To what extent have UK social policies, both past and present, served to stigmatise and
shame the poor?
In this essay, I will thoroughly assess the extent to which UK social policies both past and
present have affected the poor by stigmatising and shaming them. I will look at the social
dependency of the poor with the welfare state and how this dependency has shamed them.
Secondly, I will review past social policies such as the cuts to welfare and how these
impacted the poor. I will also view the term worklessness in the context of stigma. Finally, I
will look at present social policies that have occurred during the Covid-19 pandemic that
may have further stigmatised the poor.
The stigma which results from dependency on welfare is a complex issue that raises
problems with UK social policies. ‘Social policies aim to improve human welfare (though
they often fail to do so) and to meet human needs for education, health, housing and social
security’(Blakemore and Warwick-Booth 2013). This aim of social policies is directly in
opposition to the stigma which is an attribute that makes the stigmatised person different
from others and less desirable. The social construction that is put on claiming and receiving
benefits serves to stigmatise and shame the poor because it traps them into a culture of
dependency, destroying their self-respect and locking them into unemployment. However,
the reaction of the people who receive these benefits is reluctancy and humiliation. Many
people who need and are eligible to receive benefits do not do so due to the high level of
stigma attached to being dependent on them. Stigma according to Burton Allen Weisbrod
(1970) is a cost that people have to bear in order to receive benefits, even if it does not
actually prevent them from claiming. The stigmas of poverty on poor people include
unemployment, low income and homelessness and for these reasons they are shamed and
rejected as socially dependent and work-shy. Thus, the poor’s dependency on social services
makes them lazy and inadequate people who are unable to depend on themselves. The
poor and dependent who can be old, disabled, unemployed or on low incomes are
separated from the rest of society and are not seen as themselves but as their inequalities.
The British social policy that enforced the idea of the poor needing to find work in order to
better themselves was the Poor Law of 1601, this made a distinction between the ‘master
evil’, fit, working-age men who were able to work but unwilling and the ‘impotent poor’,
those who were too old, young or ill to work (Walker and Chase, 2014). There was,
however, no proper enforcement and the Poor Law’s were inconsistent in tackling
unemployment. It only served to further increase poor rates and stigmatise the poor into
categories of deserving and undeserving. (Malthus quoted in Hall, 1994) argued that poverty
should be tackled through shame, “dependent poverty ought to be held disgraceful.” The
workhouses also created a stigma around the poor as it had a reputation for having bleak
conditions that no one wanted to be associated with. Therefore, UK policies did and still do
serve to stigmatise and shame the poor for reasons that are socially constructed in order to
reject and divide the less able from society.
Moreover, the austerity measures that were put in place worked with neoliberalism to
dismantle the welfare state and privatise services. Massive cuts in state spending including
benefits and children’s services - particularly affected young families and lone mothers
(Gillies, 2014). The policies impacted the poorest people in the UK and served to stigmatise
, and shame them. Those already in poverty saw their impoverishment worsen, and millions
became more vulnerable. There were rising levels of unemployment, falling incomes and
cuts to public services, all of this combined created a deeply damaging situation in which
millions were struggling to make ends meet (Haddad, 2012). Furthermore, these cuts to
welfare are still in trend today as even Labour governments have not returned to the classic
welfare state model. This new neoliberal model of the welfare state was seen as modern
and efficient. Nevertheless, the rise of benefit-related deaths suggests that maybe the
stigma and shame will always surround the welfare state. In 2020 Errol Graham was found
by bailiffs who had broken into his council flat in Nottingham in order to evict him, lying
dead by starvation. After his benefits stopped he was unable to pay for the gas, electric or
food. The stigma he felt made him feel isolated and unable to ask for help from a
government system that had failed him. Therefore, stigma and shame towards the poor is a
result of UK social policies which has been highlighted by the impact of the welfare cuts.
Additionally, universal credit was introduced in 2013 and replaced previous tax credits by
putting it all into one benefit. This was meant to provide an incentive for work and ‘tackle
poverty, worklessness and welfare dependency’ (DWP, 2019, p2). It also restricted child
benefit to two children per family, and this was in order to discourage the poor from
reproducing and to stop their worklessness. However, the policy stigmatised the poor and
effectively punished young families who are not able to work. The two-child policy further
unfairly disadvantages larger working families who are on low income, forcing them into
poverty. In modern welfare, there is a social stigma attached to the unemployed which
hinders them from getting a job. The social construction of ‘worklessness’ is that it is a
personal responsibility and moral failure (Wiggan, 2012). The term ‘Skivers vs Strivers’ has
been used multiple times to denote that in order to succeed you should not be dependent
on the state but rather be responsible for yourself. ‘Skivers’ are seen as ‘scroungers’ due to
them being in need and ‘Strivers’ are personally and socially responsible for their own lives.
Consequently, some parents, in particular lone mothers, do not gain financially from moving
into work (Harding, Wheaton and Butler, 2017). Thus, for them moving from welfare to
work will only worsen their positions and take them away from providing childcare.
For many, the notion of ‘charity’ is frowned upon, but the services to which a person is
entitled to like health and medical services are seen as a ‘right.’ Blaxter (1974) suggests that
welfare is paid not by right but by need and in consequence, less acceptable. Certain
selective benefits carry a stigma while others do not, for example, disability benefits do not
appear to be associated with stigma while receiving universal credit does. This could be due
to society assuming that people who receive these benefits are choosing to depend on the
state rather than ‘strive’ to find work for themselves. As a result, UK policies do serve to
stigmatise and shame the poor. Further explanations of how the poor are stigmatised by UK
social policies is through labelling. The policy of Pupil premium was introduced to fund
children who were seen as ‘disadvantaged.’ However, parents were reluctant to apply
because of the negative impact and stigma parents may feel concerning the child being
identified and targeted as ‘disadvantaged’ (DfE, 2017). The individual receiving welfare is
identified as different due to his association with ‘help.’ This label is stigmatising as it is a
mark of shame that the individual is forced to bear. The person is different from the rest of
society and he is no longer seen as himself but as his label. Stigma is “an attribute that is
shame the poor?
In this essay, I will thoroughly assess the extent to which UK social policies both past and
present have affected the poor by stigmatising and shaming them. I will look at the social
dependency of the poor with the welfare state and how this dependency has shamed them.
Secondly, I will review past social policies such as the cuts to welfare and how these
impacted the poor. I will also view the term worklessness in the context of stigma. Finally, I
will look at present social policies that have occurred during the Covid-19 pandemic that
may have further stigmatised the poor.
The stigma which results from dependency on welfare is a complex issue that raises
problems with UK social policies. ‘Social policies aim to improve human welfare (though
they often fail to do so) and to meet human needs for education, health, housing and social
security’(Blakemore and Warwick-Booth 2013). This aim of social policies is directly in
opposition to the stigma which is an attribute that makes the stigmatised person different
from others and less desirable. The social construction that is put on claiming and receiving
benefits serves to stigmatise and shame the poor because it traps them into a culture of
dependency, destroying their self-respect and locking them into unemployment. However,
the reaction of the people who receive these benefits is reluctancy and humiliation. Many
people who need and are eligible to receive benefits do not do so due to the high level of
stigma attached to being dependent on them. Stigma according to Burton Allen Weisbrod
(1970) is a cost that people have to bear in order to receive benefits, even if it does not
actually prevent them from claiming. The stigmas of poverty on poor people include
unemployment, low income and homelessness and for these reasons they are shamed and
rejected as socially dependent and work-shy. Thus, the poor’s dependency on social services
makes them lazy and inadequate people who are unable to depend on themselves. The
poor and dependent who can be old, disabled, unemployed or on low incomes are
separated from the rest of society and are not seen as themselves but as their inequalities.
The British social policy that enforced the idea of the poor needing to find work in order to
better themselves was the Poor Law of 1601, this made a distinction between the ‘master
evil’, fit, working-age men who were able to work but unwilling and the ‘impotent poor’,
those who were too old, young or ill to work (Walker and Chase, 2014). There was,
however, no proper enforcement and the Poor Law’s were inconsistent in tackling
unemployment. It only served to further increase poor rates and stigmatise the poor into
categories of deserving and undeserving. (Malthus quoted in Hall, 1994) argued that poverty
should be tackled through shame, “dependent poverty ought to be held disgraceful.” The
workhouses also created a stigma around the poor as it had a reputation for having bleak
conditions that no one wanted to be associated with. Therefore, UK policies did and still do
serve to stigmatise and shame the poor for reasons that are socially constructed in order to
reject and divide the less able from society.
Moreover, the austerity measures that were put in place worked with neoliberalism to
dismantle the welfare state and privatise services. Massive cuts in state spending including
benefits and children’s services - particularly affected young families and lone mothers
(Gillies, 2014). The policies impacted the poorest people in the UK and served to stigmatise
, and shame them. Those already in poverty saw their impoverishment worsen, and millions
became more vulnerable. There were rising levels of unemployment, falling incomes and
cuts to public services, all of this combined created a deeply damaging situation in which
millions were struggling to make ends meet (Haddad, 2012). Furthermore, these cuts to
welfare are still in trend today as even Labour governments have not returned to the classic
welfare state model. This new neoliberal model of the welfare state was seen as modern
and efficient. Nevertheless, the rise of benefit-related deaths suggests that maybe the
stigma and shame will always surround the welfare state. In 2020 Errol Graham was found
by bailiffs who had broken into his council flat in Nottingham in order to evict him, lying
dead by starvation. After his benefits stopped he was unable to pay for the gas, electric or
food. The stigma he felt made him feel isolated and unable to ask for help from a
government system that had failed him. Therefore, stigma and shame towards the poor is a
result of UK social policies which has been highlighted by the impact of the welfare cuts.
Additionally, universal credit was introduced in 2013 and replaced previous tax credits by
putting it all into one benefit. This was meant to provide an incentive for work and ‘tackle
poverty, worklessness and welfare dependency’ (DWP, 2019, p2). It also restricted child
benefit to two children per family, and this was in order to discourage the poor from
reproducing and to stop their worklessness. However, the policy stigmatised the poor and
effectively punished young families who are not able to work. The two-child policy further
unfairly disadvantages larger working families who are on low income, forcing them into
poverty. In modern welfare, there is a social stigma attached to the unemployed which
hinders them from getting a job. The social construction of ‘worklessness’ is that it is a
personal responsibility and moral failure (Wiggan, 2012). The term ‘Skivers vs Strivers’ has
been used multiple times to denote that in order to succeed you should not be dependent
on the state but rather be responsible for yourself. ‘Skivers’ are seen as ‘scroungers’ due to
them being in need and ‘Strivers’ are personally and socially responsible for their own lives.
Consequently, some parents, in particular lone mothers, do not gain financially from moving
into work (Harding, Wheaton and Butler, 2017). Thus, for them moving from welfare to
work will only worsen their positions and take them away from providing childcare.
For many, the notion of ‘charity’ is frowned upon, but the services to which a person is
entitled to like health and medical services are seen as a ‘right.’ Blaxter (1974) suggests that
welfare is paid not by right but by need and in consequence, less acceptable. Certain
selective benefits carry a stigma while others do not, for example, disability benefits do not
appear to be associated with stigma while receiving universal credit does. This could be due
to society assuming that people who receive these benefits are choosing to depend on the
state rather than ‘strive’ to find work for themselves. As a result, UK policies do serve to
stigmatise and shame the poor. Further explanations of how the poor are stigmatised by UK
social policies is through labelling. The policy of Pupil premium was introduced to fund
children who were seen as ‘disadvantaged.’ However, parents were reluctant to apply
because of the negative impact and stigma parents may feel concerning the child being
identified and targeted as ‘disadvantaged’ (DfE, 2017). The individual receiving welfare is
identified as different due to his association with ‘help.’ This label is stigmatising as it is a
mark of shame that the individual is forced to bear. The person is different from the rest of
society and he is no longer seen as himself but as his label. Stigma is “an attribute that is
