Accentuate

Invited by Dr Hannah Mcpherson at Brighton University, Camilla and I recently attended a lecture by Dr Karen Soldatic, entitled ‘Appointment Time:Disability & Neoliberal Temporalities’. The core of the lecture revolved around time and it's use as a unit of measurement, mainly as an indicator of the morality and worthiness of benefit claimants.

To be honest I wasn't sure if I was really understood the meaning of the title so was a little apprehensive of what it would all be about. Added to that was the discovery that it was to be held in Room 101, which did make me giggle at the time. Little did I know that I really would find my darkest fears revealed within!

Dr Soldatic explained that we have an abstract notion of time as a rigid structure. It is taken for granted that it is an easy thing to work to. There is an assumption that making appointments and keeping them is an easy task. But not all of us have the same concept of time. Young children and some disabled people may not be able to 'see that far ahead', others may not be able to process and finish tasks in an 'expected time'. Unfortunately, welfare appointments, and benefit payments, are dependent on people being on time.

Highlighted, was the universal focus of Welfare Reform, on the importance of meeting appointments to avoid sanctions. Under ESA, if you are assessed as being very work-able you are required to attend appointments at the Jobcentre every month. These repeated appointments left people justifying again and again why they were worthy of this benefit. This inevitably had an effect on their feelings of self-worth.

Appointments and the ability to meet them, were being used as a tool to measure whether the claimant was a 'good person'. Dr Soldatic found that this was becoming more common through the privatisation of assessment processes, and workfare-style programmes.

An individual's non-compliance of clock time was seen as a result of rational decision not to comply with a national requirement. This in turn indicated a that they were someone to be suspicious of. There seemed to be no allowance for any other reasons for the appointment having been missed.

This research highlighted the voices of disabled people who talked about the extra time they needed to attend to daily personal care, and organising the timings of other people who they relied on for support. When childcare was also brought into the equation there were even more timetables in play. Suddenly the disabled parent is having to balance and prioritise care for herself and her children alongside the good of the nation. Those who make the workfare appointments are considered valued and morally worthy citizens. They are therefore deserving. Those who don't, are not.

For me the most interesting part of the lecture was probably also the most worrying. It is useful to have what we all already know, backed up by academic research, but depressing given the implications on people's lives. Prior to this I had heard individual horror stories, and many were reminiscent of the standard DLA application and assessment process. What I learned from Dr Soldatic's lecture about ATOS assessments, not only gave weight to my cynicism about The System, but it also showed our welfare system as completely undermining and nothing short of immoral. Beveridge would be turning in his grave!

Dr Soldatic shared with us some of the stories of those she'd interviewed after an ATOS assessment. it transpires that the assessment actually begins from the moment you receive your appointment letter. You are being tested from the word go but you will know nothing about it. With your appointment time, comes directions, instructions, bus timetables etc. Seemingly helpful, but not necessarily easy to navigate if you are disabled. There are times to be met, perhaps other support systems to put in place, alternative transport to find if the suggested method is not accessible or appropriate...and that's just to get to the building. There were reports of buildings not having signs up to indicate you're at the right place, of doors being extremely heavy and difficult to open, of there being no wheelchair access etc.

The task to arrive at your appointment has been made purposefully difficult. Underlying all this, is the pressure that if you don't make this appointment your benefit will be stopped. Those who struggled desperately to make the appointment and succeeded were rewarded with a cold and impersonal welcome, and questionning on how they managed to get there. Had they followed the instructions, how easy was it to find, did they need to ask for assistance? There was no medical assessment.

If they had made it to the appointment they were seen as resourceful and good at problem-solving, so were deemed capable of work. Their benefit would be stopped, and the monthly appointments at the Jobcentre, triggered. To actually qualify for benefit, claimants were having to perform 'absolute disablement'. Dr Soldatic concluded that the ATOS assessment was not a medical assessment but rather an evaluative test of morality.

Equally worryingly, the research found that many of those who had made it to the assessment, had left it very distressed and emotionally scarred. Others came out angry rather than distressed and Dr Soldatic believes this was because they knew what was going to happen beforehand and had mentally prepared in advance. She pointed out that disabled people in the UK seem to be far better connected and good at sharing information and campaigning for change, than in Australia.

Many of those who'd been sent an appointment reported high level anxiety the moment the envelope arrived. They attributed this to the media portrayal of benefit claimants as scroungers and frauds. This level of stress and distress has been seen to result in the breakdown of other support relationships that are essential to the claimant's well-being. There is also an underlying fear that if this benefit is withdrawn there are other benefits that will also be lost as a result.

Dr Soldatic relayed the story of one woman who because of an overriding fear of being under surveillance, and of being dobbed in by neighbors, has chosen not to partake in outdoor activity any longer. Despite this activity bringing well-being to her, she would rather forgo it than risk the lack of well-being that would arise if she were to lose her benefits.

This is echoes another disturbing article I read recently about the threat to life and welfare of disabled people in light of the government's reforms. http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/14675 It is worth a read.

I know at Accentuate we have talked of the need to stay non-political, but I think this is going to become harder than we think. Our pursuit of a media and disability project is timely but the subject matter is becoming inextricably woven into the political and social welfare domain. In this climate it is hard for the political not to become personal, whether we want it to, or not!