ABSTRACT
Introduction Nowadays, lively political and academic discussions revolve around the issue of personal and social responsibilities (e.g. Passini 2011; Snelling 2012; Pearl and Lebowitz 2014). For example, the discussions consider in what sense and to what extent (ill)-health and (bad) well-being are personal choices and accomplishments (Giddens 1999; Wikler 2002; Brownell et al. 2010; Scott and Wilson 2011; Wiley et al. 2013). A common view is that individuals are primarily responsible for their health and well-being and thus at least partly causing their adversities and problems (Robert et al. 2008; Lundell et al. 2013). Although public perceptions are not monolithic and this view of the responsible self is widely criticised, it can still be said to represent a dominant cultural expectation of agency in the Western world (Lyon-Callo 2000; Pearl and Lebowitz 2014). Clients who use employment, health, social and housing services and benefits are culturally expected to account for being responsible and “trying”, despite their need for subsidies and support services. However, individuals experiencing social exclusion are often in a difficult position due to attempting to live up to the idea of a responsible self. Social exclusion erases and narrows capabilities, resources and choices in life, and can be defined as “what can happen when people or areas suffer from a combination of linked problems such as unemployment, poor skills, low incomes, unfair discrimination, poor housing, high crime, bad health, and family breakdown” (Social Exclusion Unit 2004: 4; Cole et al. 2011: 13). These features are also well-known social determinations of (mental) health problems (SDH) (Lundell et al. 2013: 1116; May et al. 2013). One root of the responsibility discussion is advanced liberalism that emphasises that people are to help themselves and find ways to strengthen their capabilities to be self-governing individuals. Personal responsibility and self-management are widely discussed in the governmentality literature (Rose 1996; Scott and Wilson 2011; Solberg 2011; Chapter 2 of this volume). Interestingly, self-management, which implies empowerment and recovery, is at present strongly promoted in the (margins of ) welfare services (Davidson 2005; Scott and Wilson 2011; Chapter 3 of this volume). For instance, selfmanagement has become a common approach in mental health work (Sterling
et al. 2010), as illustrated in the client interview data examples in this chapter. Often, welfare workers support the client’s responsibility and ability to manage his/her difficulties in life by conducting self-management techniques, such as making weekly programmes and schedules with the clients. Selfmanagement can be understood as the ability of individuals to get along with the symptoms as well as the physical, psychosocial and lifestyle changes inherent in living with severe conditions (e.g. by learning to utilise different techniques and welfare services) (Johnston et al. 2008). Thus, it first and foremost puts forward the notion of personal responsibility in line with advanced liberalism. Our aim in this chapter is to reflect on issues related to personal and social responsibilities by applying the concept of self-management, which we understand as being a mediator between macro-level discussions on responsibilities, professionals’ ideas of good recovery and grass-roots level practices at the margins of welfare services. The question addressed is as follows: how do clients manage personal and social responsibilities in the process of recovery at the time of rising expectations of self-management and the responsible self (selfresponsibilisation)? We begin by introducing discussions related to responsibility and selfmanagement. Discourses of responsibility can roughly be divided into two: those that emphasise personal responsibility as essential in one’s agency and wellbeing (Brownell et al. 2010), and those that concentrate on social responsibility i.e. that emphasise that other people, institutions and collectives are crucial for ensuring an individual’s well-being in society. Personal responsibility can especially be seen as a crucial element of becoming the subject of one’s life (see Giddens 1999; McNamee and Gergen 1999; Kelty 2008; Ballet et al. 2007), whilst social responsibility emphasises the subjects’ interconnected relations and obligations: “the importance of connections between people, through their social commitments and their embedding in social institutions” (Ballet et al. 2007: 186). Accordingly, personal and social responsibility intersect with one another, as a responsible self is not only expected to manage one’s own life but also to be socially enlightened and to take care of the well-being of others (Rose 1996; Lister 2015). We then continue by demonstrating via interview data examples how, on the one hand, clients at the margins of welfare services account for taking (or trying to take) responsibility for themselves and others, and, on the other hand, they resist this cultural expectation as impossible to live up to (in a current situation). There exists a gap between cultural expectations and the resources and capabilities of individuals (Scott and Lyman 1968). This gap is present in the interview talk, in the form of excuses, justifications and explanations in regard to expectations of restoring things back to “normal” in a responsible way (see Chapter 4). In the analysis section, we illustrate how clients reflect on the discourses of responsibility and self-management. These discourses set norms for good and respected individuals, and thus they offer “yardsticks” for the clients to assess their self-management abilities and stages of recovery.
