The silent burden of stigmatisation: a qualitative study among Dutch people with a low socioeconomic position

Background: In-depth qualitative research into perceived socioeconomic position-related stigmatisation among people living at the lower end of our socioeconomic hierarchy is necessary for getting more insight in the possible downside of living in an increasingly meritocratic and individualistic society. Methods: Seventeen interviews were conducted among a group of Dutch people with a low socioeconomic position to examine their experiences with stigmatisation, how they coped with it and what they perceived as consequences. Results: Social reactions perceived by participants related to being inf... Mehr ...

Verfasser: Simons, Audrey M. W.
Houkes, Inge
Koster, Annemarie
Groffen, Danielle A. I.
Bosma, Hans
Dokumenttyp: Artikel
Erscheinungsdatum: 2018
Reihe/Periodikum: Simons , A M W , Houkes , I , Koster , A , Groffen , D A I & Bosma , H 2018 , ' The silent burden of stigmatisation: a qualitative study among Dutch people with a low socioeconomic position ' , BMC Public Health , vol. 18 , 443 . https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5210-6
Schlagwörter: The Netherlands / Socioeconomic position / Perceived stigmatisation / Self-respect / Qualitative study / LONG-STANDING RECIPIENTS / PERCEIVED DISCRIMINATION / LOW-INCOME / SOCIAL-SECURITY / HEALTH / POVERTY / STIGMA / EXPERIENCES / CLASSISM / POOR
Sprache: Englisch
Permalink: https://search.fid-benelux.de/Record/base-29187035
Datenquelle: BASE; Originalkatalog
Powered By: BASE
Link(s) : https://cris.maastrichtuniversity.nl/en/publications/6aa1e413-bff2-45fc-94f6-bc4ef74bb74c

Background: In-depth qualitative research into perceived socioeconomic position-related stigmatisation among people living at the lower end of our socioeconomic hierarchy is necessary for getting more insight in the possible downside of living in an increasingly meritocratic and individualistic society. Methods: Seventeen interviews were conducted among a group of Dutch people with a low socioeconomic position to examine their experiences with stigmatisation, how they coped with it and what they perceived as consequences. Results: Social reactions perceived by participants related to being inferior, being physically recognisable as a poor person, and being responsible for their own financial problems. Participants with less experience of living in poverty, a heterogeneous social network and greater sense of financial responsibility seemed to be more aware of stigmas than people with long-term experience of poverty, a homogeneous social network and less sense of financial responsibility. Perceived stigmatisation mainly had emotional consequences. To maintain a certain level of self-respect, participants tried to escape from reality, showed their strengths or confronted other people who expressed negative attitudes towards them. Conclusion: Despite the good intentions of policies to enhance self-reliance, responsibility and active citizenship, these policies and related societal beliefs might affect people at the lower end of our socioeconomic hierarchies by making them feel inferior, ashamed and blamed, especially when they cannot meet societal expectations or when they feel treated disrespectfully, unjustly or unequally by social workers or volunteers of charity organisations.