“It is not you, but the others...” is a phrase I seem to
hear more and more. Whenever I ask these people to define these 'others' and
what percentage of the population (or of a 'group' of people), they are referring to, they don't seem to be
able to do so.
I ask - do they make up fifty percent or more? 'No' is the
response. When asked if the number is more like five percent, they reply
'MORE!'. When I push for a figure or even to give me examples....they can't.
Sometimes they act sheepish, sometimes they mumble 'Someone told me about some
people they knew', or “I read something in the paper” (or saw it on TV). The
reality is that no actual examples can be given when pressed, or if you are
very lucky, perhaps an example can
be found. Yet the 'zero', or the 'one' example, seem to make up more than five
percent, but less than fifty percent of a whole group of people...which often
leaves me baffled.
Which groups are these sweeping generalisations being made
about? You name a marginalised group of people and you will hear some variation
of the diatribe being delivered. The unemployed are deemed 'dole bludgers',
Muslims are deemed terrorists and the poor are generally thought of as lazy or
lacking the motivation to succeed. For those sprouting the diatribe, they are
never referring to those people they personally know who are part of the
'group', but are talking about the 'others'.
Where do these false and misguided beliefs come from and
why do they exist? Who benefits from them? When did we stop being critical
thinkers? Let us look at one group- the unemployed. The thought that seems to
pervade society, that unemployed people are as a group, all lazy and
'bludgers', is unproven. In any group of people, there are likely to be
'outliers' and in the case of the unemployed, this may mean (in a very
simplified way), a person who has the capacity and ability to work, but doesn't
want to. In my experience working with the unemployed, I hadn't come across
anyone who was like this. I did however, come across people who couldn't work
or find work, for a variety of reasons.
I worked with people who applied for job after job after
job, but were not successful in obtaining an interview. Sometimes it was as simple as their age, lack
of experience, and believe it or not, their over-experience in a role. I worked
with people who were successful in getting a job but wouldn't last long due to
complex issues, such as an inability to contain their emotions, which lead to
physical or verbal fighting at work (for some of these clients, who's
backgrounds I knew of, attachment theory made perfect sense). There are those
whose prior substance or alcohol use, damaged their ability to learn new
things/retain new information. There were those who had very low self esteem
and didn't present well to employers. There were those who had low level
anxiety and/or depression and had not sought clinical diagnosis or help. Add to
these examples the unemployment rate and the chances of gaining employment
naturally reduce in a competitive market.
Yet, despite the complexity of why people are unemployed
(aside from the obvious reason that there are no jobs for them), we as a
society, largely seem to cling to the view that the unemployed are 'dole
bludgers' or lazy, of course not you, you are different, it's the others...
How healthy is holding this view and what impact does it
have on the unemployed? Does it steer the conversation on unemployment away
from the real reasons/issues and how they can be addressed? Maybe there isn't a
solution to unemployment. Will we ever have more jobs than we have people? If
the answer is no, then it stands to reason that we will have those in the
community who need to receive unemployment benefits to cover the costs of
essentials such as food and shelter. Someone once said that the sign of a civilised society is that it looks
after it's less fortunate. I would boldly add that a civilised society also
critically considers information it is presented, such as those sweeping
generalisations about maginalised groups.
Going back to the dole bludging unemployed, my experience
has shown me that there are individuals in this group who need long term,
respectful, intensive support to help them get to the point where they would
not only be employable, but importantly, would be likely to sustain their
employment. But we don't seem to be having conversations on sustainable
employment. We seem to be more interested in 'numbers' and quick fixes, rather
than lasting solutions. A case in point- The 'work for the dole' program, which
some people in the community see as a great way to move 'dole bludgers' off
unemployment and into the workforce. This program forces the financially
vulnerable (ie the unemployed) to work for free (or else have their
unemployment money cut off). Despite research showing the program doesn't
achieve what it claims it will do, which is to provide employment outcomes, the
program continues and no one is talking about it, or asking who benefits from
turning members of a maginalised group into slave labour. Is this the kind of
society we are proud to be part of and why aren't we talking about this?..not
you, you are a critical thinker, it is the others...the less than fifty
percent, but more than five.
Copyright matthew schiavello 2015. Written as part of my forced work for the dole activity.
