Nature Of The Anti-Welfare Rhetorical Analysis

it might be said:

I Introduction

The neoliberal blueprint is one of deregulation, privatisation and competitiveness. This model of existence has become the dominant discourse worldwide, affecting legal, political, social and economic structures. Unsurprisingly, social welfare law has not escaped the neoliberal influence, with developments in this area of law creating human suffering and constraining human agency.
Bourdieu’s categorisation of social welfare law and neoliberalism as forms of structural violence, will be explored in this essay in a manner that supports the sociologist’s argument. This will be done by discussing the nature of the anti-welfare rhetoric of neoliberalism, the subsequent restructuring of social welfare law to serve
the purposes of neoliberal rationalities (by reference to Australian cases) and how this all equates to structural violence.
II Discussion

A The Neoliberal Philosophy

The central tenet of the neoliberal philosophy is that the market provides all individuals with access to the same opportunities and that these individuals will then be rewarded in accordance with their performance. It is then argued that this link between performance and reward, helps provide the appropriate incentives for shaping the behaviour of the poor and rich alike.
B The Anti-Welfare Rhetoric of Neoliberalism

As such, government social welfare is seen as the antithesis to neoliberalism, reducing individual motivation to work and increasing reliance on the government. For this reason, legal and economic structures in neoliberal states such as Australia, the US and the UK, continue to justify cutbacks in social welfare by reference to the notion that public wellbeing can only be improved in the long term by the free market.
Nevertheless, decreased government economic involvement in social welfare is not without its problems, often leading to harsh outcomes for the most disadvantaged of people. The primary problem with neoliberal policies is that they tend to wrongly assume a level of homogeneity in the circumstances of individuals. The argument advanced is that since all individuals have personal freedom in the market, then they should each be held responsible for their own successes or failures.
However, such an argument can be seen as trying to justify the equal treatment of those who are unequal, which in and of itself is a form of structural violence.
C The Nature of the Anti-Welfare Rhetoric

It is often stated that the anti-welfare rhetoric of neoliberal states, is limited to social welfare by the government and not that freedom and welfare which can be derived from the market. However, such an assertion does not recognise the true nature of neoliberal rationalities.
Earlier welfare state theorists argue that neoliberalism in its early stages did not recognise the vital role which welfare provision played in the economy. Nonetheless, in the modern context this can no longer be said to be true. The role of the welfare system in maintaining the capitalist economy is firmly entrenched within the system itself, whereby it could be argued that welfare and neoliberal rationalities are almost completely intertwined.
D Restructuring Social Welfare Law to Serve the Purposes of Neoliberal
Rationalities
Furthermore, despite their supposed anti-government welfare stance, neoliberal rationalities have not sought to dismantle welfare regimes, rather merely to restructure social welfare laws in a manner that would maintain social control. This becomes particularly clear when looking at social welfare laws and measures that have been introduced, which have made it particularly difficult for specific groups to access welfare payments or certain rates of payments.
E Increased Level of Social Control in Social Welfare Law
There are a number of Australian cases which reflect the difficulty that some individuals in need of welfare payments experience when trying to obtain a certain allowance from Centrelink. These will now be discussed in order to highlight the level of social control that social welfare law exercises over such individuals, as a result of neoliberal rationalities.
In the case of Ferguson (1997), the matter related to a Newstart allowance and is a clear reflection of how the social welfare law relating to such allowances has made social control of beneficiaries the primary object, preventing their free movement.
The fundamental purpose of the Newstart allowance is supposedly to support a beneficiary as they look for work. Nonetheless, Ferguson’s failure to attend an appointment with his case manager led to his benefit being cancelled, despite the fact, that the appointment had been missed as a result of a trip he had taken to look for work. This highlights how social welfare law has prioritised the neoliberal agenda of social control over the original purpose of the welfare payment i.e. to find suitable employment.
Developments in the area of welfare law relating to marriage-like relationships further exemplify the intrusive nature of Centrelink assessments of eligibility for benefits. A determination by Centrelink that two individuals are in a marriage-like relationship will result in the loss of their two individual benefits, for the lesser married rate.
In recent years, the definition of a marriage-like relationship has been expanded by legislation, in essence giving Centrelink greater control over personal relationships. This inadvertently discourages cohabitation, since two individuals living together would attract the lesser married rate of payment, which could be seen as penalising such behaviour.
F Social Control by Social Welfare Law, A Form of Structural Violence
The cases of Re Waterford and Lambe demonstrate how social welfare law relating to marriage-like relationships has resulted in an element of social control over individuals. They also highlight how assessments of eligibility for such welfare payments can result in human suffering and restrict human agency.
Assessments of marriage like relationships for welfare purposes will often require that all aspects of a relationship be scrutinised. Such investigations will request welfare beneficiaries to supply extremely personal information, which must be updated upon any change of circumstances. Furthermore, an agency may gather its own evidence about the beneficiary from employers, co-workers, medical and educational institutions. Such an invasive level of surveillance can only be viewed as an attempt to control beneficiaries and ensure that they maintain certain types of relationships.
The anti-welfare rhetoric of neoliberalism is used to justify this increased level of control over income support recipients’ lives, despite the fact that it can often result in unfair outcomes for some individuals. The use of social welfare law to exert a level of social control, will inadvertently result in the creation of human suffering and the restriction of human agency, which is a form of structural violence.
III Conclusion

In conclusion, the social control exerted by social welfare law is a form of structural violence that often results in human suffering and restricts human agency.
The development of social welfare law in this manner has occurred largely as a result of neoliberal anti-welfare rhetoric. Nonetheless, despite this rhetoric, neoliberal rationalities have not sought to dismantle welfare regimes, rather merely to restructure social welfare laws in a manner that would maintain social control. This is because the role of the welfare system in maintaining the capitalist economy is undeniable, with welfare and neoliberal rationalities now almost completely intertwined. It is for this reason that Bourdieu describes social welfare law and neoliberalism, as forms of structural violence, ultimately maintaining the interests of the most privileged members of
society.