Why do we blame individuals for economic crises Liene Ozolina
It was a cold, sunny March day.
I was walking along the street in Riga.
I remember the winter was slowly
coming to an end.
There was still some snow
around here and there,
but the pavement
was already clear and dry.
If you’ve lived in Riga,
you will know that feeling of relief
that the first signs of spring bring,
and you no longer have to trudge
through that slushy mix
of snow and mud on the streets.
So there I am, enjoying my stroll,
as I suddenly notice a stencil
on the pavement in front of me,
a graffiti:
white letters painted
on these dark grey bricks.
It says,
“Where is your responsibility?”
The question stopped me in my tracks.
As I’m standing there
considering its meaning,
I notice I’m standing outside the Riga
Municipality Social Welfare Department.
So it appears that the author
of this graffiti, whoever it is,
is asking this question to people
coming to apply for social assistance.
That winter,
I had been doing research on the aftermath
of the financial crisis in Latvia.
When the Global Financial Crisis
erupted in 2008, Latvia got hit hard
as a small, open economy.
To balance the books,
the Latvian government chose
a strategy of internal devaluation.
Now, in essence, that meant drastically
reducing public budget spending,
so, slashing public sector workers' wages,
shrinking civil service,
cutting unemployment benefits
and other social assistance,
raising taxes.
My mother had been working
as a history teacher her whole life.
The austerity for her meant
seeing her salary cut by 30 percent
all of a sudden.
And there were many in a situation
like hers or worse.
The costs of the crisis were put
on the shoulders of ordinary Latvians.
As a result of the crisis
and the austerity,
the Latvian economy shrank
by 25 percent in a two-year period.
Only Greece suffered
an economic contraction
of a comparable scale.
Yet, while Greeks were out
in the streets for months
staging continuous,
often violent protests in Athens,
all was quiet in Riga.
Prominent economists were fighting
in the columns of “The New York Times”
about this curious extreme
Latvian experiment
of this austerity regime,
and they were watching on in disbelief
how the Latvian society
was putting up with it.
I was studying in London at the time,
and I remember the Occupy movement there
and how it was spreading
from city to city,
from Madrid to New York to London,
the 99 percent against the one percent.
You know the story.
Yet when I arrived in Riga,
there were no echoes of the Occupy here.
Latvians were just putting up with it.
They “swallowed the toad,”
as the local saying goes.
For my doctoral research,
I wanted to study how the state-citizen
relationship was changing in Latvia
in the post-Soviet era,
and I had chosen the unemployment office
as my research site.
And as I arrived there
in that autumn of 2011,
I realized, “I am actually
witnessing firsthand
how the effects of crises are playing out,
and how those worst affected by it,
people who have lost their jobs,
are reacting to it.”
So I started interviewing people
I met at the unemployment office.
They were all registered as job seekers
and hoping for some help from the state.
Yet, as I was soon discovering,
this help was of a particular kind.
There was some cash benefit,
but mostly state assistance came
in the form of various social programs,
and one of the biggest
of these programs was called
“Competitiveness-Raising Activities.”
It was, in essence, a series of seminars
that all of the unemployed
were encouraged to attend.
So I started attending
these seminars with them.
And a number of paradoxes struck me.
So, imagine:
the crisis is still ongoing,
the Latvian economy is contracting,
hardly anyone is hiring,
and there we are,
in this small, brightly lit classroom,
a group of 15 people,
working on lists of our personal strengths
and weaknesses, our inner demons,
that we are told are preventing us
from being more successful
in the labor market.
As the largest local bank
is being bailed out
and the costs of this bailout are shifted
onto the shoulders of the population,
we are sitting in a circle
and learning how to breathe deeply
when feeling stressed.
(Breathes deeply)
As home mortgages are being foreclosed
and thousands of people are emigrating,
we are told to dream big
and to follow our dreams.
As a sociologist,
I know that social policies
are an important form of communication
between the state and the citizen.
The message of this program was,
to put it in the words
of one of the trainers,
“Just do it.”
She was, of course, citing Nike.
So symbolically, the state was sending
a message to people out of work
that you need to be more active,
you need to work harder,
you need to work on yourself,
you need to overcome your inner demons,
you need to be more confident –
that somehow, being out of work
was their own personal failure.
The suffering of the crisis
was treated as this
individual experience of stress
to be managed in one’s own body
through deep and mindful breathing.
These types of social programs
that emphasize individual responsibility
have become increasingly common
across the world.
They are part of the rise
of what sociologist Loïc Wacquant calls
the “neoliberal Centaur state.”
Now, the centaur, as you might recall,
is this mythical creature
in ancient Greek culture,
half human, half beast.
It has this upper part of a human
and the lower part of a horse.
So the Centaur state is a state
that turns its human face
to those at the top of the social ladder
while those at the bottom
are being trampled over,
stampeded.
So top income earners and large businesses
can enjoy tax cuts
and other supportive policies,
while the unemployed, the poor
are made to prove themselves worthy
for the state’s help,
are morally disciplined,
are stigmatized as irresponsible
or passive or lazy
or often criminalized.
In Latvia, we’ve had
such a Centaur state model
firmly in place since the ’90s.
Take, for example, the flat income tax
that we had in place up until this year
that has been benefiting
the highest earners,
while one quarter of the population
keeps living in poverty.
And the crisis and the austerity has made
these kinds of social inequalities worse.
So while the capital of the banks
and the wealthy has been protected,
those who lost the most
were taught lessons
in individual responsibility.
Now, as I was talking to people
who I met at these seminars,
I was expecting them to be angry.
I was expecting them
to be resisting these lessons
in individual responsibility.
After all, the crisis was not their fault,
yet they were bearing the brunt of it.
But as people were sharing
their stories with me,
I was struck again and again
by the power of the idea
of responsibility.
One of the people I met was Žanete.
She had been working for 23 years
teaching sewing and other crafts
at the vocational school in Riga.
And now the crisis hits,
and the school is closed
as part of the austerity measures.
The educational system restructuring
was part of a way of saving public money.
And 10,000 teachers
across the country lose their jobs,
and Žanete is one of them.
And I know from what she’s been telling me
that losing her job has put her
in a desperate situation;
she’s divorced, she has two teenage
children that she’s the sole provider for.
And yet, as we are talking,
she says to me that the crisis
is really an opportunity.
She says, “I turn 50 this year.
I guess life has really given me
this chance to look around, to stop,
because all these years
I’ve been working nonstop,
had no time to pause.
And now I have stopped,
and I’ve been given an opportunity
to look at everything and to decide
what it is that I want
and what it is that I don’t want.
All this time, sewing, sewing,
some kind of exhaustion.”
So Žanete is made redundant
after 23 years.
But she’s not thinking about protesting.
She’s not talking about the 99 percent
against the one percent.
She is analyzing herself.
And she was thinking pragmatically
of starting a small business
out of her bedroom
making these little souvenir dolls
to sell to tourists.
I also met Aivars
at the unemployment office.
Aivars was in his late 40s,
he had lost a job at the government agency
overseeing road construction.
To one of our meetings,
Aivars brings a book he’s been reading.
It’s called “Vaccination against Stress,
or Psycho-energetic Aikido.”
Now, some of you might know
that aikido is a form of martial art,
so, psycho-energetic aikido.
And Aivars tells me
that after several months
of reading and thinking and reflecting
while being out of work,
he has understood that his current
difficulties are really his own doing.
He says to me,
“I created it myself.
I was in a psychological state
that was not good for me.
If a person is afraid to lose
their money, to lose their job,
they start getting more stressed,
more unsettled, more fearful.
That’s what they get.”
As I ask him to explain,
he compares his thoughts poetically
to wild horses running in all directions,
and he says, “You need to be
a shepherd of your thoughts.
To get things in order
in the material world,
you need to be a shepherd
of your thoughts,
because it’s through your thoughts
that everything else gets orderly.”
“Lately,” he says,
“I have clearly understood
that the world around me,
what happens to me,
people that enter in my life …
it all depends directly on myself.”
So as Latvia is going through
this extreme economic experiment,
Aivars says it’s his way of thinking
that has to change.
He’s blaming himself for what
he’s going through at the moment.
So taking responsibility
is, of course, a good thing, right?
It is especially meaningful
and morally charged
in a post-Soviet society,
where reliance on the state
is seen as this unfortunate heritage
of the Soviet past.
But when I listen to Žanete
and Aivars and to others,
I also thought
how cruel this question is –
“Where is your responsibility?” –
how punishing.
Because, it was working as a way
of blaming and pacifying people
who were hit worst by the crisis.
So while Greeks were out in the streets,
Latvians swallowed the toad,
and many tens of thousands emigrated,
which is another way
of taking responsibility.
So the language, the language
of individual responsibility,
has become a form of collective denial.
As long as we have social policies
that treat unemployment
as individual failure
but we don’t have enough funding
for programs that give people real skills
or create workplaces,
we are blind of the
policymakers' responsibility.
As long as we stigmatize the poor
as somehow passive or lazy
but don’t give people real means
to get out of poverty
other than emigrating,
we are in denial of
the true causes of poverty.
And in the meantime,
we all suffer,
because social scientists have shown
with detailed statistical data
that there are more people with both
mental and physical health problems
in societies with higher levels
of economic inequality.
So social inequality is apparently bad
for not only those with least resources
but for all of us,
because living in a society
with high inequality
means living in a society
with low social trust and high anxiety.
So there we are.
We’re all reading self-help books,
we try to hack our habits,
we try to rewire our brains,
we meditate.
And it helps, of course, in a way.
Self-help books help us feel more upbeat.
Meditation can help us feel
more connected to others spiritually.
What I think we need
is as much awareness of what connects
us to one another socially,
because social inequality hurts us all.
So we need more
compassionate social policies
that are aimed less at moral education
and more at promotion
of social justice and equality.
Thank you.
(Applause)