AWA: Academic Writing at Auckland

Nick Hewer and Margaret Mountford are well-known television personalities in the United Kingdom, predominantly for their roles as co-hosts on the UK version of The Apprentice. Earlier this year they released a reality TV show of their own, titled We All Pay Your Benefits and directed by Nick Betts. Commissioned by the BBC, the programme is a potent example of ideological financial propaganda, and as such imbues a discussion of the concept of human capital, debt, and psychoanalysis. The show is set in the suburban town of Ipswich, and is structured through the documenting of a series of meetings set up between welfare claimants and employed workers from various industries. The workers are given a rough script of questions to ask the beneficiaries, such as their reasons for not working, what they spend their money on and what they do with their free time. At the end of each episode, the employed participants 'assess' the beneficiaries and give their opinions on the livelihoods of the unemployed claimants, deciding whether or not they deem they deserve their state-provided welfare. Most of the interactions on the show are purely between each pair, with the hosts of the show generally giving a commentary from the backseat of a chauffeur-driven car.

This television programme is an instance of what Louis Althusser would define as part of a category known as the 'Ideological State Apparatus,' that is, it is a tool that serves to indirectly reinforce the dominant ideologies that attempt to justify the role of the state. Ideological State Apparatuses function alongside the more commonly known Marxist notion of the Repressive State Apparatus, which include more direct state entities such as courts and police force (Althusser, 2006). With regard to the TV show itself, it is more specifically a tool that justifies a particular form of state that dominants many western societies today. Part of the changing role of the state in most western nations of the past 50 or so years is the attempt to shift the risks capital faces away from capital and onto workers. In an attempt to transform labour, that which was previously termed ‘variable capital’ into ‘fixed capital,’ the implications of risk that come from variability are placed on individual workers, rather than on capitalist enterprise itself. This is done through the attempt to dissolve of the divide between the proletariat at the bourgeoisie, by claiming all members of society as being ‘little capitalists’ that intend to maximise their profits through the decisions they make. This is what is known as ‘Human Capital Theory,’ championed by the likes of bourgeois economists such as Gary Becker and Theodor Schultz during the 1970s (Foucault, 2010). This theory is largely a contributing theoretical premise for the production of We All Pay Your Benefits, with a constant accusatory tone being found throughout the programme, directed at the decisions made by the beneficiaries whom are seemingly failing at investing in their human capital. Almost every interaction directed at the beneficiaries is in some way related to this concept. For example, Liam, a benefit claimant whom is unable to find work within his field of training, is suggested by Nick to have made the wrong decision by choosing to go to university. Another beneficiary is accused of being negligent by choosing to have family pets. This is also an example of a consistent theme – the condemnation of items possessed by the beneficiaries deemed to be luxuries (Betts, 2013). One of the characters had to profusely justify his possession of a flat screen TV and gaming console, warranting his possession of some items due to the fact that they were either borrowed or are very old and were acquired extremely cheaply. Liam on the other hand defends his possession of similar items by simply describing himself as liking them, something that incenses his partnered ‘advisor’ or member of the workforce (Betts, 2013). This refusal to accept such behaviour is a product of the logic of the enclosure of the commons. Though such items were created through the social activities of collaborative labour undertaken by all within society, they are seen as being only available to the select few that claim rights over such labour (Engels, 1999).

The socialisation of capital risk fashioned in the form of the denunciated beneficiary has a strong connection with the concept of debt. Specific monetary debt is rarely mentioned within the show, but there is a constant underlying notion of the beneficiaries being ‘indebted’ to society through their shameful ‘skiving’ acts (Betts, 2013). The symbolic order of capital sees difficulty in realising any social act that is non-monetary, or directly exclusive of capital. Hence, any of the labour undertaken by these unemployed characters is seen as irrelevant. This is made evident through quotes from many of the characters, with one of the hosts having difficulty comprehending such behaviour ‘I struggle with this whole volunteering and not working thing’ (Betts, 2013). Another character, this time a beneficiary, bursts into tears at the notion of his son aspiring to become a stay-at-home dad like himself (Betts, 2013). Every single one of the beneficiaries engages in some sort of labour external to the logic of capital, the majority of which is childcare. Such labour contributes to society, though it is not recognised as doing so, as raising children is integral to the functioning of an economy (Engels, 1978). Because such activities are invisible to the Symbolic order of capital, these members of the public are seen as being idle, and a dead weight pulling society down (Lacan, 1977). The power of this belief goes to extreme extents within the programme, with Nick being so outraged at Liam’s livelihood and volunteer work that he yells at the camera demanding he get ‘a kick up the backside and start being more like a bloke!’(Betts, 2013) The goals of the show that it perhaps intends would be an attempt at making beneficiaries deal with their situations better. Though this may seem innocent on the surface, this simply means that it intends to make benefit claimants behave in way acceptable to the very system that has put them in their position. To make comparisons to the work of Shanti Daellenbach with regard to financial literacy in schools, the show operates to attempt to ‘place’ its subjects where they best fit, rather than challenge the very paradigm that puts them in that place (Daellenbach, 2013).

Because Liam appears to refuse to show shame, to bear the debt that he apparently owes to society, he is presented as almost like the antagonist of the reality TV show. Of what little empathy that is given towards the beneficiaries on the show, Liam receives the least of it. His partner frustratingly takes him around the Ipswich village centre, assisting him in looking for work in retail stores after earlier making the statement that ‘you can never say there aren’t any jobs.’(Betts, 2013) Unsurprisingly, no vacancies are found for Liam. Liam emphasises that even if there were positions available, he feels dissatisfied at taking a job he is over-qualified for due to working in such positions for some years and seeking tertiary education in order to escape them. Wanting work that he gains satisfaction from, Liam volunteers as a youth worker, which he is passionate for and is what occupies most of his week. Additionally, he possesses an array of fashionable clothes and electronics that he affords due to living with his aunt and uncle. Liam makes his best attempt to be included within society and lay claim upon a commons that he seemingly should be excluded from. He has experienced meaningless alienation earlier in life and reacts to this by attempting to give his work meaning. Liam rejects the ‘places’ he is attempted to be put by the hosts of the show. His challenges of the categories of human capital and indebtedness are inconsistent with the symbolic order of finance, hence why he is demonised so strongly on screen (Betts, 2013). Liam’s inconsistency with the Symbolic order of finance is the result of him being a powerful subject to his desires that cannot be presented within such order (Lacan, 1977). He is entwined within this process of desire due to challenging what he is seen to ‘need.’ To use the words of Jacques Lacan: ‘Man’s desire is the desire for the Other,’ (Lacan, 1964: p235) the Other in this instance being Liam’s concept of those that he believes to be ‘included’ within society, that hold the keys to the enclosed commons. His possessions are ‘transitional objects’ that he attempts to use to gain recognition from the big Other. His desire for recognition is at the same a desire to be part of his notion of the commons, his internal concept of true employment, meaning that his notion is incomplete, is lacking something. His situation is a product of this quandary, as he will never be able to gain the recognition from the big Other that he evidently longs for, so does the best he can by attempting to fulfil such a desire with his volunteer work, welfare claims and possessions (Betts, 2013)(Lacan, 1977).

Despite the fact that only two of the four aired episodes of We All Pay Your Benefits were examined, this proved to be more than enough to gain an understanding of the programme. The myopic logic of finance found within the programme creates demons where it is inconsistent, and it is a powerful tool in the reinforcing of the dominant ideologies of the west. The show attempts to further make its viewers perceive themselves as responsible for the toil their oppressors confront them with.

References

Althusser, L. (2006). Ideology and ideological state apparatuses (notes towards an investigation). The anthropology of the state: A reader.

Betts, (2013). Nick and Margaret: We All Pay Your Benefits [TV Show]. United Kingdom: British Broadcasting Company.

Daellenbach, Shanti. (2013, August 25). Financial Literacy Education. Unpublished lecture notes, University Of Auckland, Auckland.

Engels, F. (1999). Socialism: Utopian and scientific. Resistance Books. Engels, F. (1978). The origin of the family, private property and the state. Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House.

Foucault, M. (2010). The Birth Of Biopolitics: Lectures At The College De France, 1978-1979.

Lacan, J. (1977). The mirror stage. Écrits: A selection,

Lacan, J. (1964). The Seminar of Jacques Lacan, Book XI: The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis.