Real freedom for all turtles in Sugarscape? - Presses universitaires ...

C a n t i l l o n & V a n L a n c k e r - I n d i v i d u a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y. . . 131truancy. We however do believe that the concept of individual responsibilityis not always strong enough to support disciplinary measures againstfinancially vulnerable families, certainly so in cases where real opportunitiesare not equally guaranteed.Some final considerationsTruancy is a social phenomenon that deserves proper attention. Itproduces undesirable social consequences such as alcohol and drug abuse,early school dropout, nuisance, delinquency and, hence, damagingoutcomes detrimental for future opportunities in life. In fact it is a matter ofsocial justice: truancy affects vulnerable families with a low socio-economicprofile, whose children are generally enrolled in educational levels with lessfavourable labour market perspectives. The same families are entitled toschool allowances in the first place. We have argued that the use of financialdisincentives as a disciplinary measure – aimed at exactly those vulnerablegroups – is neither efficient nor ethically justified. Furthermore, we believethat the case of school allowances has broader implications, in the sense thatit is symptomatic for the current discourse on reciprocity and individualresponsibility as foundations of the social investment state.It seems that our society has freed itself from social class and traditionalbonds and transformed into a place where everyone has the opportunity tobe, in William Henley’s words, the master of his own fate. 5 This is what wecould call, following Ulrich Beck, the individualisation thesis (Ryckbosch &Van Lancker 2010). However, this thesis does not follow from the facts. Timeand again research shows that people are just as determined by theirbackground and origin as they were half a century ago, and – although to alesser extent - that also holds for new social risks (in which individual choicepresumably plays a greater role) (Pintelon et al. 2011). In other words, weobserve a discrepancy between the moral and the factual notion of merit andresponsibility (Raes 1997). Crucial in this respect is what psychologists callthe fundamental attribution error: people tend to overestimate individualexplanations and underestimate contextual and situational explanations forthe observed behaviour and decisions of others (Ross 1977). In such frame ofmind, adverse social behaviour such as truancy is more often ascribed toone’s own responsibility and failure. The same reasoning holds for the viewspeople have on redistribution and the welfare state (van Oorschot 2000).At this point we return to the crucial issue we discussed at the onset: doesthe government with its social policy has to go for the provision of real5See Henley's poem Invictus (1875).