HomeBlack Triangle NewsNew Labour, The Market State, and The End of Welfare by Jon Rutherford
Comments
  • Socrates September 7, 2011 at 5:06 pm

    The “Social Model” has turned into the biggest crock of shit imaginable.

  • ATOS Miracles September 7, 2011 at 6:05 pm

    Excuse my being rude but I have to say this: fucking, fucking, fucking cunts. A clear explanation of Wessely’s involvement in the insurance business, etc. A lot of this is class lead as well. Middle class presuming they know best and that claimant and the sick are/were non-functioning contributing members of ‘lower’ classes needing ‘help’ from their masters. What absolute shite. SOOOOO many of us have lives that CLEARLY refute this crap.
    “‘Our model suggests that illness is a dysfunction of the person in his (or her) physical and social environment’. This follows Parsons’s theory of the ‘sick role’, which he viewed as an individual’s deviance from the social norm. He understood society as existing in a state of equilibrium, with individuals functioning in their allotted roles. The sick role upsets this equilibrium because it provides individuals with privileges”
    Privileges????????? What privileges? Grinding poverty ain’t no privilege. Fighting tribunal after tribunal for decades ain’t no privilege. Losing decades of one’s life to hell ain’t no privilege……well, you know….fucking cunts. (A reasoned response will come later, knee jerking right now.)

  • Harry Williams on Facebook September 7, 2011 at 6:08 pm

    I’ve been saying for years, much to the disgust of my fellow autistic crips, that the social model of disability is a crock of shit. The truth is finally out in red-in-tooth-and-claw.

  • John September 7, 2011 at 8:07 pm

    How is it a ‘crock of shit’? How, exactly?

  • Craig Lundie on Facebook September 7, 2011 at 11:24 pm

    It isn’t.

  • Craig Lundie on Facebook September 7, 2011 at 11:25 pm

    Hang on a minute, folks (above). The model being described here is not the social model of disability. I don’t dispute that the social model has problems that need to be ironed out but it is a lot more useful than the medical model it replaces in explaining why disabled people tend towards a state of economic poverty in our economic system. That, however, is a debate for another day.

    In this article Jonathan discusses what Waddell and Aylward describe as their “bio-psychosocial” model of illness.

    Notwithstanding the trick they try to play in giving their theory a quasi-scientific name, it is pure pseudo-science and a reactionary political viewpoint that drive the so-called “bio-psychosocial” model.

    Rather than gather evidence to build a case, Waddell and Aylward and their political bedfellows start from the axiom that the cost of welfare is too high and look to construct a “theory” using terms that vaguely resemble scientific language which will justify removing benefits from people, thereby reducing said cost and “incentivising” those, who will lose their benefits, into finding work.

    Work in itself is considered by the theory to be an activity that will help to cure the previously “ill” person. In fact, the person often isn’t “genuinely” ill at all – they have been convinced that they are ill by their own wish to avoid work, by doctors colluding with them in this, by misguided politicians and by a social culture that is too sympathetic to see through their delusion or worse, their lie. The illusion blinds them to the central claim of the theory, i.e., that they can in fact be completely cured by work. Atos (through arbeit) Macht Frei, you see.

  • Craig Lundie on Facebook September 7, 2011 at 11:26 pm

    So, where the social model takes the fact that most disabled people have tended historically towards a state of poverty and tries to explain this fact, showing that social and economic barriers exist that are entirely a human construction (as opposed to being necessary in any way) and can therefore be removed, the “bio-psychosocial” model starts with the “fact” that the welfare state is “too expensive”, especially with regard to disability benefits, and looks to justify the posited “necessity” of reducing that cost by suggesting that “work” (not clearly defined, hence, any work) will cure less obvious disabilities such as mental illness, thus “supporting” a policy of removing benefits which, they would argue, has the “virtuous” effect of causing the by now poorer person to look harder for work.

    The sheer number of mistakes made by the “bio-psychosocial” approach are far, far too numerous to list here but clearly it is a “theory” that suits more cynical and even fascistic political tendencies very well indeed. After all, what is to become of those left on benefits once the “feckless” and the “bio-psychosocially”-constructed ill are pushed into work? Do you honestly believe they will be allowed to continue to live off tax money?

    Not a bit of it. Their numbers will be artificially reduced again and again in something akin to the efficiency drives we have all had to suffer in our workplaces for the last three decades until only the most “useless” remain on benefits. And make no mistake about it, at that stage the argument will be whether bio-psychosocial society can “afford” to support people who can’t “make a contribution”. Eugenics anyone?

    What we have to wake up to is that the bigger political argument is basically about what direction we want to travel. Do we wish to return to and build upon progressive models of social organisation (including a social model of disability that sees a virtue in promoting independent living for all) or do we give up on that project in order to grant further freedoms to capital and the owners of capital (including a “bio-psychosocial” model that sees a virtue only in wage slavery subordinated to that capital)?

  • Craig Lundie on Facebook September 7, 2011 at 11:27 pm

    Where the welfare state attempted to take measures to address ill health, poverty and the links between the two (amongst other things), these new pseudo-sciences attempt to find psychobabble justifications for dismantling the welfare state which is seen as an evil in itself if for no other reason than that it slows the flow of wealth from those who create it with their labour (the ragged-trousered philanthropists, if you will) upwards to those who consume it most voraciously.

    The fact that this seems to fly in the face of any basic humanity in the people sitting at the top of the pyramid is explained away by one of the other pseudo-sciences they have up their sleeve. That is the one which claims that, after all, everyone else is just as selfish and unfeeling towards the sick, the disabled, the poor, the unemployed, the low-paid, the old, the young as they are.

    This particular theory, of course, has a clever twist; if you don’t think you are as selfish as they are it is because you are a mug – unrealistic, naive, a bit soft. That little twist allows them to warp the basic competitiveness that is part of our survival instinct (perfectly harmless in the pursuit of games, etc) and make a fundamental virtue of it. That is what explains the inane, ruthless, driven look that you see on their faces. It is borne out of the frustration that they will never be contented beacause their direction leads only to megalomania. It is a superiority complex that can never lead to satisfaction.

    Ultimately, this is why they look to psychological theories to support their ridiculous (if it weren’t so vicious) theory that the welfare state is unaffordable and must be reduced in size. Because their own lifestyle and political stance relies on a massive self-delusion – the delusion that they are entirely masters of their own destiny – that they don’t rely on thousands, millions of workers supporting them in the comfort they enjoy and the riches they lust after. The riches they lust after so hard that they look for justifications to take away the most basic of comforts from people who already struggle on a daily basis. There is an entire class of people doing that. We easily outnumber those who don’t need to struggle and we do ourselves an injustice when we turn on our own.

  • Gill Troll-Baiter Thorburn on Facebook September 8, 2011 at 12:04 am

    Craig, I think you and I came out of the same pod. You have just laid out every single thing that I’ve been thinking for so long now. Just fantastic. Likes. Very much.

  • Craig Lundie on Facebook September 8, 2011 at 1:23 am

    Thanks, Gill – I know I go on a bit sometimes so I really appreciate that!

  • John September 8, 2011 at 5:51 pm

    Excellent Craig. Thank you for your valuable contribution. Well said!

  • Craig Lundie on Facebook September 9, 2011 at 1:19 am

    Cheers, John – much appreciated.

  • You must be logged in to comment. Log in
Trackbacks
%d bloggers like this: