Social policies and emotions in the context of COVID-19: on old “new” debates and interstices
Within the collection of “Notebooks of Latin American Critical Thought”, CLACSO presents the research: “Social Policies and Emotions in the Context of COVID-19: On Old 'nuevos' debates and interstices” of Rebecca Dinner and Andrea Dettano.
Social policies and emotions in the context of COVID-19: on old “new” debates and interstices
Rebecca Dinner[1] and Andrea Dettano[2]
In the first half of 2020, social policies have taken center stage on government agendas, accompanying a package of measures and decisions, many related to addressing the health emergency caused by COVID-19. In Argentina, the Emergency Family Income (IFE) program was recently implemented. Targeting unemployed individuals, informal sector workers, and/or self-employed individuals (monotributistas), its latest disbursement reached nearly 9 million people, representing almost 25% of Argentina's total population.[3]In this context, a series of political and academic discussions have regained prominence regarding Universal Basic Income, community kitchens, informal employment, various housing problems, teleworking, the digitalization of life, and the freezing and regulation of maximum prices for some essential services, highlighting the central role of social policies in the 21st century. Therefore, in this paper, we revisit the fundamental role that social policies play in contemporary societies.
As part of a collective publication from the working group on Subjectivities, Sensibilities, and Poverty, this paper aims to revisit social studies on social policies and emotions, as an analytical perspective that allows us to reflect on state interventions and the different dimensions and complexities that comprise them today, as well as to recover alternative ways of observing them. This context becomes an opportunity to revisit debates and discussions regarding a largely undeveloped aspect of the study of the state, social policies, and the social question: that linked to emotions, bodies, and sensibilities. One of the main elements that becomes significant in this context is to investigate not only the sociological status of state interventions, but also to establish and identify the connections between this field of study and the sociology that takes bodies/emotions as its central focus.
The context of the pandemic declared on March 11, 2020, by the World Health Organization, presents a challenge for a re-examination of social policies in at least two aspects, which we will address here: on the one hand (which will be the subject of the first section of this paper), it allows us to articulate and historicize a perspective of, from, and toward social policies that centers on people, their sensibilities, lived experiences, and social interactions. This aspect, stated today, almost two decades into the 21st century and in the context we are currently experiencing, seems obvious. However, it was arduous work within the field of research (in the Bourdieu sense) when it appeared that social policies did not constitute an object of study for social studies on bodies/emotions (see Cena and Dettano, 2019). On the other hand (and we will address this towards the end of this document), it allows us to continue a line of inquiry that, after more than 10 years of development, enables us to identify certain lines of continuity and rupture in relation to social policies. Contexts of “crisis” like the one we are currently experiencing mobilize, enable, and open/close spaces from which old “new” problems gain prominence. Perhaps this is an opportunity to reflect on the old “new” proposals that—such as Universal Basic Income, the digitalization of life and its influence on state interventions, the theoretical and methodological challenges that social policies pose for the social sciences, the role of youth and gender, etc.—are currently taking center stage.
Rethinking social policies from these argumentative perspectives invites us, first and foremost, to clarify the network of conceptual categories from which we begin. Social policies, as modes of state social intervention, necessarily require their inscription within a broader conceptual framework from which they acquire meaning and significance. By this, we mean that their definition implies, at the very least, understanding them as products in process and processes in product (Cena, 2018). In this vein, we will then say that social policies are a central element of the capitalist, colonial, and patriarchal regime (Grosfoguel, 2006 and 2007).
The concept of the social question becomes essential for addressing social policies, as it is understood as a sphere of differentiation in life from which the fragmentation, division (Donzelot, 2007), and aporia (Castel, 1997) experienced by a society are thematized, staged, questioned, and expressed through specific problems. At this point, the constitutive contradictions between formal equality and structural inequality, embodied in the figure of the Modern Capitalist State (Grassi, 2003), jeopardize a society's capacity to continue existing based on interdependent relationships. In this sense, the formal equality upheld by the configuration of the Modern State, based on the figure of the citizen, is strained by the structural inequality sustained by the State as a capitalist entity. However, this structural inequality necessarily implies acknowledging processes of structuring and organizing life that predate the formation of the Modern Capitalist State. This is possible thanks to previous organizational processes that Quijano (1999) and Grosfoguel (2006 and 2007) place in 1492. In this sense, we will say succinctly that structural inequalities refer to much more than inequalities between social classes linked to the position in capitalist labor relations; they also involve relations between genders and the configuration of the notion of race and, with it, a series of complex and intertwined hierarchies.[4] which some writings have called intersectionality (Byerly, 2017).
Now, social policies play a central role in the processes of “suturing” (Grassi, 2003) between formal equality and structural inequality. These policies constitute modes of state intervention that address the problematic expressions of the social question, affecting social conflicts and consensus. In this sense, social policies are contradictory elements (Faleiros, 2000) within the framework of the capitalist, patriarchal, and colonial accumulation regime (Grosfoguel, 2006 and 2007). While in the short term they allow or enable concrete approaches to the problems affecting populations, in the long term they enable the reproduction of the regime. These approaches range from managing the conditions under which labor power is used and sold, to measures related to basic infrastructure, education, social care, health, and much more.
In this context, social policies “make society” (Danani, 2009; De Sena, 2014), since they are not only central to the accumulation regime based on the concept of the social question, but also directly affect the conditions of production and reproduction of life in the social and individual sense (Danani, 2009): this means the material conditions of existence of populations, as well as the models of society (De Sena, 2016).
As bridges between the systemic order and the lifeworld (Barba Solano, 1995), the ways in which social policies "make society" always involve the constitution of emotions as a result of the interventions implemented. Examining social policies from a sociology of emotions could be considered—at least—in three moments/frameworks: their designs, regulations, and wording; the actors involved in the design and implementation processes; and the subjects targeted by the actions.
Regarding the first axis, social policies, as ways of addressing diverse problems in the social world from a shared value system (Donati and Lucas, 1987), revisit and redefine issues, identify subjects, possible courses of action, and goods/services to be transferred. Therefore, as state policies, they condense the possibilities of naming, signifying, and acting (De Sena, 2016). They include values and assessments about the whys and hows of interventions (Horsell, 2017) and carry within them a particular World Image, as a set of presuppositions that cause some elements of the social world to become visible while others overlap (Cena, 2014), establishing what is accepted, what is acceptable, and the legitimate ways of achieving reproduction. Therefore, if we observe the different contexts in which PS have developed, it is possible to situate the continuity of an “ideology of normality”, so that work, the feminization of care and the consumer citizen have been established as a normalized life criterion (Faleiros, 2004).
This is particularly evident in policy implementation processes, a moment fraught with perspectives, evaluations, moralities, and pedagogies (Dettano, 2019). Those who work on putting interventions into practice are subjects who attribute meaning to the lives of those who receive them, harboring value judgments and a wealth of considerations and information about the actions of the State and the recipients of the policies (Anderson, 2002; Bourdieu and Balazs, 2011; Sordini, 2019; Cena, 2020).
Regarding the third proposed moment, its reflection involves recovering the ways in which interventions are perceived by those who participate in them as recipients. This, as Tonkens has pointed out et al. (2013) and Mac Auslan and Riemenschneider (2011) not only involves studying the transformations that brought about changes in social policy, such as massification (De Sena, 2011), activation (Moreno Márquez, 2008) or its monetization and banking (Macías González, 2016), but also attending to the ways in which these interventions impact and produce ways of feeling. This perspective has led to numerous research findings that demonstrate how interventions are presented and perceived as aid (De Sena and Scribano, 2018), the fear of losing access to programs (Cena, 2019b), the burden of tasks imposed by conditionalities (Cena, 2019a), the difficulties in understanding and managing the various program requirements (Dettano and Chahbenderian, 2018), the perception and appropriation of food interventions (Sordini, 2020), and the consumption and debt practices they enable (Dettano, 2020; Chahbenderian, 2017). At the same time, it is essential to consider the impact of these factors on social structuring, interactions, and the ways in which individuals relate to the state and to one another. Uncertainty (Cena, 2018) and fear (Cena, 2019b), the loss of autonomy (Scribano and De Sena, 2013), the formation of consumers (Dettano, 2018), “Immunization”, as a growing distance and separation between subjects (Morlicchio, 2016), love (Boragnio and Dettano, 2019) could be some of the features that have shaped several decades of massive interventions to populations living in poverty, whose results in terms of reducing it are limited.
All of this fundamentally invites us to question the fact that the ways of perceiving and feeling the world are a product of inhabiting and experiencing it (De Sena). et al, 2018), although in many cases these experiences are far removed from what the policies state as part of their objectives.
Some opening axes
As we have previously noted, the current context created by the health emergency presents an opportunity to highlight, position, and problematize some old “new” phenomena. From this perspective, it becomes possible to reflect on the various ways in which interventions unfold, as well as on their methods of observation and recording. At the same time, and exacerbated by the health emergency, some old “new” approaches and ways of describing the interventions we have been trying to outline have resurfaced. These elements can be summarized in five key points:
First, the link between social policies and technologies takes as its starting point the various processes of digitization in society (Scribano and Lisdero, 2019). In what has been called the Digital Age (Esteinou Madrid, 2001), the use of technologies and the internet has permeated all aspects of life. In the case of state interventions, the internet has become part of what has been termed the Extended State (Esteinou Madrid, 2001), due to its intrusion into management mechanisms, incorporating new elements into their structure. These elements consist of a wide range of ways to communicate and interact that have come to be called “e-government,” understood as the relationship between citizens and some level of government through the use of information technologies, the availability of information on the characteristics of interventions, and the possibility of different types of management (Cerbino and Richero, 2006; Concha, 2006).
The State is modified with each technological incorporation it makes, transforming its interventions and necessarily impacting society. In this context, the importance that the State-population relationship has assumed through social policies cannot be ignored, and even more so, the presence of the internet and technologies in their management, in their "live" implementation, in the different interactions established among the recipients themselves, as well as the exposure on social networks of officials directly linked to the interventions (Weinmann and Dettano, 2020).
Secondly, there is the necessary approach to state interventions that re-centralizes people's bodies and emotions. This raises several questions, considering how transformations in state interventions and practices involve defining what is important, what is "worthwhile," what efforts are necessary, and when one must "be patient," while simultaneously proposing courses of action classified and deemed the most appropriate. Within these proposals, signifiers and conceptual pairs generally appear that seem to encompass everything that is acceptable and everything that must be avoided: inclusion/exclusion; vulnerability/empowerment; poverty/consumption; women/motherhood/care. These concepts, in addition to dominating the policy arena, also obscure other types of approaches and problematizations because they seem self-sufficient, and their mere enunciation is presented as a point of arrival (Horsell, 2017). What they occlude are the causal networks that give rise to situations of exclusion, lack, and poverty, thus rearranging the webs of responsibilities and accountability.
In addition to the definitions and values that policies contain, their implementation produces different impacts on those who perceive them, impacts that exceed the impact of any potential good, sum of money, or service transferred (Mac Auslan and Riemenschneider, 2011). The ways in which the population is served and how they access public services can generate different kinds of suffering, shame, and difficulties in expressing disagreements or complaints. This implies considering the gap between the rhetoric that accompanies interventions—which includes the ways of being a good citizen or the happiness of receiving a benefit—and the ways in which those who “receive” feel or perceive their living conditions (Tonkens). et al..
Thirdly, the situation of gender and generations. In the context of social policies in Argentina, since 2002 and continuously and progressively, social policies have been massively positioned (De Sena, 2011) on the state agenda, and youth as a specific population has been no exception. Just to mention a few examples of national state interventions, in 2008 the program "Youth with More and Better Work" was implemented nationwide and remains in effect today. This social policy went from reaching 7.658 beneficiaries to 72.051 in 2009, and by 2018 the number of recipients exceeded that of 2009 by more than 20.500 (Brown, 2012: 21). In 2009, the Universal Child Allowance for Social Protection was implemented—and has continued uninterrupted to this day. It is also a massive program in its characteristics, and while not exclusively aimed at young people, 74.5% of its beneficiaries are between 20 and 39 years old. In addition, there has been a growing feminization of state interventions. This is a result of the definition of the target population as reflected in its worldview (as is the case with the Universal Child Allowance for Social Protection) or as a characteristic adopted by social policy at the territorial level (such as the PROGRESAR program), where 63.24% of the total population targeted are women nationwide (Ministry of Education request for information, 2018). This manifestation of the target population and the design of social policies points to some of the avenues from which further critical analysis is needed.
Fourth, in Argentina and within the framework of the health emergency, the State arranged the implementation of an Emergency Family Income aimed at informal workers and some categories of monotributistas[5]which is compatible with receiving some social programs such as the Universal Child Allowance, the Universal Pregnancy Allowance and the Progresar Program.[6] This benefit can be received by only one member of the household, and the woman has priority for collection.
The Emergency Family Income (IFE) program reached approximately 9 million people, and its implementation has brought unresolved issues such as informal employment and unemployment back to the forefront. It has also reignited old debates surrounding the implementation of some form of Basic Income or Universal Basic Income. The discussion surrounding Basic Income took place in Europe during the 1980s, amidst discussions about the relevance of the Welfare State in what was becoming a new phase and modality of capital accumulation. In their various forms, these proposals appeared to be methods of reproduction, via income transfers, outside the world of work, redefining the foundations of existing social security schemes, such as the Bismarckian and Beveridgean models (Van Parijs, 2004). Their proposal, developed by a group of researchers from the University of Leuven (Raventos, 2007), could be interpreted as both a symptom and a consequence of the deconstruction and/or reconfiguration of the world of work that began in the 1970s. As Habermas (1984) identified and argued, we have long been witnessing the end of a utopia, one that, since the 20th century, has encompassed a range of ways of being and existing in relation to the society of work. In this sense, the various interventions that have emerged, such as those addressing the health emergency, and their association with other discussions—like that of Universal Basic Income—must be examined within the context of those earlier discussions.
Finally, and no less importantly, these elements require a review and re-evaluation of the ways we observe. If phenomena change, the strategies and methods used to observe them should also change, and this poses a challenge for the social sciences. Just to mention one[7] One method we will refer to here is the importance of Virtual Ethnography. The internet hosts and enables millions of interactions, as people connect through its platforms, share content, buy and sell products, make friends, look for partners, and even manage and resolve questions about the social programs they benefit from. In this way, the economic, productive, and cultural spheres, extending to public administration and the various state powers and structures, become part of their modes of operation, utilizing the different resources that digital technologies make available, giving rise to what has been called the extended state (Esteinou Madrid, 2001; Urresti, Linne, and Basile, 2015). Therefore, enabling virtual ethnography to observe a particular space of conquest for social policies, which are increasingly massive and numerous, such as cyberspace/the internet, becomes crucial. The Internet involves diverse and varied interactions that impact the production of different ways in which life is given and acquires meaning, therefore, the review of the methodologies implemented becomes an obligatory task for the Social Sciences (Méndez and Aguilar, 2015).
As the title suggests, this essay, in addition to being an invitation to examine different forms of state intervention through the lens of bodies and emotions, has been an attempt to problematize old "new" axes and broaden an agenda of topics that allows us to question interventions in light of the problems of this century, such as the current health emergency, which only serves to reveal new facets, faces, and exacerbations of what already existed. At the same time, it seeks to revisit the importance of terminology and how certain concepts, laden with desirable and positive attributes, become entrenched in interventions, pushing others out of the picture and obscuring multiple layers of long-standing problems. Thus, revisiting social policies in the current context offers an opportunity to make visible the old "new" phenomena that, like interstices, emerge, express themselves, and gain prominence today. The capacity that we in the Social Sciences have to make them visible and/or conceal them will be an option intimately linked to how much and with which critical categories we are willing to observe.
Bibliography
ANDERSON, J. (2002) Families, maternalism and gender justice: Dilemmas of social policy. PRIGEPP, FLACSO.
BARBA SOLANO, C. (1995) “Social Policy from a sociological perspective”. Espiral, No. 2, Vol. 4.
BROWN, B. (2012) “Program for young people with more and better work” in CEIL Employment, unemployment and employment policies, Buenos Aires: CEIL.
BORAGNIO, A., & DETTANO, A. (2019). Emotions, Social Intervention and social policies: motherhood at the crossroads. AZARBE, International Journal of Social Work and Welfare, (8), 39-48. https://doi.org/10.6018/azarbe.390321
BOURDIEU, P.; BALAZS, G. (1999) The misery of the world. Spain: Economic Culture Fund. pp.
BYERLY, CAROLYN M.. (2017). Feminist Intersectionality Research in Communications: Origins, Contributions and Tensions. Ex aequo, (35), 23-31. https://dx.doi.org/10.22355/exaequo.2017.35.02
CASTEL, R. (1997). The Metamorphosis of the Social Question. Paidós.
CENA, R. (2014a) “Conditional income transfer programs and employment programs in Argentina: between the accountability of the recipients and the individualization of the social issue”. Sapiens Research Scientific Bulletin No. 4 (1) (Pp. 3-8).
(2014b). On the sensitivities associated with the recipients of the Universal Child Allowance, an analysis from virtual ethnography. Policies made flesh and the social become emotion: sociological readings of social policies. Sociological Studies Editora, Buenos Aires, 155-186.
(2018) Transitions through instability: towards an approach to social policies from the perspective of sensitivities. In De Sena, A. (comp.) Social Intervention at the beginning of the 21st Century: Conditional Transfers in the Global Order. Buenos Aires: ESEditora.
(2019a). Discussions about social care: towards a triple shift? Reflections from populations targeted by social policies. Aposta, (81).
(2019b). Social Policies and Emotions in the 21st Century: reflections on fear in the target populations of social programs. Intersticios. Sociological Journal of Critical Thought, 13(2).
_______ (2020) “The sentient body under the microscope: trained” an analysis from social policies aimed at young people. In Dettano, A. (ed.) Social policies and emotions: (per)vivencias around state interventions. Estudios Sociológicos Editora, Autonomous City of Buenos Aires; Year: 2020; p. 73 – 96
CENA, R. and DETTANO, A. (2019) Social Policies, Sensibilities, Bodies and Emotions: The Paths of a Perspective. Theoretical-Methodological Approaches. In Onteaiken Bulletin No. 28, pp. IX. Available at: http://onteaiken.com.ar/ver/boletin28/onteaiken28-00-presentacion.pdf
CERVIO, AL (2015). Urban expansion and socio-spatial segregation in the city of Córdoba (Argentina) during the 80s.
CERBINO, M. and RICHERO, A. (2006) (Eds.) Governance, public policies and Internet applications. FLACSO, IRDC. Ecuador: Rispergraf. Available at: https://biblio.flacsoandes.edu.ec/libros/digital/48767.pdf
CONCHA, S. (2006) “Public policies and the Internet”. In Cerbino, M. and Richero, A. (Eds.) Governance, public policies and Internet applications. FLACSO, IRDC. Ecuador: Rispergraf. pp. 85-96.
CHAHBENDERIAN, F. (2017); Credits and transfers: a reflection on the expansion of consumption in Latin America; Federal University of Pelotas; Norus; 5; 8; 12-2017; 71-91
DANANI, C. (2009). The management of social policy: an attempt to contribute to its problematization. Social policy management. Concepts and tools, 25-51.
D'HERS, V., & MUSICCO, C. (2015). Expressiveness and movement from a methodological perspective: reflections on "dance interviews". ASRI: Art and society. Research journal, (9), 4.
DE SENA, A. (2011) “Promotion of micro-enterprises and social policies: universality, focus or massification?, an unfinished discussion”. Pensamento Plural. Pelotas [8]: 5-36.
(2014) Policies made flesh and the social become emotion: sociological readings of social policies, Sociological Studies Editor.
(2016) “Social Policies, Emotions and Bodies”. RBSE – Brazilian Journal of Sociology of Emotion. v. 15, n. 44. (Pp. 173-185). Available at: http://www.cchla.ufpb.br/rbse/DeSenaDos.pdf
(2018) Social Intervention at the Beginning of the 21st Century: Conditional Transfers in the Global Order. Buenos Aires: ESEditora.
DETTANO, A. (2017) “Consumption practices and emotions of the recipients of conditional income transfer programs in the City of Buenos Aires” Novos Rumos Sociológicos Journal. Vol. 5, No. 8. (Pp.8-32).
____________ (2020) Dettano, A. (2020) Social policies and emotions: (per)vivencias around state interventionsBuenos Aires: Sociological Studies Publisher
DETTANO, A.; CHAHBENDERIAN, F. (2018) “Inequalities in times of conditional cash transfer programs: a study of the implementation of Ciudadanía Porteña”. Saber, Universidad de Oriente. Vol. 30. (Pp.363-372).
DETTANO, A.; CHAHBENDERIAN, F.; CENA, R. (2017) “What does it mean to be included? An analysis from the Conditional Cash Transfer programs implemented in Argentina in the first decade of the 21st century.” In: Scribano, A. and Aranguren, M. (Compilers) Contributions to a sociology of bodies and emotions from the South. Buenos Aires: ESEditora
DONATI, P.; LUCAS, A. (1987) “Social policy in the welfare state: the challenge of complex systems”. REIS No. 37. Pp. 57-68.
DONZELOT, J., & CARDOSO, H. (2007). The invention of the social: essay on the decline of political passions. Nueva Visión Editions.
ESTEINOU MADRID, Javier (2001) “Internet and the transformation of the State”. Ámbitos Magazine, No. 6. pp. 21-34.
FALEIROS, V. (2000). The functions of social policy in capitalism. Social policy today, 103-118.
GRASSI, E. (2003). Policies and social problems in neoliberal society: the other infamous decade (I). Buenos Aires: Espacio Editorial.
HABERMAS, J. (1995). The End of a Utopia. Reality: Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, (45), 535-545.
HINE, C. (2011). Virtual ethnographyBarcelona: Editorial UOC.
HORSELL, C. (2017) “A politics of compassion: Informing a new social policy for homelessness?” International Social Work, Vol. 60(4) 966–975. DOI:10.1177/0020872815594228
MACÍAS GONZÁLEZ, G. (2016) “The monetization of poverty, women and the microfinance revolution in Mexico”. Journal of Gender Studies. The Window, n. V.(pp.187-194). Available at: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=88446739009.
MAC AUSLAN, I.; RIEMENSCHNEIDER, N. (2011) “Richer but Resented: What do Cash Transfers do to Social Relations? IDS Bulletin, v. 42, No. 6.
MORENO MÁRQUEZ, G. (2008) “The reformulation of the welfare state: workfare, active employment policies and minimum incomes”. Zerbitzuan, No. 43.
MORLICCHIO, E. (2016) “L'orientamento punitivo, compassionevole e pedagogico nei confrontationi dei poveri: forme diverse di avoidmento?” RBSE – Revista Brasileira de Sociologia da Emoção. Vol. 15, No. 44. (Pp. 139-146). Available at: https://core. ac.uk/download/pdf/55147161.pdf
GROSFOGUEL, R. (2006). Decolonizing political-economy and post-colonial studies: Transmodernity, border thinking, and global coloniality. Tabula Rasa, (4), 17-48.
_________________ (2007). The decolonization of political economy and postcolonial studies. Transmodernity, border thinking and global coloniality. Tareas, (125), 53-74.
LUGONES, M. (2014) “Coloniality and gender: towards a decolonial feminism”. In: Jiménez Lucena, I. Lugones, M. Mignolo, W.; Tlostanova, M. Gender and Decoloniality. Buenos Aires: Del Signo. pp. 13-42.
MÉNDEZ, MDRR, & AGUILAR, GA (2015). Virtual ethnography, an approach to the method and its applications. Studies on contemporary cultures, Era III. Vol. XXI. Number 41, Colima, summer 2015, pp. 67-96
MIGNOLO, W. (2014) “Introduction What Are The Issues of Gender and (De)Coloniality?” In: Jiménez Lucena, I. Lugones, M. Mignolo, W.; Tlostanova, M. Gender and Decoloniality. Buenos Aires: Del Signo. pp. 9-13.
MONTES MONTOYA, A. & BUSSO, H. (2007) « Interview with Ramón Grosfoguel », Polis [Online], 18 | 2007, posted online on July 23, 2012, consulted on October 12, 2019. URLhttp://journals.openedition.org/polis/4040
QUIJANO, A. (1999) ¡Que tal raza! (Tema centro). In: Ecuador Debate. Etnicidades e identificaciones, Quito: CAAP, (no. 48, December 1999): pp. 141-152.
RAMBLA, FX, ADELANTADO, J., & NOGUERA, JA (2000). The framework of analysis: the complex relationships between social structure and social policies. In Changes in the welfare state: social policies and inequalities in Spain (pp. 23-62). Icaria.
RAVENTOS, D. (2007) The material conditions of freedomBarcelona: El Viejo Topo.
SCRIBANO, A. (2000). Creative and expressive encounters: a methodology for studying sensitivitiesBuenos Aires: ESEditora.
______________(2012). Sociology of bodies/emotions. Latin American Journal of Studies on Bodies, Emotions and Society, 4(10), 91-111.
SCRIBANO, A., & DE SENA, A. (2013). Social assistance plans in Buenos Aires: a look from the politics of bodies and emotions. Aposta. Journal of Social Sciences, (59), 1-25.
__________________ (2018) “Aid as the central axis of sensitivity policies for conditional cash transfers.” In De Sena, A. (Comp.) Social Intervention at the beginning of the 21st Century: Conditional Cash Transfers in the Global Order. Buenos Aires: ESEditora. (Pp. 253-283).
SCRIBANO, A. and LISDERO, P. (2019) Digital Labor, Society and the Politics of Sensibilities. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
SORDINI, MV (2020) “Sociabilities and emotions in food program beneficiaries”. In: Dettano, A. (Comp.) Social Policies and Emotions: (Per)experiences surrounding state interventions. Buenos Aires: ESEditora. (Pp. 23-44).
TONKENS, E., GROOTEGOED, E., & DUYVENDAK, JW (2013). Introduction: Welfare state reform, recognition and emotional labor. Social Policy and Society, 12(3), 407-413.
URRESTI, M.; LINNE, J.; BASILE, D. (2015) Total connection: young people and social experience in the era of digital communication. Autonomous City of Buenos Aires: University Publishing Group, CLACSO.
VAN PARIJS, P. (2004) “Beyond solidarity. The ethical foundations of the Welfare State and its overcoming”, in: Against exclusion: The Citizen's Income ProposalPublic Policy Collection. Ciepp. Buenos Aires: Miño y Dávila.
WEINMANN, C. AND DETTANO, A. (2020) “Social policy and its transformations: intersections and links with cyberspace”. In: Dettano, A. (2020) Social policies and emotions: (per)vivencias around state interventions. Buenos Aires: Sociological Studies Publisher. (pp. 147-170).
[1] Member of the CLACSO Working Group “Sensibilities, Subjectivities and Poverty” National Council for Scientific and Technical Research-National University of Villa María; National University of Río Cuarto; Center for Sociological Research and Studies. [email protected]
[2] Member of the CLACSO Working Group “Sensibilities, Subjectivities and Poverty”. National Council for Scientific and Technical Research-National University of La Matanza; Center for Sociological Research and Studies. [email protected]
[3] Without disaggregating the people under 18 years of age who cannot be recipients of the IFE.
[4] “I mean that simultaneously with the construction of an international division of labor between centers and peripheries, where capital dominates and exploits through various coercive forms of labor (slavery, serfdom, wages, etc.), other global hierarchies were constructed in the peoples of the periphery, such as ethno-racial (where Westerners are considered superior to non-Westerners), gender (where men dominate over women), sexual (where heterosexuals with the monogamous Christian nuclear family dominate over other non-Western forms of sexuality and family organization), epistemic (where Western knowledge dominates over non-Western knowledge through the global university system), spiritual (where Christians (Catholics and Protestants) dominate over non-Christian and non-Western spiritualities through the global Christian church), aesthetic (where European forms of art and beauty are privileged over non-European ones), and pedagogical (where Western forms of pedagogy dominate over non-Western ones). non-Western pedagogies), linguistic ones (where European languages are privileged over non-European ones), etc.” (Grosfoguel in Montoya and Busso, 2012: 5)
[5]The IFE is for informal workers, domestic workers, social monotributistas and monotributistas of categories A and B.
[6] Those excluded from the benefit are those holders or their family group with income from: employment in the public or private sector, monotributistas of category C or higher, or the self-employed regime; those who receive unemployment benefits, retirement, pensions or contributory or non-contributory national, provincial, municipal or of the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires benefits; recipients of social plans, complementary social salary, Hacemos Futuro, Potenciar Trabajo or other national, provincial or municipal social programs.
[7] We could also refer to Creative Expressive Encounters (Scribano, 2013), the use of music and/or dance in inquiry processes (D'hers and Musicco, 2015).
If you would like to receive more information about CLACSO's training programs:
[widget id=”custom_html-57″]
to our email lists.
