**4. General discussion**

146 Social Welfare

always something that stops you when you go out… Because when you can't do anything, you have no freedom…'. *d)* They are monitored by prison warders: 'Prison warder, that's me that is'. *e)* Prison life is passive: 'So it turns out that you don't do much on the inside either, because you're not motivated and… and don't like doing much anyway'. *f)* But there's prison leave: 'True, I'm off on leave from time to time, but as a rule I suffer for it afterwards'. *g)* Plans for making an escape: 'No, that's why I think it's unfair and really… because if I'd been a man then: Right I'm off, then, bugger everything, I can't put up with this any more']. *h)* Will to live: 'You really lose the will to… live'. *i)* Lengthy sentence: 'It's like I've been here for ever…'. *j)* Apprehensive about the future in prison: 'But I get dreadfully anxious about the future, because I know that living like this for just a few more years… I start doubting myself, how strong I've actually been, that it's not enough, because there's too much trouble'. *k)* Fearful of release: 'If you're up for release… there's often so much trouble, you have to make calls, ask others, to get it over with… and degrading yourself and spilling the beans, sorry I was born, that's how I feel it… It really kills any pleasure you're feeling when you leave here, like'. *1)* Fair sentence? 'No, it wasn't fair… those things have left their mark in a way… Just starting to brood over things: why this and why that? I never deserved it, and… I've got myself to blame partly because I never got an education… married young' [*Laura* (44), Kjell Underlid, 11

A man used a *mountaineering metaphor* to describe his feelings of loss of control over his life: 'You start off on a plotted route. A route that's your life. But then you find out that for you there's not enough to hold onto on the mountain side to get further. It's so hard that route. You fight and fight, but you don't get anywhere. You're stuck half way up that wall… Some (grips) are fragile, and some are missing, and… And they're terrible' [*Steinar (*30), Kjell

*Metaphor* means that a literal meaning is given a non-literal meaning. Although metaphors can oversimplify, mask, deceive and lead astray, they can often serve as a springboard for the creation of meaning and communication of understanding. They can structure experiences and understanding, act as reference points around which to organise data and build bridges between things we comprehend and things we are trying to comprehend (Ely,

Although poor people as individuals share characteristics with the rest of humanity and other disadvantaged groups, as individuals they are nonetheless unique, and their subjectivity belongs to them as unique individuals. Their metaphors and expressions may create empathy with and insight into their life-worlds, because they are based on

The *prison metaphor* highlights the almost claustrophobic sense of oppression, of being tied hand and foot, accommodating to the greyness of everyday poverty, resigned hopelessness in relation to the future, and self-reproach. The *mountaineering metaphor* illustrates the sense of powerlessness, of a sense of the ground giving way, accompanied by a fear of losing one's

February, 2000].

Underlid, 11 February, 2000].

Vinz, Downing & Anzul, 2001).

footing and falling.

**3.6 Further explication/interpretative reflection** 

particularistic and ideosyncratic experiences.

I shall now discuss the findings in light of *a*) theories of needs and emotions, *b*) contextual factors, and *c*) methodology.

The inhibition or loss of autonomy experienced by the respondents in the sample can be understood on the basis of a concept of *subjective needs*. They have a subjective need for autonomy but experience that it is either blocked or frustrated by poverty. The typical affective reaction to this blocking or frustration is usually expressed in *anger- or sadnessrelated states*, although many also react with other feelings, e.g., fear and anxiety.

Affective reactions associated with inhibition or loss of autonomy varied in intensity from moderate unease to very strong feelings. There were instances of short-lived emotions linked to actual events, focused and permanent sentiments and diffuse, negative moods linked to existential questions of a poverty-related nature. Feelings associated with inhibited or lost autonomy in situations of poverty affected all respondents in the sample, penetrated different life domains and role arenas, and had shaped the lives of several of the respondents over a period of years and even decades. There was nonetheless wide variation in the sample with respect to type and intensity of feelings.

These variations in the experience of inhibition or loss of autonomy may have something to do with differences in the objective poverty situation. Poverty can be deep and wide, deep and narrow, shallow and wide, shallow and narrow and permanent/chronic or shortlived/acute. On the other hand there is no strict correlation between objective inhibition or loss of autonomy and subjective feelings. Poor people's objective situation will manifest itself in their *horizon* – as the concept is employed in phenomenology and hermeneutics – to different degrees and in different ways (Husserl, 1970; Gadamer, 1989). The poor do not necessarily reflect over the likely consequences of inhibition or loss of autonomy. It is not certain that the entire range of such inhibition or loss of autonomy is intentional (in the philosophical sense, i.e., consciousness as directed at something) and aspects of inhibited or lost autonomy are not necessarily objectivised (made into an object of consciousness). In general, experienced inhibition or loss of autonomy is multifaceted, multidetermined and expressive of an interplay between subjective and objective factors.

From an emotion theory perspective (Ben-Ze'ev, 2000), the negative feelings associated with inhibited or lost autonomy felt by the respondents originate in a negative evaluation of the desirability of their perceived situation, or of the situation of people close to them (especially their children). In other words, there exists a threat to key values and aspirations. The intensity of the feelings is determined by the level of desirability and importance of these aspirations as perceived by each individual and how potent, real and relevant they perceive the threats to be. Other factors of significance in this connection are what/who is held to be responsible for the threats, how controllable/uncontrollable they are felt to be, whether the respondent is prepared or unprepared to meet the threat, and how certain/uncertain it is that it will actually materialise, and when and how. The extent to which the situation is considered deserved or undeserved will also have an impact as will the person's general circumstances, formal and informal safety networks, personality factors, use of defence mechanisms (A. Freud, 2000/1936) and emotion- and problem-focused coping strategies

Autonomy and Poverty – An Empirical Study of Long-Term Recipients of Social Assistance 149

beyond. It is a small, biased and judicious sample of long-standing recipients of social security in a city in one of the wealthiest countries in the world on the cusp of a new millennium. On the other hand, the study may also have touched on experiences of poverty that are almost universal and invariant. That said, conventional criteria relating to representativeness are not equally relevant in qualitative research where one is more interested in the uniqueness of different experiences and in contextual, interactional and

The purpose of this summary is to conclude the study as a whole, to see it, as it were, from a bird's eye view. It offers in addition a synthesis of transformed meaning units into a

The 'psychology of poverty' has preoccupied me for a considerable time. I have studied experiences of inhibited or lost autonomy among the poor and attempted to understand what it means. During this process I have sometimes been physically distant from the phenomena under investigation (while reviewing the literature and analysing the data for example) and sometimes closer (I spent more than six months with the respondents, generally in their own homes). I was granted access to the subjectivity and life-worlds of the poor in the shape of lived everyday experiences (the 'taste and smell' of poverty), verbalised and reflected upon within a framework of a trustful dialogue. These experiences were fixed in the form of a transcribed text, selected excerpts from which I have attempted to explicate and interpret. The interviews were encounters between people whose lives, circumstances and horizons differed – between poor and non-poor, between the horizon of the lay person and that of the professional psychologist and researcher. Both of us existed, however, in the same society and historical period. The findings and interpretations are the product of the fusion of horizons made possible by

Inhibition or loss of autonomy is a key meaning of relative poverty in affluent welfare states, generally accompanied by a sense of anger or sadness. This is a subjective reality for the poor. The sense of inhibited or lost autonomy is an existential verity for the poor in affluent welfare states. It is a psychological *essence* of this type of poverty. This does not mean that experienced inhibition or loss of autonomy is the only or most significant nucleus of the 'psychology of poverty'. Experiences of insecurity (Underlid, 2007), social devaluation (Underlid, 2005) and a besieged self-image or sense of worth (Underlid, 2004) are examples

Whether the data from this in-depth study of a small number of respondents corroborate the claim that experienced inhibition or loss of autonomy is a psychological essence of relative poverty in affluent welfare states may of course be questioned. Nevertheless the study provides a platform on which to base further studies in the 'psychology of poverty' – either with the same methodology and theoretical perspectives or others. It is my hope that these tentative steps into largely virgin territory – for recent contributions, see for example Mullainathan´s (2011) excellent article - will inspire others to embark on similar research and that future studies will succeed in fitting the various pieces of the 'psychology of

interpretative concerns (Van Manen, 1992).

**5. Synthesis and concluding remarks** 

consistent statement (Giorgi, 1985).

these encounters.

of other potential essences.

(Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Other relevant factors are salience (stimulus properties in a particular context), perception (which is selective), social comparison along different dimensions, interpretation of the situation (attribution), needs (general autonomy orientation) and general attitude to life (ideology). Negative feelings associated with inhibition or loss of autonomy can also be interpreted as the activation of deeper and more generalised *anxiety* related to personality and background, current circumstances (for instance too little/too much external structure), belonging, social exclusion, identity and fundamental existential issues. Such experiences can therefore also be elucidated from the perspective of anxiety theories (Roth, Noyes & Burrows, 1988–1992). Need and emotion theories are, however, as an interpretative basis, far too narrow.

The experiences of the respondents may be understood more broadly in relation to the structure and culture of the society in which they live, i.e. *contextually*. It is a society for which commercialism (a system dominated by economic interests), materialism (Fournier & Richins, 1991) and consumerism (Bauman, 1998) are key characteristics (Hellevik, 1996). Money in this type of society exerts a wide-ranging and decisive influence on feelings of autonomy, and lack of money is in many ways an autonomy killer. This is the context in which relative poverty in affluent welfare states should be understood in relation to experienced autonomy.

Other groups may also experience inhibition or loss of autonomy due to such contextual factors, but the type of inhibited or lost autonomy reported by the respondents in this study is *poverty-related*, and in this sense their experiences are relatively exclusive. Since the questions put to them in the interviews concerned their experiences of their poverty-related situation, a control group of non-poor would have been irrelevant and meaningless. However, many of the same attributes exist among other socio-economically deprived groups.

The findings also need to be seen in connection with the study's *methodological* approach. In the interviews information was generated by both parties in conversation or dialogue. Now, there is good reason to ask if my own understanding and values, i.e. preconceptions, may have influenced the information that was created. I tried to act as an interested, concerned and empathic researcher, but also emphasised a professional and neutral approach and the use of open, non-leading questions. Whatever may have been non-verbally communicated is not easy to say.

It is also difficult to estimate the impact of the 1000 kroner promised for taking the trouble to take part. It may well be that it was perceived by respondents as such a large amount that they felt compelled to take part in the study. The rate of participation in this study was higher than usual in poverty research, despite this study's increased number of questions and time to complete it. The themes for inquiry were also both more personal and more intimate. The fact that none of the participants pulled out, and that after the interviews many said unprompted they were pleased with their own participation, may be taken to indicate that factors other than money contributed to them remaining in the study or even to them becoming respondents in the first place

The study's external validity is low, and findings should not be generalised without great care to other people suffering from poverty either within the same socio-cultural bracket or beyond. It is a small, biased and judicious sample of long-standing recipients of social security in a city in one of the wealthiest countries in the world on the cusp of a new millennium. On the other hand, the study may also have touched on experiences of poverty that are almost universal and invariant. That said, conventional criteria relating to representativeness are not equally relevant in qualitative research where one is more interested in the uniqueness of different experiences and in contextual, interactional and interpretative concerns (Van Manen, 1992).
