Examining Workfare through an Anti-Oppressive Lens

I hope the info contained in this blog has served you well in that it has assisted in answering some of your questions; perhaps even sparked some new ones. It is an important issue as it affects people in every corner of our country. I think about what my teacher relayed to my colleagues and me the other day. She was speaking about Workfare and how it can be viewed through various theoretical frameworks: Anti-Oppressive Theory (most predominantly), Feminist theory, Psychoanalytic, and others. Through an Anti-Oppressive lens, she was saying, the issue has much to do with poverty. So it follows that Workfare is greatly influenced by our "governing institutions" and the ways in which they think, personally and collectively, because it is they who form our policies.

Applying this point through a specific theory can be done with the use of N. Thompson's "PCS Model," which looks at the interlocking systems involved in how oppression operates. The personal system (P), as Thompson categorizes it, focuses on a person's individual principles and beliefs. It is strongly connected to the two remaining systems and according to the model is posted at the core. Collective beliefs and ideas of society constitute the second level, the cultural system (C). These shared ideas and principles can ultimately form a consensus and play a part in influencing how policies are established. Lastly, the structural system (S) is made up of our institutions and essentially makes oppression possible as these bodies support the two previous systems. Large corporations, the media, the federal and provincial governments as well as religious groups, for example, perpetuate dominant views.

Through this framework, it is quite reasonable to assume that oppressive practices such as workfare begin with the mindset in individuals that people are lazy, unskilled, and "don't want to do anything." When these same people come together, such as when they form a government (Conservative Party of Canada, Liberal Party of Canada, etc.), the beliefs start to become hardened and strong. Beliefs around workfare then become legitimated when policies are made to "help" those in need. It's a tough process to get your head around, as it seems to imply the idea that people are undeserving of assistance when they are out of work ~ unless they "earn it" through jobs given to them by our governing institutions.

However, on a more personal note, I believe there is another element to speak to. I feel in life that there are always two sides to every story, and thus, to imply that Workfare is SOLELY a degrading and oppressive practice doesn't speak to the complexity of the issue. When people are out of work, should they receive assistance in getting back on their feet? Absolutely. But shouldn't there also be an ending to that assistance so that these same people can get on with their lives and support themselves? It COULD be said that to allow someone to receive welfare assistance indefinitely is rather degrading, because it implies that "they're no good," or that they have no abilities. I feel that there are severe weaknesses to the Workfare policy, outlined in the reasons I've cited. Yet I also think that there are merits. Those who created Workfare or who agree with its inception are not necessarily "heartless." What 'they' want is to help people who are down and out, for whatever reason, to get back to a state where they can support themselves ~ maybe even to the point where there is less of a chance that he or she will be in that same situation again.

When Workfare was first established by the Conservative Party of Canada, it was legitimated out of response to taxpayers who were frustrated with their money going to people who they felt were "sitting at home and not doing anything to remedy their situation." This may not be a sound opinion, but it seems to be what people were feeling (given that most families in Canada work HARD for their wages, I think I can understand their point of view). Therefore, it has validity because this is the belief that Canadians were struggling with. Workfare was the reaction, or the fall-out, depending on how you look at it.

Bringing all this together, I feel you can most certainly look at both sides of the issue through the lens of Thompson's PCS ~ Anti-Oppressive model. A person develops an opinion and then shares it with others who are like-minded. The third step equates to a massive organization of powers "reacting" due to the pressure of the people. It is my hope that we can look at the complexity of the issue by examining ALL angles.