This is the presentation delivered by Dr. Kathy Hamilton at the Inclusion or Stigma? event co-hosted by the North East Child Poverty Commission and Durham Business School on 25th May 2012.
Organic Name Reactions for the students and aspirants of Chemistry12th.pptx
Inclusion or stigma?
1. Inclusion or Stigma?
Low-income families and
coping through brands
Dr Kathy Hamilton
2. Central argument
Coping strategies which seem functional and effective at the
micro level may have unanticipated outcomes if considered
within the wider societal context. It will be suggested that the
coping strategies employed by low-income families to disguise
poverty and portray a socially acceptable image can actually
create further stigmatization.
4. In what ways do those living on a low income use consumption
to cope?
5. How can these coping strategies be interpreted with reference
to published material on consumer exclusion?
4. Consumer Culture
• “a ‘normal life’ is the life of consumers, preoccupied with making
their choices among the panoply of publicly displayed
opportunities for pleasurable sensations and lively
experiences.” (Bauman 2005, 38)
• In a consumer culture, the marketplace acts as a framework for
consumer action (Arnould and Thompson 2005).
• Not only a consumer culture but a consumer civilisation
5. Stigma
• “abnormal,” “blemished, defective, faulty and deficient,” “flawed”
(Bauman 1998, 36-38).
• “lazy, criminal and responsible for their circumstances” (Becker
1997, 1)
• No morality, lazy, don’t want an education, bunch of “sickies”
(Waxman 1977, 3)
• Delinquency of young men in terms of criminal behaviour and the
delinquency of young women in terms of the irresponsibility of lone
parenthood (Levitas 1998)
• “The phrase ‘welfare mother’ is one in which the adjective,
‘welfare’, modifies the noun in such a way that it turns its meaning
upside down. It is different from ‘working mother’, ‘stay-at-home
mother’, or ‘soccer mom’, all phrases that specify ways of doing
motherhood … but do not fundamentally alter the meaning of the
term ‘mother’” (McCormack 2005).
8. Method
• 30 families (25 single parent families)
• Average income: £150 per week
– majority unemployed and financially dependent on
welfare benefits
– 6 low-paid jobs
• In-depth interviews
– 21 families only parents interviewed
– 9 families: parents and children interviewed together
• Hermeneutic approach to data analysis
9. Findings: Vignette 1
• Sarah is 46 years old with six children (aged 25, 20, 16, 15, 13
and 11) and two grandchildren.
• Lives in a neighbourhood where there are high crime levels
• Her home has also been petrol bombed.
• Her 16-year-old son is currently in a young offenders’ institution
which Sarah attributes to his involvement with a ‘bad crowd.’
• Entertainment activities for the family are limited
• Sarah feels pressurized into buying brand name clothing for her
children
• cigarettes and beer are the main source of personal
expenditure alongside occasional jewellery purchases,
particularly gold rings, through the informal economy
11. Vignette 3
• Denise (43) and Barry (40) have two teenage sons, aged 15
and 17.
• Both are unemployed and believe that remaining on welfare
benefits is the best financial option
• Reoccurring topic of conversation is the struggle involved in
meeting their sons’ clothing demands
• Often results in turning to credit
• Very aware of social comparisons
12. Experiences of Poverty in Consumer
Culture
Emma: I think it’s a lie that money doesn’t buy you happiness.
Whenever you get paid or whenever you have money you feel
better, you feel great going into town, you feel great if you have
something in your purse, you know what I mean. Whereas if
you’re sitting and you have nothing you’re saying to yourself
ahh, you get depressed, I don’t care what anybody says,
nobody’s going to bring you out of it (36, 2 children).
Melissa: money makes so much difference. If I don’t have money I
feel like crap, if I go down that road and I don’t have a pound or
£2 or a fiver in my pocket I feel like crap, it’s hard but there is so
much emphasis on it (31, 5 children).
13. Stigma Avoidance and Keeping Up
Appearances
“I know people do judge you, there are people who look down
on you for what you wear and the way you talk, there are
people who will look down on you for any reason. My friends
back home all have jobs and houses and cars. My mum has a
big house, my brother who is four years younger than me has
his own house and car, and I feel like I’m stuck on the outside.”
Janice, 23, 2 children
A key driver of coping strategies is the avoidance of
stigmatization and alleviation of threats to social identity.
16. Mothers suppress their own needs and desires or place
them on hold
Julie: “My lifestyle is very very budgeted, very sacrificing. It can
be quite stressful... it amazes me how I can find the money to
pay for some of the bills that I have” (24, one child).
Rebecca: “When the kids grow up, you know a good bit, [I’ll] go
back to work, buy my own house and have my life back again”
(23, two children).
17. Masking Poverty Within the Family
Family consumption is often structured around children
“I eat kids’ food, I don’t eat adult’s food, I just eat what
they’re eating.”
“he [2 year-old son] gets a lot of my shopping money, he
gets a lot of clothes. I can’t afford to buy clothes for me and
him.”
Kochuyt (2004) suggests that resource distribution can create
affluence amidst poverty.
18. Visible and Invisible Consumption
• Distinction between discretionary and non-discretionary
• Spending on branded clothing and footwear is non-discretionary
whereas with food spending, in terms of quantity and quality at least,
there is some discretion.
• Distinction to be made between visible and invisible goods. Spending
on visible goods and services that enable children to ‘fit in’ with peers
are non-discretionary for it is through them that poor consumers
present themselves to the world, giving added meaning to
conspicuous consumption.
• On the other hand, there is some discretion in invisible spending,
which applies to goods and services consumed in the privacy of the
home.
19. Paradoxes of Coping with Poverty
• The purchase and display of brand names is viewed as a way
of avoiding stigma and could be considered as a
disconfirmation of the stereotype (Miller and Major, 2000).
• Chav discourse is best considered in relation to excessive
consumption (Hayward and Yar, 2006). As Tyler (2008: 21)
claimed, the chav ‘is primarily identified by means of his or her
“bad”, “vulgar” and excessive consumer choices – cheap
brands of cigarettes, cheap jewellery, branded sports tops,
gold-hooped earrings, sovereign rings, Burberry baseball caps.’
• Paradoxically, the very consumption practices that provoke
stigma are those which are strongly coveted by low-income
consumers.
20. Empowerment and single motherhood
• I’m a very independent person, I’ve been living on my own since
I’ve been 16 so anything I’ve ever done, it has all been put up
by me or put together by me. I would never have anybody
turn around and say that I owe them anything (Amy)
• I’ve had to really work for what I’ve got and at times get into
hard amounts of debt and a lot of stuff that I have got is all
through me, no-one else. My parents aren’t supportive at all.
I’ve had to save for everything that I’ve got so I appreciate
money a lot more… Sometimes I would go to bed and just think,
oh my God, how did you get through all that, it amazes me how
I can find the money to pay for some of the bills that I have
(Julie)
22. Paradoxes of Coping with Poverty
• This interpretation of empowerment provides an optimistic
image of coping within the challenging context of consumer
culture to improve the standard of living for themselves and
their family. They enjoy feelings of independence, defined for
them as managing without the help of their children’s father,
their parents or other family support.
• Welfare policy in most developed countries advocates that
single mothers should provide at least some of their own
income. In this context, reliance on welfare benefits may
indicate dependency, not the independence that these mothers
believe they have achieved.
23. Implications
• Poverty becomes a social construction and judgements about
the moral and material positions of low-income consumers
abound.
• Such generalization overlooks the heterogeneity of low-income
families
• Despite the significant efforts made by some low-income
consumers, it appears that coping strategies to avoid stigma do
not always work – what role does marketing play in this
paradox?