Four normative languages of welfare: a pragmatic sociological investigation

ABSTRACT

This article explores the normative languages used by ordinary citizens to measure ongoing welfare state transformations in Denmark. Empirically, the article turns to qualitative data from a deliberative democratic forum where 35 citizens gathered to reflect upon and discuss the future of the welfare state. Conceptually, it relies upon the order of worth-framework derived from the French pragmatic sociology of Luc Boltanski and Laurent Thévenot. The analysis shows how citizens use a number of orders of worth when discussing the future of the welfare state. Four standards of worth seem to be of particular importance: (1) A civic order of worth, defining individualism and welfare consumerism as the big problems while emphasizing the need for every citizen to mentally step out of their selfish state of mind and care more for others and society as such. (2) A domestic order of worth stating that the problems of the current welfare state are particularly located within groups of ill-mannered and anti-social people that must be educated and disciplined. (3) An industrial order of worth, leading participants to problematize bureaucratic inefficiency and waste of resources. (4) And finally, a market order of worth stating welfare dependency to be one of the big problems and stressing the need for individual responsibility and for giving structural incentives for such behaviour.

KEYWORDS:

• Deliberative forum
• the welfare state
• pragmatic sociology
• Luc Boltanski
• Laurent Thévenot
• social policy
• orders of worth
• qualitative research

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on contributor

Mathias Herup Nielsen is a postdoctoral researcher and teaches sociology and political theory at Aalborg University in Denmark. His main research interests include language and political power – particularly how recent welfare state reforms are justified and criticized.

Notes

1 In 2012, prominent Danish politicians even spoke of a ‘reform frenzy’.

2 Based on 115 interviews with Danes and Swedes, Frederiksen (2017) finds that Scandinavian universalism relies on three forms of justification – specifically ‘Collective obligation’, ‘Rational’ (meaning productivity) and ‘Equitable access’. Such forms of justifications materialize as hybrids between civic order of worth and, respectively, industrial and market forms of worth.

3 The 35 participants included 21 women and 14 men. Seventeen voted for centre-left parties and 12 voted for centre-right parties in the most recent Danish election for parliament (six did not answer the question). Seven were less than 30 years old, 10 were between 30 and 45, seven were between 46 and 60 years old, whereas 11 were more than 60 years old. Nine had high personal incomes (more than €55,000 per year), 10 had medium incomes (between €30,000 and €55,000 per year) and 10 had low incomes (less than €30,000 per year). Six were old age-pensioners, seven were students and two were unemployed. The remaining contained a mixture of self-employed, public front-line workers, workers and academics. All participants lived in the capital region of Denmark.

4 For a discussion on relations between justification preferences and social class see Stamer 2016.

5 Participants were numbered from 50 to 87.

6 The union for most highly educated public employees. Thus, participants speak quite often of an ongoing ‘Djøfication’ – defined as a process of bureaucratization where highly educated people are hired to do things that are highly bureaucratic and even counterproductive.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by Seventh Framework Programme [grant number 618106].