In this article, I undertake a critical discourse analysis of policy documents and in-depth interviews with seven caseworkers and 28 benefit recipients to explore how two discourses, ‘work first’ and ‘distance from the labour market,’ inform how persons living with addiction access and then experience social assistance in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Drawing in Foucauldian insights on power, I reveal the conceptualisation of benefit recipients’ eligibility for Ontario Works through these two discourses and how this is replete with ideological assumptions and disciplining power relations, constitutive of a subject position of ‘the recovering addict’, and suggestive of social control implications. I argue that the coercion and regulation of benefit recipients’ lives on Ontario Works has not disappeared but transmuted for Torontonians living with addiction, and conclude by considering the governance of this population as biopower.
Baker-CollinsS (2016) The space in the rules: Bureaucratic discretion in the administration of Ontario Works. Social Policy and Society15(2): 221–235.
2.
BashevkinS (2002) Welfare Hot Buttons: Women, Work, and Social Policy Reform. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
3.
BauldLMcKellJCarrollCHayGSmith (2012) Benefits and employment: How problem drug users experience welfare and routes into work. Journal of Social Policy41(04): 751–768.
4.
BaxterJA (2008) Feminist post-structural discourse analysis: A new theoretical and methodological approach? In: HarringtonKLitosselitiLSauntsonHSunderlandJ (eds) Gender and Language Research Methodologies. Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan, pp. 243–255.
5.
BélandD (2009) Gender, ideational analysis, and social policy. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State, and Society16(4): 558–581.
6.
BezansonK (2006) Gender, the State, and Social Reproduction: Household Insecurity in Neo-Liberal Times. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.
7.
BischopingKGazsoA (2016) Analyzing Talk in the Social Sciences: Conversation, Narrative, and Discourse Strategies. London, UK: Sage.
8.
BreitkreuzRWilliamsonDRaineK (2010) Disintegrated policy: Welfare-to-work participants’ experiences of integrating paid work and unpaid family work. Community, Work, and Family12: 43–68.
9.
BrodieJ (2008) The social in social citizenship. In:IsinE (ed.) Reframing the Social in CitizenshipToronto: University of Toronto Press, pp. 20–43.
10.
CamissaAM (2018) From Rhetoric to Reform: American Policy in Welfare Politics. New York: Routledge.
CoulterK (2009) Women, poverty policy, and the production of neoliberal politics in Ontario, Canada. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy30(1): 23–45
13.
DwyerP (2004) Creeping conditionality in the UK: From welfare rights to conditional entitlement. Canadian Journal of Sociology29(2): 265–287.
14.
Esping-AndersenG (1990) The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
15.
FaircloughN (1992) Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
16.
FoucaultM (1977) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York, NY: Pantheon.
17.
FoucaultM (1978) The History of Sexuality. Vol. 1: An Introduction, trans. HurleyR. New York, NY: Vintage Books.
18.
GazsoAMcDanielS (2010) The risks of being a single mother on income support in Canada and the United States. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 30(7/8): 368–386.
19.
GorlickCABrethourG (1998) Welfare-to-work Programs: A National Inventory. Ottawa: Canadian Council on Social Development.
20.
GramsciA (1971) Selections from the Prison Notebooks, ed. and trans. HoareQNowell SmithG. New York, NY: International Publishers.
21.
GreckhamerTCilesizS (2014) Rigor, transparency, evidence, and representation in discourse analysis: Challenges and recommendations. International Journal of Qualitative Methods422–443.
22.
HallS (1996) The problem of ideology: Marxism without guarantees. In: MorleyDChenKH (eds) Stuart Hall: Critical Dialogues in Cultural Studies. London, UK: Routledge, pp. 24–25.
23.
HellerKJ (1996) Power, subjectification and resistance in Foucault. Substance25(1): 78–110.
24.
HerdDLightmanEMitchellA (2007) Returning to Ontario Works. Canadian Review of Social Policy59: 20–43.
25.
HewittM (1983) Bio-politics and social policy: Foucault’s account of welfare. Theory, Culture & Society2(1): 67–84.
26.
Income Security Working Group (2017) Income Security: A Roadmap for Change. A Report and Recommendations to the Government of Ontario. On behalf of the Income Security Reform Working Group, the First Nations Income Security Reform Working Group, and the Urban Indigenous Table on Income Security Reform. Available at: https://www.ontario.ca/page/income-security-roadmap-change (accessed 3 August 2018).
LittleMMarksL (2006) A closer look at the neo-liberal petri dish: Welfare reform in British Columbia and Ontario. Canadian Review of Social Policy57: 16–45.
29.
LipskyM (1980) Street-level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
30.
MakiK (2011) Neoliberal deviants and surveillance: Welfare recipients under the watchful eye of Ontario Works. Surveillance & Society9(1/2): 47–63.
31.
MccormackK (2004) Resisting the welfare mother: The power of welfare discourse and tactics of resistance. Critical Sociology30(2): 355–383.
32.
McMullinJADaviesLCassidyG (2002) Welfare reform in Ontario: Tough times in mothers’ lives. Canadian Public Policy28(2): 297–314.
SchneiderAIngramH (1993) Social construction of target populations: Implications for politics and policy. The American Political Science Review87 (2), 334–347.
41.
SchoppelreySMartinezMJangS (2005) Addressing substance abuse among TANF recipients. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment12(2–3), 111–126.
42.
SlaterT (2014) The myth of ‘broken Britain’: Welfare reform and the production of ignorance. Antipode46(4), 948–969.
43.
Smith-CarrierTLawlorA (2017) Realizing our (neoliberal) potential? A critical discourse analysis of the poverty reduction strategy in Ontario, Canada. Critical Social Policy37(1): 105–127.
