmakingsure

youandthepeopleyou’reclosetoareOK.

ThereisabalancingactoffinancialsurvivalinHarpurhey.However,itis

notsimplytheacquisitionofmoneythatremainsinthebalance.Thereisa

historyofsocialsecuritythatpeopleasyoungastwenty-three-yearsoldrecall

andcanfeelbeingstrippedawaywithoutrecoursetoadditionalsupport.Asa

producerofknowledge,Oliviaarticulatelyexplainsthesignificanceofknowing

whotogotoandtheextent(and,indeedlimits)ofhelpthatcanbeprovidedand

received.Ifthegovernmentisstrippingawaycertainfinancialsupport,the

importanceofknowingwhoonecangotoforhelptakesonasignificancethat

pointstoboththesocialrelationshipsthatmightbemobilizedintimesofcrisis,

aswellasthewaysinwhichone’srelationshipwiththestateischanging.Below,

Itakethelatterasapointofdeparturetodiscussfirstlywhatitisliketo“be

poor”inHarpurhey,beforeIgoontoaddresstheparticularsocialrelationsthat

aremobilizedinresponse.

“Beingpoor”

InHarpurhey,thewaysinwhichpeopledealwithrecentandongoing

benefitssanctionsandtheincreasinglyremoteandcommercializedpolicy-

makingprocessisoftenexplainedtomethroughstoriesabouthavingto

regularlyreturntothelocalJobCentretofillinmoreforms,makeanothercase

fortheirpovertyandlackofemployment,andproveonceagainthattheyare

11

indeedstillinneedofincomesupport.StoriesoftheirinteractionswiththeJob

Centre’sintermediaries(whetherapersonoracomputerscreen)featuretheJob

Centre’sstaffdisplayingtheobjectivityoftheirworkandtheindifferenceoftheir

institution,justifyingasortofsocialauthority,asmanyinthecul-de-sacperceive

it.Equally,theyunderstandhowtheyaretopresentthemselvesinthecontextof

theJobCentre–theparticularkindofpersontheyneedto“be”inordertosecure

furtherbenefitswithoutsanctions;itisafamiliar,routineperformance.

Bernice,a43-year-oldmotheroftwo,explainsthisperformanceof“being

poor”intheJobCentreandhowimportantitistomakeendsmeet.Shestaysat

homewithherhusbandwhohasbeenoutofworkforthreeyearsduetoa

fracturedanklewhenservingtimeinthemilitary.Hehasbeenwaitingfortwelve

monthsforsurgerytorepairboneandligamentdamageandinthemeantimehas

beenlivingonwhatwasDisabilityBenefits,nowconsolidatedintoUniversal

Credit.BerniceandherhusbandmustremainincontinualcontactwiththeJob

Centretomaintainthesteadybutmeagerincometheyreceive.Thethreatof

sanctionsisoverwhelmingtothem,asafamily.Berniceexplainedtomeovera

cupofcoffeeinherkitchenonemorningwhatitislikereturningtotheJob

Centreandmedicalassessmentclinics,

It’saboutbeingpoor.Wehavetofillinthesameforms

overandoveragain,andtheylosethem.Soyouknow

you’regoingtohavetomarchbackoverthereandfill

theminagain,stateyourcaseagain.Getassessedagain.

Youhavetoeverycoupleofmonthsanyway.It’s

humiliating,butit’swhatyou’vegottodo.You’vegotto

payyourbills.ButI’mnotthatperson!They’llneverknow

meforme,youknow?They’renotinterestedinwhoIam

orwhatwe’regoingthrough.It’sjustaconstantreminder

thattothem,you’rescum,really.

Thefeelingofbeingframedas“scum”andastheproblemofpovertyisa

familiarexperienceforBerniceandherfamily.Equallyfamiliaristhelocal

12

understandingthattheextentofpovertyanditsindividualexperienceisnot

givenspaceforconsiderationwhenengagingwithbureaucracyandthestate.In

ordertobecometheself-managing,entrepreneurial,moralpersonintheeyesof

thestate,onemustfirstperformpovertyand“bepoor”sufficientlyintheeyesof

thestate.Thisisacomplicatedperformance,whichrequiresknowledgeand

navigationofformsandapplications,aswellassimplicityintheirresponseson

thoseformsandintheJobCentre,aboutthemselvesandtheirpersonal

circumstances.Introducingthecomplexitiesofeverydaylifecanleadto

misunderstanding,whichcanleadtothesanctioningorendofbenefits.Bernice

wentontoexplainthatintheJobCentre,oneissimply“poorandunabletowork.

Suggestanythingotherwise,perhapstheabilitytostandforacoupleofhoursa

daywithoutpain[asisthecasewithherhusband],andyourbenefitswillbeat

risk”.

Berniceandothersinthecul-de-sacexplainthatontheonehand,the

necessitytoperformbeingpoorinthecontextoftheJobCentre(andin

assessmentswithotherintermediaries)istheresultofthebundlingofimagined

qualitiesofpoverty,butisseparatefromtheunrepentantpersonswhoBernice

andothersfeelthemselvestobe.Sherecognizesthatsheiscategorizedas“poor”

and“dependent”and“unemployed”,so“givingnothingbacktosociety”.Being

confrontedwiththisimageisafamiliarpricetopayformakingendsmeetwith

stateassistance.However,thissystematichumiliationhasproducedastruggle,

inBerniceandothers,tochangethemoralframeworksinwhichmakingalife

andbeingaparticularkindofmoralpersonacquiresvalueandmeaning(Collins

&Wright,2007;Narotzky&Besnier,2014).“ButI’mnotthatperson!They’ll

neverknowwhoIaminmyself”.Berniceisnotthepersonsheperformsinthe

JobCentre.

Therefore,Itreattheconceptof“theperson”asananalyticalcategory

thataddressesthe“artofbecoming”(Carrithers,Collins&Lukes,1985)inand

throughinteractionandmutualacknowledgment.Thisisanartofbecomingfor

whichBernicedemonstratesherownlevelofexpertise.Forinstance,navigating

theformsandknowingwhattoscreenoutofinformationsharedwiththeJob

13

Centrestaffcreatestheimageofapoorperson,apublicsideofpersonhoodthat

servesaparticularpurposeinparticularroutinemoments.

Thispublicsideofpersonhoodisanachievementinsocialrole-playing:a

performativelyinstitutedidiom,amatterofpractice(Butler,1997).Following

Lambek(2013),myemphasisonthe“social”insocialrole-playingistwo-fold:

firstly,thatone’spersonhooddrawsonsocialcriteria,conceptsandmodelsas

vehiclesfortherecognitionofone’spersonhood(2013,p.838);inthecontextof

theJobCentre,apersonthusrecognizesandperformsawayofbeingwhich

includesthelimitedexposureofone’sownlifesituationsandcapacities.My

informantsoftenexplainthistomeas“beingpoor”intheJobCentre.They

recognizethattheyneedtoberecognizedassuch.Secondly,“thesocialisalso

theinterpersonal;personsareonlypersonsinthecontextofandinrelationto

otherpersons”(2013,p.838).Inrespecttothelatter,mutualrecognitionand

acknowledgementarecentraltopersonhood.

Berniceandothersidentifyadistinctionbetween“beingpoor”intheeyes

ofthestateandwhatislocallyreferredtoas“beingfair”intheeyesofyour

neighboursandfamilyastwodistinctperformancesintendedfordifferent

understandingsofthepersonandexpressionsoftheself.Morethanaresponse

totheimageofthe“poorperson”,thereisacollectiveeffortinmakingpeople

valuableandworthyagainuponreturninghometothecul-de-sacinHarpurhey.

Intheinterpersonalrelationsbetweenneighbours,outsideoftheJobCentre,the

recognitionofpersonhooddrawsuponthoseverycapacitiesforaworthy,viable

selfthatarescreenedoutintheJobCentre.InHarpurhey,whenresidentsreturn

tothecul-de-sac,theycan“bethemselvesagain”.Theworthyandviableselfthat

isscreenedoutinpolicyandinengagementswiththeJobCentrearegivena

space,locally,forexpressionandrecognition.Asamatterofperspective,the

socialexpressionandrecognitionoftheworthyselfconstitutesamoralized

spaceofhopeinthiscul-de-sac,andisarticulatedthroughthelocaldiscourseof

fairnessandwhatitmeanstobea“fairperson”.Aswewillseebelow,capacities

fortheexpressionandrecognitionofselfhoodoninterpersonallevelsbetween

neighboursemergewhentheyborrowandlendmoneywithoneanother.The

14

creationoftheconditionsofpossibilityforobtainingbasicresourceswhile

regainingasenseofdignityandself-worthinHarpurheyareexploredbelowasa

formofregainedautonomythroughthelocalidiomof“beingfair”.

BuildingaSafetyNet

Anetworkofsupport,or“safetynet”,asOliviaputitearlier,isbuiltand

persistsamongstneighboursandfamilywholiveinthissmallcul-de-sacthrough

theborrowingandlendingofmoney,goodsandservices.Thereissomething

particularlyinclusiveinthelocalprocessofborrowingandlending.Whenanew

personorfamilyismovedintoavacanthouseinthecul-de-sac,neighbourswill

greetthenewlyarrivedtenants,andaskthemiftheyneedanything.

Transcendingperceivedracial,ethnicandreligiousboundaries,andwithoutan

awarenessoftheincomeorparticularbenefits,ifany,apersonorfamily

receives,theonlycriteriatobefulfilledintheactofinitiallyincludingnew

arrivalsintothissafetynetisthatofproximity.Thispracticeofinclusionis

mobilizedintheformulationandcompositionsoflocalidentitiesandasenseof

belonginginthecul-de-sac.

Similartothemaintenanceofthesocialandintimaterelationships

amongstfriendsandkinthatCaroleStack(1974)hasdescribedamongstthe

familieslivinginTheFlatsinJacksonHarbour,Illinois,thesteadysourceof

cooperativesupportgiventooneanotherinHarpurheyoftenstemsfromthe

perceivedurgencyoftheirneeds(cf.1974,p.33).InStack’sstudy,multi-

householdkinshiprelationsaresustainedthroughthecooperative“swapping”of

goods,servicesandmoneythatareoftenattributedtonuclearfamilyunits.The

notionthat“whatgoesroundcomesround”producesasenseofdomestic

organizationthatfamiliesrelyuponforsurvival(1974,p.70),andisaneffective

copingmechanisminthefaceofextremepoverty.Similarly,inHarpurheythere

isasenseofreciprocalobligationintheexchangeofgoodsandservices.

Residentsexchangevariousobjectsgenerously:neworusedthings,theyborrow

andlendtheuseofcars,petrolmoney,foodandservicessuchaschildcare,

sharedmealsandevenawarmplacetosleepifsomeonehaslostorbeenevicted

fromtheirproperty.However,onecanrefusetoparticipateinborrowingand

15

lendingjustasoneisentitledtochoosenottobelong.Obligationandthe

sustenanceofhouseholdeconomiesinHarpurheyinthisrespectare

underpinnedfirstlybyaparticularhistoryofstatewelfareprovisioningthatis

beingreformedradicallyand/orstrippedawayinBritaintoday.Secondly,in

Harpurheywecanidentifytheemergenceofaparticularmoraleconomyof

personhoodinthefaceofrapidausterity,andtheactivereproductionof

conditionsofpossibilitytotakecontroloverone’sownassets,actionsandfuture.

Unemploymentmaybeasharedexperienceaffectingsocialandinterpersonal

relationsamongstkinandneighboursinHarpurhey(cf.1974,pp.110-114);

however,aswewillseebelow,itisintheexpressionandrecognitionofthe

other’scapacitytolookaftertheirownaffairs,managetheirownassetsand

prepare,intheirownway,fortheprecariousfuturethatunderpinsthe

reciprocalobligationintheborrowingandlendingofmoneyparticularly.

Theborrowingandlendingofmoneyamongstneighbours,friendsand

familyinandaroundthiscul-de-sacisaregular,dailyoccurrence.Whetheritis

moneyneededtopayabill,buyfoodortobuyapacketofcigarettestolastyou

untilyou“getpaid”,thelevelof“crisis”apersonfindsthemselvesindoesnot

necessarilydictatetowhomapersongoesforhelp.Hereweexplorethe

mechanicsthroughwhichasenseofselfworthisrecognizedinasocialway,as

muchasitprovidesasafetynetintimesoffinancialcrisis.

“BeingFair”

Money,howlittlepeoplehaveofit,whytheycoulddowithmoreofit,and

whattheyneedbutcannotaffordispartofdailyconversationsinHarpurhey.On

theonehand,onemightexpecttofindthatpeoplearemorefrequently

discussingwhattheyarelacking,andthatwhatpeoplelackformsaparticular

kindofnarrativethatservesasawayofrelatingthroughsharedexperiencesof

anxietyandsuffering.Ontheotherhand,andasIwilldemonstratebelow,as

peopleborrowandlendmoneywitheachothermoreoften,theyexpress

themselves,theirsituationsandtheiranxietiesforthefutureasthey“negotiate”

andagreeonthetermsoftheloan.

16

Aprilisa39-year-oldmotherofan18-year-oldsonwholivesathome

withhersonandhisfather,Bob.Aprilhaslivedinthecul-de-sacforjustover

twentyyears.Sheisperceivedasafigureofmoralityandbalancedjudgmentin

thiscul-de-sacandisoftenthepersonpeoplegotoforadvice–onparenting,

debtconsolidation,fillinginforms,otherformsof“knowhow”intheJobCentre,

andgossip.Sheexplainedtomewhathappenswhenneighboursborrowand

lendmoneyandhowtheynegotiatethetermsoftheloan.Oneafternoonsitting

inherbackyard,Aprilexplainedwhypeopletalkaboutmoneyandthe

importanceofwhatshecalled“thenegotiation”whenborrowingandlending

money.

Youhavetotalkaboutmoney.Itneverusedtobethisway.

Butwhenyouasksomeonetolendyousomemoney,you

havetonegotiatetheterms.We’dhavetotalkaboutit.I’d

havetoexplainwhereI’mcomingfrom.Usually,I’dexplain

whatthemoney’sfor–whetherit’sforfoodorabillor

whatever.Butbecausethatpersonknowsand

understandingsthatyou’reapproachingthemforhelpfor

goodreason,youthennegotiatetheterms…We’dreachan

agreementonwhenIcanpayitback,andwhentheyneed

itback.OrwhetherIcanpayitback,like,weekly,orallat

once.Thentheball’sintheir[thelender’s]court.And

whateverwenegotiate,whateverweagree,Istickto.AndI

sticktoitbecauseIdon’twanttoletthemdown,butIalso

don’twanttoletmyselfdown,youknow?

Aprilexplainedthatthispracticeofborrowingandlendingmoney,and

negotiatingtheterms,occursbetweenneighboursinthiscul-de-sac,aswellas

betweenfamilymemberswholiveapart.Theimportanceoftalkingaboutmoney

andmakingexplicitthereasonfortheloanisapracticeinbothsetsofrelations.

Lookingatthenegotiationbetweenneighbours,shegoesontoexplainthatshe

doesnotwanttoletthelenderdown,butshealsodoesnotintendtoletherself

downbynotlivinguptothetermsofagreement.Itisinthisspaceofborrowing

17

andlendingthatthecrucialprocessofnegotiationemerges.April’soccasional

useoffinanciallanguageasshediscusseswhatshecalls“thenegotiation”stayed

withme.Itseemstocomesoeasilytoheruntilshegoesontoexplainthatitisin

“thenegotiation”whereonereallyshowsthattheyknowandunderstand

someoneintheircurrentsituationandcircumstances,andsoare“beingfair”.

Youhavetonegotiatethetermsoftheloan.It’snotlike

goingtoabankeither.Italldependsonlettingtheother

personknowyoursituation.It’saboutbeingfair.Beingfair

isaboutunderstandingthatpeopleareinhardtimesright

now.Andwhateversituationthey’rein,youjustknowit’s

complicated.They’lltellyouwhatthemoney’sfor,but

reallyit’saboutjust,youknow,understandingthatthe

otherpersonisstuck–thatthey’reagoodperson,but

they’rejuststuck.You’renevergoingtoknowallthe

detailsofwhat’sgoinginoroutoftheirbankaccounts.

Theytellyouwhatit’sforsoyoucanputyourselfintheir

shoes.Youknow?Youcanseewherethey’recomingfrom.

Butthentheycanshowthatthey’regoodforit.It’sjust

whatwedo.

Aprilisexpressingthesignificanceoftherecognitionthatapersonis

“goodforit”,thattheycanbetrusted.Butinordertoreachthispoint,thereisthe

necessaryprocessofallowingtheborrowerandlenderto“putthemselvesinthe

otherperson’sshoes”,toexpressthisintersubjectiveawarenessthateachare

mutuallyengagingontheirowntermsandwiththeirownattendancestoand

interpretationsofthatintersubjectivity.Whatisatissuehereisasocial

arrangementthatsafeguardsa“kindofmoralspacethatlocatesindividuals

beyondanyexistingrelationandidentitysuchthattheymightbefreetofulfill

theircapacitiesforself-creation,to‘comeintotheirown’”(Rapport,2014,p.56).

Borrowerandlendermayhavesimilarfinancialcircumstancesincludingthe

sanctioningoftheirbenefits,buteachpersonwilldealtheircircumstances

differently.Thatdiversityofself-managementinfinancialprecarityisrecognized

18

andappreciatedinthenegotiation.“Beingfair”isrecognizingtheotheras

worthyofaloanthatcouldpotentiallyputthelenderinproblematicsituationsif

unpaid.Beingfairinthenegotiationisaboutmakingexplicitone’scircumstances

sothattheotherpersoncanrecognizethosecircumstancesnotas

insurmountablebutratherexperiencesthatcanbeovercome,thereby

expressingtherecognitionoftheworthyselfintheirowncomplex

circumstances.

To“befair”istoexpressacomparisonbetween,andthenecessitytotake

intoaccountanotherperson’ssubjectivity–theircircumstances,experiences,

personalhistories,andtheirintentionsininteractionandforthefuture(Smith,

2012).Evenifthereisalackofagreementonanissuebetweenneighbours,to

“befair”involvesbeingwillingtoappreciatethecomplexitiesofanotherperson’s

lifeandthereforetheirstandpointinanygivenmoment.Fairnessinvolves

makingaconnectionbetweencircumstancesandhowonethinksandit

expressesthosethoughtsininteraction.Theexpressionandrecognitionofthe

viableselfwhocanself-manageandisputtothetestastheyborrowmoney

makesmanifestafairpersoninbothborrowerandlender.

“Beingfair”inthecontextofthenegotiationmaybeseenasaparticular

responseofoppositiontothenecessarystrippingawayofone’spersonal

complexitiesandcircumstancesinthecontextoftheJobCentre,andthatis

experiencedincategorythinkingabout“thepoor”benefitsrecipient.Evenmore

significantisthewayinwhichre-introducingandrecognizingthecomplexities

ofthepersonallivesofpeoplewhoexperienceattimesoverwhelmingpoverty

servesanimportantmoralpurpose.WecanseeinBerniceandApril’s

explanationsakindoftheoreticalframeworkforunderstandingandthinking

throughtheworthyselfandtheexpressionofthe“fairperson”.Withinthespace

ofthenegotiationisanefforttoputintomoraltermswhatisotherwise

problematicandriskywhendealingwiththestate:theexpressionand

recognitionofthecomplex,worthy,capableandviableself,despitetheir

circumstances.Asanewmoraleconomyofpersonhood,theexpressionand

19

recognitionoftheselfservestoconnecttheselftosocietyandsocietytotheself

onone’sownterms.

Theprocessofmakingexplicitone’scircumstanceiscrucial,asitallows

forrecognition.Itisaprocessofself-externalisationakintowhatLisette

Josephides(2008)hasdiscussedas“elicitation”,howpeoplepragmatically

createtheirselvesandtheirworldsintheactofmakingexplicitparticular

culturalformsofrelating–here,innegotiatingtheborrowingandlendingof

money.Sheexplainsthattheelicitation“denotesthecontestabilityand

negotiabilityofmeaningsandintentions”(2008,p.xix).Inthecontextofthe

negotiation,theelicitationrevealstheexistentialcontextofthelivesofthe

borrowerandlender,andwhathasleduptothatmomentofaskingtoborrow

somemoney.Theelicitationthatisnecessaryinthenegotiationallowsfor

recognitionofpotentialrisk,butalsoneedandthetrustworthinessandself-

managementoftheother.Thelendingofmoneyisladenwiththepowerto

regulateandchangearelationshipdependingonhowtheloanishandled.The

self-managing,worthyrecipient,whohenceforthhastheopportunitytoliveup

tothatrecognizedexpressionexistswithinanewmoraleconomyofpersonhood.

Conclusion

Thischapterhasdemonstratedhowananthropologyofpersonhood

contributesaddedinsightintothesociologyofadvancedliberalism.Ithas

exploredthepoweroftherelationshipenmeshedwiththecirculationofmoney

andthecentralityofmakingpersonsvaluableagaininsocialandindividual

terms.Inthepost-welfarelandscapeofHarpurhey,theresponsibilizedcitizens

inthissmallcul-de-sacarewellawareofwhatitmeansto“bepoor”intheeyes

ofthestate.Aspeopledealwiththenecessityandhumiliationofperforming

povertyinthecontextoftheJobCentre,theystrivetostripawaythe

complexitiesoftheireverydaylivesandsubjectivitiesinordertomaintainthe

incomeofbenefits.Itisadeliberateandwell-versedperformance;oneinwhich

theyarebothdependentandcompliant.However,whenresidentsinthiscul-de-

sacreturnhome,theypursueapracticeofinclusionintoasafetynetbasedon

domestic,livedproximity.Re-introducingintosocialrelationsthecomplexities

20

ofthepersonallivesofpeoplewhoexperienceattimesoverwhelmingpoverty

servesanimportantmoralpurpose.Asneighboursborrowandlendmoneyona

regularbasis,theymakeexplicitthecomplexitiesandcomplicationsofeveryday

lifeastheyfacethem.Inthespaceofnegotiatingthetermsofaloan,akindof

theoreticalframeworkforunderstandingandthinkingthroughtheworthyself

andtheexpressionofthe“fairperson”ismaintained.Thenegotiationisaneffort

toputintomoraltermswhatisotherwiseproblematicandriskywhendealing

withthestate:theexpressionandrecognitionofthecomplex,worthy,capable

andviableself.Asanewmoraleconomyofpersonhood,themakingexplicitof

circumstancesandsubjectivitiesallowsfortheexpressionandrecognitionofthe

worthyselfwhomanagestheirowncircumstancesandissociallyvaluedassuch.

Thereisarisk,however,ofassumingaharmoniousnetworkofsupportin

thiscul-de-sacwherebylocalresidentscometogetherandlivecooperativelyin

thefaceofausteritymeasures,precarityandstimatisationinBritaintoday.

Unsurprisinglythisisnotalwaysthecase.Conflictsandunfairnesspersistinand

beyondthecul-de-sac.Therearefamilyconflicts,argumentsbetween

neighbours,unresolvedtensionswithinandbetweenhouseholds(Smith,

forthcoming).However,whenwelookatthelocalsignificanceplacedon

sustainingasafetynet,onthehumiliationexperiencedregularlybypeoplewho

needstatesupporttomakeendsmeetforthemselvesandtheirfamilies,andon

theprioritizationof“beingfair”andtheexpressionandrecognitionofthe

worthyselfinnegotiatingthetermsofaloan,wecanseeinanewlightwhatis

beingrespondedtoandfoughtforinthefaceofstigmaandprecarity.Despitethe

requirementtoperformthe“poorperson”,andexperiencinganever-increasing

threatofpovertyanddestitution,weseeworthyselves,fairpersons,andthe

creationofanalternativespaceinwhichsocialandpersonalworthcanbe

expressedandrecognized.

Beyondasenseofcollectiveresponsibilityforthewell-beingofothersin

thecul-de-sac,whatneighboursmaintainisaspaceofhopeinapost-welfare

landscape.Astheyborrowandlendmoney,itisinandthroughthenegotiation

thattheyregainasenseofautonomyinthefaceofanoverwhelming

21

bureaucraticencroachmentontheirlives,asenseofsocialandindividualworth,

andtherecognitionofthatselfworthframedinthelocaldiscourseof“beingfair”

anda“fairperson”–adiscoursethatisdeliberatelyplacedoutsideofdiscourses

ofthestateandbureaucracy.“Beingfair”intheexchangeofmoneyisasmuch

abouttheindividualsubjectregainingasenseofautonomyandsocialand

personalworthasitisaboutthesocialrelationsthatrecognizeit.Itbeginsby

“knowingwhoyoucangoto,howmuchyoucanhelpthemandhowmuchother

peoplecanhelpyou”.Anditismaintainedbybeingfair,assertingthevalueofthe

personandrecognizing,asIsooftenhaveheardresidentsinthecul-de-sac

explain,that“youdon’townmoney,you’rejusttheonewho’sholdingit”.

UniversityofManchester 16January2017

References

Adair,V.(2002).Brandedwithinfamy:Inscriptionsofpovertyandclassinthe

UnitedStates.Signs,27(2),451-471.

Bloch,M.,&Parry,J.(1989).Introduction:Moneyandthemoralityofexchange.

InM.BlochandJ.Parry(Eds.),Moneyandthemoralityofexchange(pp.1-30).

Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Bolton,S.C.,&Laaser,K.(2013).‘Work,employmentandsocietythroughthelens

ofmoraleconomy.Work,EmploymentandSociety,27(3),508-525.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0950017013479828

Butler,J.(1997).Excitablespeech:Apoliticsoftheperformative.NewYork:

Routledge.

Cameron,D.(2009).Makingprogressiveconservativismareality,SpeechtoDemos,22January,http://www.conservatives.com/News/Speeches/2009/01/David-_Cameron_Making_progressive_conservativism_a_reality.aspx.Accessed:12October,2013.

22

Carrithers,M.,Collins,S.&Lukes,S.(Eds.),(1985).Thecategoryoftheperson:

Anthropology,philosophy,history.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Chase,E.&Walker,R.(2012).Theco-constructionofshameinthecontextof

poverty:Beyondathreattothesocialbond.Sociology,47(4),739-754.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0038038512453796

Cohen,A.P.(1996).Personalnationalism:AScottishviewofsomerites,rights,

andwrong.AmericanEthnologist,23(4),1-14.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/ae.1996.23.4.02a00070

Collins,C.,&Wright,M.(2007).Themoralmeasureoftheeconomy.NewYork:

OrbisBooks.

Cruikshank,B.(1994).Thewilltoempower:Technologiesofcitizenshipandthe

waronpoverty.SocialistReview,23,29-55.

Cruikshank,B.(1999).Thewilltoempower:Democraticcitizensandother

subjects.London:Routledge.

DuncanSmith,I.,(2013),‘Restoringfairnesstothewelfaresystem’,Speech,ConservativePartyConference,Manchester,UK,www.conservatives.com/News/Speeches/2011/10/Duncan_Smith_Restoring_fairness_to_the_welfare_system.aspx.Accessed:12October,2013.

deL’Estoile,B.(2014).“Moneyisgood,butafriendisbetter”:Uncertainty,

orientationtothefuture,andtheeconomy.CurrentAnthropology,55(9),S62-

S73.http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/676068

Ferguson,J.(2009).Theusesofneoliberalism.Antipode,42(S1),166-184.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8330.2009.00721.x

23

Hacking,I.(1986).Makinguppeople.InT.C.Heller,M.Sosna,&D.E.Wellbery

(Eds.),Reconstructingindividualism:Autonomy,individualityandtheselfin

Westernthought(pp.222-236).Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress.

Hyatt,S.B.(1997).Povertyina“post-welfare”landscape.InC.Shore&S.Wright

(Eds.),Anthropologyofpolicy:Criticalperspectivesongovernanceandpower(pp.

217-238).London:Routledge.

Hyatt,S.B.(2011).Whatwasneoliberalismandwhatcomesnext?The

transformationofcitizenshipinthelaw-and-orderstate.InC.Shore,S.Wright,&

D.Peró(Eds.),Policyworlds:Anthropologyandtheanalysisofcontemporary

power,EASAMonographs,14(pp.105-123).Oxford:BerghahnBooks.

Josephides,L.(2008).Melanesianodysseys:Negotiatingtheself,narrativeand

modernity.Oxford:BerghahnBooks.

Lambek,M.(2013).Thecontinuousanddiscontinuousperson:Twodimensions

ofethicallife.JournaloftheRoyalAnthropologicalInstitute(N.S.),19,837-858.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9655.12073

Lawler,S.(2005).Disgustedsubjects:Themakingofmiddle-classidentities.The

SociologicalReview,53(3),429-446.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-

954X.2005.00560.x

MacDonald,R.,Shildrick,T.,&Furlong,A.(2014).“BenefitsStreet”andthemyth

ofworklesscommunities.SociologicalResearchOnline,19(3),1-6.

http://dx.doi.org/10.5153/sro.3438

Mcdonald,C.,&Marston,G.(2005).Workfareaswelfare:Governing

unemploymentintheadvancedliberalstate.CriticalSocialPolicy,25(3),374-

401.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0261018305054077

24

Morgen,S.,&Maskovsky,J.(2003).Theanthropologyofwelfare“reform”:New

perspectivesonU.S.urbanpovertyinthepost-welfareera.AnnualReviewof

Anthropology,32,315-338.

Narotzky,S.(2016).Betweeninequalityandinjustice:Dignityasamotivefor

mobilizationduringthecrisis.HistoryandAnthropology,27(1),74-92.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02757206.2015.1111209

Narotzky,S.,&Besnier,N.(2014).Crisis,valueandhope:Rethinkingthe

economy.CurrentAnthropology,55(S9),S4-S16.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/676327

Osborne,G.,(2010),‘Emergencybudgetspeech’,Speech,www.conservatives.com/New/.../Budget_2010.aspx.Accessed:13October,2013.

Rapport,N.(2012).Anyone:Thecosmopolitansubjectofanthropology.Oxford:

BerghahnBooks.

Rapport,N.(2014).Thecapacitiesofanyone:Accommodatingtheuniversal

humansubjectasvalueandinspace.InL.Josephides&A.Hall(Eds.),Wethe

cosmopolitans:Moralandexistentialconditionsofbeinghuman(pp.48-67).

Oxford:BerghahnBooks.

Rose,N.(1989).Governingthesoul:Theshapingoftheprivateself.NewYork:

FreeAssociationBooks.

Rose,N.(1993).Government,authorityandexpertiseinadvancedliberalism.

EconomyandSociety,22,283-299.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03085149300000019

Rose,N.(2000).Governmentandcontrol.TheBritishJournalofCriminology,40(2),321-339.https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/40.2.321

25

Sales,R.(2002).Thedeservingandundeserving?Refugees,asylumseekersand

welfareinBritain.CriticalSocialPolicy,22(3),456-478.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/026101830202200305

Sassen,S.,&VanRoekel-Hughes,A.(2008).DecipheringtheGlobal:ItsSpaces,

ScalesandSubjects.SocialThought&Research,29,3-18.Retrievedfrom

http://www.jstor.org/stable/23250060

Shore,C.,&Wright,S.(Eds.),(1997).Anthropologyofpolicy:Criticalperspectivesongovernanceandpower.London:Routledge.

Skeggs,B.(2010).Themoraleconomyofpersonproduction:Theclassrelations

ofself-peformanceon“reality”television.Sociologica:RevistadoDepartmentode

SociologicadaFLUR,XX,67-84.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-

954X.2009.01865.x

Skeggs,B.(2012).Strugglesforvalue:Valuepractices,injustice,judgment,affect

andtheideaofclass.TheBritishJournalofSociology,63(3),472-490.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-4446.2012.01420.x

Slater,T.(2012).Themythof“BrokenBritain”:Welfarereformandthe

productionofignorance.Antipode,46(4),948-969.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/anti.12002

Smith,K.(2012).Fairness,classandbelongingincontemporaryEngland.

Basingstoke:PalgraveMacmillan.

Smith,K.(forthcoming).Self-policingasethicaldevelopment.InC.Lewis&J.

Symons(Eds.),Realisingthecity:Ethnographicnarrativesofurban

transformationinManchester.Manchester:ManchesterUniversityPress.

Stack,C.(1974).Allourkin:Strategiesforsurvivalinablackcommunity.New

York:HarperandRow.

26

Tyler,K.(2007).“Streetvilleforever”:Ethnicity,collectiveactionandthestate.

Ethnicities,14(5),579-602.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10702890701662581

Tyler,I.(2013).Revoltingsubjects:Socialabjectionandresistanceinneoliberal

Britain.London:ZedBooks.

Wedel,J.R.,Shore,C.,Feldman,G.,&Lathrop,S.(2005).Towardananthropology

ofpublicpolicy.AnnalsoftheAmericanAcademy,600,30-51.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0002716205276734

Wilkinson,J.(2010).Personalcommunities:Responsibleindividualismoranotherfallforpublic[man]?Sociology,44(3),453-470.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0038038510362484

iAJobCentreisanemploymentagencyandsocialsecurityoffice,aftermergingwiththeUKBenefitsAgencyin2002(nowcalledJobCentrePlus).JobCentrescanbefoundinmostcitiesthroughouttheUnitedKingdom.WhileJobCentresdonotcommunicatedirectlywithcentralgovernment,butratherwithlocalcouncils,theyarefundedbycentralgovernmentandprovideservicesdirectlysetoutandprovidedbytheDepartmentforWorkandPensions.ii“PeopleLikeUs”wasaBBC3DocumentarySeriesthatfilmedlocalresidentsinHarpurheyandtelevisedthebehavioursandsituationsofaselectfewlocalresidentstorepresentwhatlifeislikeonbenefitsintheUK.ThedocumentaryairedfromJanuarytoJune,2013andreceivedcontemptuouscriticismfromlocalresidentsthroughoutHarpurheyforwhattheyperceivedasthegrossportrayalofHarpurheyanditsresidents.Asaresult,theBBCcrewdecidednottoreturntoHarpurheyforafollow-upseries.Formoreinformationabouttheprogramme,see:www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0100b56(Accessed23May,2016).WordCount:8,480