Neoliberalism, guilt, shame and stigma: A Lacanian discourse analysis of food insecurity

The researchers conducted a Lacanian discourse analysis of 21 interviews conducted in 2016 of food bank clients of a large city in a southern U.S. state. The study focused on accounts of food insecure individuals regarding their experiences of stigma, shame, and guilt towards receiving non-profit food assistance and how those experiences-or lack thereof-might play a role in food bank utilization, given the problematic of why many food insecure households do not receive any type of food assistance. The researchers found that superegoic imperatives and stigma under neoliberalism served as major barriers to seeking adequate food assistance. Participants experienced guilt and shame at failing to meet the standard of self-sufficiency promoted by neoliberalism; neoliberal discourses dominate constructions of food insecurity as being due to personal failings. Participants attempted to mitigate stigma, guilt, and shame through passing as food secure by avoiding asking for needed food assistance; what is more, participants took great lengths to avoid being seen as illegitimately enjoying in accordance with neoliberal ideology (e.g., not wanting to meet the stereotype of living off of the system, falling into the category of the underserving poor). In Lacanian terms, to be seen as illegitimately enjoying is to be the object of xenophobia. Some participants were able to resist neoliberal discourses which would render them morally responsible for their plight by adopting egoic discourse identities of being independent, a helper, or a provider by seeking food assistance.