Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-5g6vh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T22:18:13.427Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

He Said, She Said: The Role of Gossip in Determining Single Mothers' Eligibility for Welfare1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 October 2011

Margaret Hillyard Little
Margaret Hillyard Little
Affiliation:
Queen's University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Gossip has long been one of the most dismissed fotms of communication. Since the 1920s, nonetheless, some social scientists have attempted to understand gossip and its social utility. These scholars (be they anthropologists, psychologists, sociologists, linguists, historians, or feminists) have argued that gossip plays a significant role in a number of both premodern and modern communities. However, despite a growing body of work that examines gossip in the private sphere, there has been almost no discussion of the role of gossip in public policy or, more specifically, in welfare state administration. This article will attempt to rectify that omission by providing evidence of how state administrators in one jurisdiction in two historical periods have utilized gossip to help determine which poor single mothers should receive welfare. I argue that this is not merely a custom of early administrators during the formative years of the welfare state but, rather, that the contemporary welfare state apparatus accommodates, and even encourages, the use of gossip in present-day welfare administration.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Policy History , Volume 11 , Issue 4 , October 1999 , pp. 433 - 454
Copyright
Copyright © The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA. 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

2. Much of this work was influenced by Max Gluckman, one of the first scholars to concentrate on the role of gossip in premodern societies. For examples of anthropological studies of gossip in premodern communities, see Anro, Andrew, “Fijian Gossip as Adjudication: A Communication Model of Self Control,” Journal of Anthropological Research 36: 343–60;Google ScholarBloch, Maurice, “Decision Making in Councils Among the Merina of Madagascar,” in Richards, Audrey and Kuper, Adam, eds., Councils in Action (Cambridge, 1971), 29–62;Google ScholarBrenneis, Donald L., “The Matter of Talk: Political Performance in Bhatgaon,” Language in Society 7 (1978): 159–70;CrossRefGoogle ScholarBrison, Karen J., Just Talk: Gossip, Meetings, and Power in a Papua New Guinea Village (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1992); andCrossRefGoogle ScholarGluckman, Max, “Gossip and Scandal,” Current Anthropology 4 (1963): 307–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3. This work is again influenced by Max Gluckman, who argued that gossip could be a means of preserving communities and status within them. For example, see Bergmann, Jorg R., Discreet Indiscretions: The Social Organization of Gossip, Bednarz, John Jr, trans. (New York, 1993); andGoogle ScholarSzwed, J. F., “Gossip, Drinking and Social Control: Consensus and Communication in a Newfoundland Parish,” Ethnology 5 (1966): 434–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4. For examples of feminist scholarship in the field of gossip, see Code, Lorraine, “Gossip, or In Praise of Chaos,” in Rhetorical Spaces: Essays on Gendered Locations (New York, 1995), 144–53;Google ScholarTroflmenkoff, Susan Mann, “Gossip in History,” Canadian Historical Papers 1985, 1–10;Google ScholarSpender, Dale, Man Made Language (London, 1980), esp. chap. 6;Google ScholarTebbutt, Melanie, Women's Talk? A Social History of “Gossip” in Working-Class Neighbourhoods, 1880-1960 (Hants, England, 1995);Google Scholar and a series of articles in Coates, Jennifer, ed., Language and Gender: A Reader (Maiden, Mass., 1998)Google Scholar.

5. , Troflmenkoff, “Gossip in History,” 4–5.Google Scholar

6. An exception to this is some of the anthropological work that studies the use of gossip in premodern societies. Some of this work acknowledges that gossip is employed in public spaces to determine important political decisions. For example, see the work of Brison, Just Talk.

7. , Trofimenkoff, “Gossip in History,” 8–9.Google Scholar

8. For further discussion of the history of welfare policies and their need to distinguish between the deserving and undeserving, see Piven, Frances Fox and Cloward, Richard, Regulating the Poor: The Functions of Public Welfare (New York, 1971), chap. 1;Google ScholarHandler, Joel and Hansenfeld, Yeheskel, We the Poor People: Work, Poverty, and Welfare (New Haven, 1997);Google Scholar, Handler and , Hansenfeld, The Moral Construction of Poverty: Welfare Reform in America (Newbury Park, Calif., 1991);Google ScholarKatz, Michael, In the Shadow of the Poorhouse: A Social History of Welfare in America (New York, 1986);Google ScholarTrattner, Walter I., From Poor Law to Welfare State: A History of Social Welfare in America (New York, 1984).Google Scholar For a discussion of the impact of the Poor Law on Canadian welfare history, see Guest, Dennis, The Emergence of Social Security in Canada, 3d ed. (Vancouver, 1997), chap. 2Google Scholar.

9. These interviews were conducted in eight different communities representing all four regions of the province. The majority of the case files are from the City of London, Elgin, Lincoln, and Oxford Counties. The interviews were conducted in Belleville, Kingston, Kitchener, London, Peterborough, St. Thomas, Toronto, and North Bay, representing Northern, Southern, Eastern, and Western Ontario. Approximately 60 percent of these interviews were conducted between 1990 and 1991; the remaining 40 percent occurred between 1992 and 1996.

10. Little, Margaret Hillyard, No Car, No Radio, No Liquor Permit: The Moral Regulation of Single Mothers in Ontario, 1920-1997 (Toronto and Oxford, 1998).Google Scholar

11. James Struthers makes a similar argument but provides a more detailed comparative analysis of workmen's compensation, mothers' allowance, and other Ontario welfare policies. Struthers, James, The Limits of Affluence: Welfare in Ontario, 1920-1970 (Toronto, 1994), 34–49Google Scholar.

12. “Eighth Annual Report of the OMA Commission, 1927-28,” 15.

13. Johnston, Charles M., E. C. Drury: Agrarian Idealist (Toronto, 1986), 152.Google Scholar

14. “First Annual Report of the OMA Commission, 1920-21,” 18.

15. “Second Annual Report of the OMA Commission, 1921-22,” 30.

16. Armitage, Andrew, Social Welfare in Canada: Ideals and Realities (Toronto, 1975), 272.Google Scholar

17. “First Annual Report of the OMA Commission, 1920-21,” 15-16, and “Seventh Annual Report of the OMA Commission, Fiscal Years 1925-26, 1926-27,” 23.

18. “Second Annual Report of the OMA Commission, 1921-22,” 21.

19. “First Annual Report of the OMA Commission, 1920-21,” 17.

20. In 1921 there were 2,660 OMA beneficiaries and 17 investigators; therefore the average caseload was 156 families. By 1922 the number of beneficiaries had increased by 33.8 percent, but the number of investigators remained constant, with a caseload of approximately 209 cases. In 1929 the chairman claimed that the caseload averaged 300 families. The calculations for 1921 and 1922 were made by Cole, Carole, “An Examination of the Mothers' Allowance System in Ontario, 1914-1940” (M.A. Thesis, History Department, University of Waterloo, 1989), 85; andGoogle Scholar “Ninth Annual Report of the OMA Commission, 1928-1929,” 5.

21. D. B. Weldon Library [DBW], Western Regional Collection, London, Ontario, Mothers' Allowance Case Files, City of London, 1920-1940, “Local Report attached to application, May 31, 1939.”

22. There were many who believed that desertion was a social evil. The Canadian Council on Social Development opposed the inclusion of deserted mothers in the allowance, arguing that 95 percent of these cases were incapable of providing a decent home life for their children. “Report of the Provincial Welfare Department, 1930-31,” 10; and National Archives, MG 28, I-10, vol. 10, File 52, “Some Underlying Principles of Mothets' Allowances,” 2.

23. This figure was calculated from the annual reports regarding new applications received, granted, or found ineligible. “Second Annual Report of the Minister of Public Welfare, 1931-32,” 55; “Fourth Annual Report of the Minister of Public Welfare and Municipal Affairs, 1933-34,” 72; “Report of the Minister of Public Welfare, 1934-35,” 9; “Report of the Minister of Public Welfare, 1935-36,” 65; “Report of the Minister of Public Welfare, 1938-39,” 52.

24. Elgin County Library, Mothers' Allowance Case Files, Elgin County, Sworn Declaration from man who hired the husband on board the ship, 26 July 1939, and Declaration from deserted wife, 13 June 1937.

25. DBW, Mothers' Allowance Case Files, London, “Letter from investigator to Provincial Commission,” 27 June 1928.“

26. Archives of Ontario [AO], F1741-30, Box 3, “Letter from Local Board to Provincial Commission,” 17 December 1940.”

27. AO, F1741-30, Box 3, Application Form, February 1937.

28. AO, F1741-30, Box 3, “Letter from Neighbour to Mrs. Montgomery,” OMA, 13 February 1941Google Scholar.

29. AO, F1741-30, Box 3, “Letter from Neighbour to Mrs. Montgomery,” OMA, 7 March 1941Google Scholar.

30. AO, F1741-30, Box 3, OMA Letter, 3 July 1941.

31. For further comparison between the formative years of the welfare state and the post-World War II period, see Little, Margaret, “The Blurring of Boundaries: Private and Public Welfare for Single Mothers in Ontario,” Studies in Political Economy 47 (Summer 1995): 89–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

32. The Family Benefits Act replaced the Ontario Mothers' Allowance Act, the Blind Persons' Allowances Act, the Disabled Persons' Allowances Act, and the Old Age Assistance Act. The government also established the General Welfare Act, which provided assistance to single, able-bodied men and women without economic dependents. While technically single mothers received Family Benefits following this policy change, I will continue to refer to social assistance for single mothers as “welfare” ro avoid confusion.

33. Interview with Nick Di Salle, former FBA worker, Ontario Public Services Employees Union, Toronto, 22 November 1991. Interview with Ian Morrison, Executive Director, Clinic Resource Office, Toronto, 8 March 1996.

34. The Ministry of Community and Social Services estimated that the average caseload for field workers delivering FBA in 1986-87 was 332 cases. Transitions: Report of the Social Assistance Revieu1 Committee (Ministry of Community and Social Services, Toronto, 1988), 241.Google Scholar It is believed that caseloads have increased since 1987, but no figures have been released.

35. Grey, Josephine, Democracy Conference, “Session 5: Democratic Administration, Reforms and Civil Service Unions,” York University, 18 April 1991.Google Scholar

36. Interview with Women's Weekly, Toronto, 11 December 1991Google Scholar.

37. I was told this by several single mothers during my interview with Women's Weekly, Toronto, 19 June 1991. This was also verified by Carolann Wright, “Yes, MTHA let FB workers into yout apartment without your permission. Absolutely.” Interview with Carolann Wright, former welfare recipient and currently an antipoverty activist, Toronto, June 1991.

38. There has been a trend in the United States to intensify the connection between welfare benefits and school attendance. In reaction, the provincial government report recommended that a child's attendance no longer be considered as grounds for ineligibility. Transitions, 143.

39. Interview with Women's Weekly, Toronto, 11 December 1991Google Scholar.

40. Interview with Low Income People Involvement (LIPI), North Bay, December 1991.

41. Interview with Mothers and Others Making Change (MOMC), Kitchener, Ontario, November 1991.

42. Interview with Women's Weekly, Toronto, 11 December 1991Google Scholar.

43. Interview with LIPI.

44. Josephine Grey, Democracy Conference.

45. The cost of these investigative services for the Ontario Ministry of Community and Social Services was estimated at $20 million for the fiscal year 1994-95. Sabatini, E. (Rico), with Nightingale, Sandra, Welfare - No Fair: A Critical Analysis of Ontario's Welfare System, 1985-1994 (Vancouver, 1996), 163Google Scholar.

46. As a whole, fraud has accounted for approximately 2.59 to 3.66 percent of total payments. See Peat Marwick and Partners, “Welfare Fraud and Overpayment,” Social Assistance Review Committee background paper, September 1987, pp. 19 and 54. Transitions did, however, open the door for the possibility of a fraud squad: “We have no evidence to suggest that fraud in the social assistance system is greater than it is in the tax system or the unemployment insurance system. Nevertheless, because public confidence in the social assistance system depends in large part on the belief that the funds are being well spent and that abuse is being kept to a minimum, we accept that some of the measures adopted to control social assistance fraud may need to be more extensive than they are in other systems.” Transitions, 384.

47. It is yet unclear how many investigators the government actually hired, but they did not hire all 250. Community legal workers in Kingston and Toronto stated that they are aware of a number of cases where single mothers have had their allowances canceled as a result of an anonymous call to the fraud line. Interview with Sharon Lee, Community Legal Worker, Kingston, 10 March 1996. Interview with Morrison.

48. Interview with John Stapleton, Former Acting Director, Special Projects, Social Assistance and Employment Opportunities Division, Ministry of Community and Social Services, Toronto, December 1991.

49. Interview with Nancy Vander Plaats, Community Legal Worker, Scarborough Community Legal Services, Toronto, 15 September 1993.

50. LEAF argued that the spouse-in-the-house policy was a form of sexual discrimination and contravened the sexual equality clause of section 15 in the Charter of Rights.

51. Interview with Stapleton.

52. For further discussion of the spouse-in-the-house rule from 1970 to 1984, see Haddad, Jane, “Sexism and Social Welfare Policy: The Case ot Family Benefits in Ontario,” Occasional Papers in Social Policy Analysis, No. 8, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Toronto, 1985, 10Google Scholar.

53. Interview with Morrison.

For a more detailed explanation, see “Affidavit of Nancy Vander Plaats, Community Legal Worker, Scarborough Legal Clinic, in re: Sandra Elizabeth Faulkiner et al., and Ontario, Ontario Court of Justice (Divisional Court), File #310-95.

54. “Affidavit of Kevin Costante, Assistant Deputy Minister of Community and Social Services, in re: Sandra Elizabeth Faulkiner et al., and Ontario, Ontario Court of Justice (Divisional Court), File #310-95.

55. Interview with Morrison.

56. Ministry of Community and Social Services, “Determination of Spousal Status Questionnaire.”

57. Interview with Vander Plaats.

58. Affidavit of Bonnie Nye, in re: Sandra Elizabeth Faulkiner et al., and Ontario, Ontario Court of Justice (Divisional Court), File #310-95.

59. Interview with Lee.

60. “Affidavit of Myrna L. Houston,” in re: Sandra Elizabeth Faulkiner et al., and Ontario, Ontario Court of Justice (Divisional Court), File #310-95.