Pity and Patriotism: UK Intra-National Charitable Giving
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Pity and Patriotism: UK Intra-national Charitable Giving Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of PhD Harriet Lloyd Centre for Language and Communication Research School of English, Communication and Philosophy Cardiff University August 2016 DECLARATION This work has not been submitted in substance for any other degree or award at this or any other university or place of learning, nor is being submitted concurrently in candidature for any degree or other award. Signed ………………………………………… (candidate) Date ………………………… STATEMENT 1 This thesis is being submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of PhD. Signed ………………………………………… (candidate) Date ………………………… STATEMENT 2 This thesis is the result of my own independent work/investigation, except where otherwise stated. Other sources are acknowledged by explicit references. The views expressed are my own. Signed ………………………………………… (candidate) Date ………………………… STATEMENT 3 I hereby give consent for my thesis, if accepted, to be available online in the University’s Open Access repository and for inter-library loan, and for the title and summary to be made available to outside organisations. Signed ………………………………………… (candidate) Date ………………………… STATEMENT 4: PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BAR ON ACCESS I hereby give consent for my thesis, if accepted, to be available online in the University’s Open Access repository and for inter-library loans after expiry of a bar on access previously approved by the Academic Standards & Quality Committee. Signed ………………………………………… (candidate) Date ………………………… Abstract This thesis examines the discourse of intra-national charitable giving in the UK. I combine a rhetorical discourse analysis of Children in Need (CiN), a popular charity telethon for ‘disadvantaged’ British children, with that of six focus groups carried out with people who have different relationships with charities (student volunteers, a local Amnesty International group, bereavement counselling volunteers, non-charity related office workers, employees of different charities, and academics). Although the focus group discussions all included some consideration of CiN and its methods, they were primarily concerned with broader issues to do with disadvantage, fairness and, where relevant, charitable giving more generally. Boltanski’s (1999) seminal idea of ‘the politics of pity’ holds that relationships between those who suffer and those who observe their suffering are radically altered by distance. Seeing suffering people face-to-face is not the same as seeing them via the mass media because of the actions that are or are not possible in relation to them. This idea has been utilised in numerous studies of international charity, but so far no one has applied it to situations in which the viewed are in the same country as the viewers. I argue that the sort of (social, perceived) distance that may exist between citizens who live in the same country has similar consequences for their relationship as actual physical distance has. Indeed, representing others as if they were distant means that charity comes to be seen as the only way to relieve suffering, even though in this instance there are, in fact, many other available options. The central tension I highlight in the CiN data is that, on the one hand, British beneficiaries of charitable aid are represented as socially distant from the rest of the population, which makes the mediation that CiN offers seem necessary, while on the other hand their experiential closeness is constantly being highlighted by appealing to a particular (nostalgic) ideal of Britishness. This tension is also reflected in the focus group data: although the recipients of intra-national charitable giving are typically talked about as members of the speakers’ own in-group, there is also a lot of scepticism regarding the truthfulness and reliability of the spectacle of suffering that is presented on television screens and that does not always match up with people’s own experiences. i This thesis is dedicated to the memory of my dear Gran, Brenda Young (née Lloyd). I would like to express my sincere thanks for the continuing love and support of my husband, Joe Stoate, my mum, Helen Lloyd and my sister, Sophie Evans. With love for my darling niece and nephew Mabel Winifred Evans and Wilfred Harry Evans, who came into the world while it was being written. Many thanks to Adam Jaworski, without whom I would never have thought to apply to study for a PhD, let alone win funding to allow this to happen. Also to Lisa El Refaie, who has made this thesis far more coherent than it would otherwise have been. With thanks to the ESRC for granting me the funding to pursue my interest in this topic. Also to my friends and much-valued proof-readers Kate Webster, Simon Waltho, Christopher Eynon and Benjamin Saunders. ii Contents Introduction 1 0.1 Distant suffering at home 2 0.2 Setting and rationale for studying this data 3 0.3 Data set 1: Children in Need 6 0.4 Data set 2: Focus Groups 7 0.5 Charity and the politics of pity and distance 8 0.6 Accounting 9 0.7 Structure of the thesis 10 Chapter 1: Literature Review 13 1.1 History: The state and charity welfare provision in the UK 13 1.2 Conditions for charities in the UK in 2011 19 1.3 Charity events: mediation and money 22 1.4 The psychology of charity: why give and to whom? 25 1.5 The discourse of charity: how is charitable action represented? 32 Chapter 2: Methodology 37 2.1 Data collection 37 2.2 Focus group data 40 2.3 Why focus groups? 42 2.4 Recruitment and incentives 43 2.5 Anonymity and ethical approval 44 2.6 Setting 46 2.7 Questions 47 2.8 Transcription 51 2.9 Method of analysis 52 iii Chapter 3: Pity, Spectacle and Distance: Developing a Framework for Studying Mediated National Giving 57 3.1 Pity 57 3.2 Four main types of distance in existing literature 61 3.3 Experiential distance and nationalism 62 3.4 Mediated distance and immersion 66 3.5 Representational distance: the spectacle of suffering and the possibility of action 68 3.6 Analytic foci: social, experiential and representational distance 71 Chapter 4: Social Distance 73 4.1 Social distance in Children in Need: the separation of places and people 73 4.2: Social distance in the focus group data: extreme physical proximity 89 Chapter 5: Experiential Distance 95 5.1 Nationalism and charity media 96 5.2 Prioritising compatriots 99 5.3 Beyond accounting for national giving: CiN and the Imagined Community 102 5.4 With us, but not one of us: shared national points of reference as contrast devices 109 5.5 Temporal closeness: Britain in 2011 113 5.6 Evolutionary metaphors 115 5.7 Nation-states as contrast devices 119 Chapter 6: Representational Distance Part 1: Spectacle 124 6.1 The differing modality of scenes of suffering and celebration in CiN 126 6.2 Interpreting the spectacle of suffering and celebration 132 6.3 ‘Hidden’ places of suffering 134 Chapter 7: Representational Distance Part 2: Action and Myth 140 7.1 Myth 140 7.2 Data analysis: the myth of giving as good 142 iv Chapter 8: Conclusion 155 8.1 What sort of relationship does CiN suggest should occur between its donors and beneficiaries? 155 8.2 What effect does mediation have on this relationship? 156 8.3 How does a shared national identity between these groups alter the relationship? 157 8.4 What sorts of actions are presented as possible in redressing the suffering of others? 159 8.5 Why donate to a national charity? 160 8.6 Intra-national pity 160 8.7 Limitations 162 8.8 Closing remarks 164 References 165 Appendix 1: Consent form 184 Appendix 2: Information slip for participants after the focus groups 185 Appendix 3: Transcription conventions 186 Appendix 4: Children in Need transcript USB Appendix 5: Students focus group transcript USB Appendix 6: Office focus group transcript USB Appendix 7: Amnesty focus group transcript USB Appendix 8: Charities focus group transcript USB Appendix 9: Counselling focus group transcript USB Appendix 10: Academics focus group transcript USB v Introduction “The interests of all persons ought to count equally, and geographic location and citizenship make no intrinsic difference to the rights and obligations of individuals.” Peter Singer (2005: 173) 1 0.1 Distant Suffering at Home In order to introduce the key topics that will be explored in this thesis, I would like to start by sharing a small section of my data. This brief extract is taken from a telethon (a charity fundraising broadcast) called ‘Children in Need’. The clip is from the 2011 broadcast, which was aired on British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) 1 on Friday 18th November from 19:30. It represents an introduction to the first of the show’s many clips about the sorts of people who might benefit from the viewers’ donations. This first example began around 19 minutes from the start of the programme. 1 19:00 Alesha Dixon: now we really hope you enjoy the feast of entertainment laid on for you tonight (.) and we also hope (.) that at some point you’ll pick up the phone (1.0) the children you help will never be able to thank you in person (.) but we sent (.) Olly Murs (1.0) to meet some of the kids who benefit from your donations Audience screams 2 19:05 Acoustic guitar music 3 19:12 Olly Murs: this is Ella (.) and she’s four Acoustic guitar music 4 19:14 years old (1.5) and (.) she’s just started Acoustic school like other four-year-olds (2.0) guitar but um (1.0) things (.) are a little music different for Ella 5 19:20 Olly Murs V/O: Ella was deprived of Acoustic oxygen at birth (2.0) it left her severely guitar disabled (.) she can’t walk (.) music 2 6 19:25 or talk (1.0) she’s fed through a tube in Acoustic her stomach (.) and (.) she’s partially- guitar sighted music What I find immediately striking when looking at this extract is the verbal and visual contrast between different parts of the show.