How Does Guaranteed Income Interact with Masculinity/Fatherhood Models? a Social Constructionist Narrative Analysis

Background and Purpose: Poverty constrains the actions and inhibits the upward mobility for millions in the United States. Guaranteed Income (GI), or unconditional cash payments, has emerged as a promising policy initiative to work towards improving economic conditions for many struggling with poverty. While many studies have shown the impacts of GI, it unknown how it interacts with constructs of masculinity and fatherhood for men.

For low-income, nonresident fathers experiencing poverty, the narrative of the deadbeat dad is a well-known and pervasive stereotype. Often constructed by the media and policy makers as a Black, low-income, nonresident father, this deadbeat dad portrayal is unfair, with a myriad of evidence suggesting the overwhelming majority are caring fathers. However, this stereotype influences policy, and in turn, nonresident fathers’ lives, as structural racism and neoliberal economic policies constrain men’s ability to fulfill their ideal version of fatherhood and masculinity.

Methods: Through a social constructionist narrative analysis, this study interrogated narratives of masculinity and fatherhood for these marginalized men. Narrative analysis studies the stories and narratives that fathers tell, situated with their broader historical and cultural contexts, to interpret their lives, in this case through the macro narratives of masculinity, fatherhood, and social welfare. I examined and interpreted 23 in-depth semi-structured interviews obtained from a guaranteed income pilot in South Carolina. All fathers sampled were low-income, nonresident fathers involved in a fatherhood program, where 100 men in the treatment group received $500 of unconditional cash payments monthly for a year.

Results: Fathers desired roles that align with standards of hegemonic masculinity, which proposes a correct way for men to function. The fathers saw breadwinning as their primary responsibility and a key feature of their traditional masculine identity. Yet, precarious employment, punitive child support policies, and relationship difficulties created significant barriers to fulfilling this responsibility. Faced with these constraints, most men had to make the difficult decision of where to allocate their resources, to support themselves, their nonresident children, or their current families.

To compensate for their self-perceived failure of masculinity and fatherhood, men blamed women and the system. Overwhelmingly, men believed that both the welfare state and child support systems were designed for women, and they felt oppressed by these structures. Contrastingly, many fathers felt trusted by unconditional payments, expressing that such programs should be reserved for nonresident fathers like themselves who were trying. Men stressed that they were trying exceedingly hard, and through this act of trying, they were counteracting the deadbeat dad label and thus deserved GI. Future orientation was a key feature for these men, where through their desire to grow, they could resist the stereotypical narratives unfairly applied to them.

Conclusion and Implications: Low-income, nonresident fathers are aware of the narratives associated with them. GI offers a means for fathers to challenge deadbeat dad narratives and reclaim a sense of identity, although many still hold to traditional expectations of masculinity and fatherhood. Further interrogation is required to actualize how GI can expand possibilities for more inclusive models of masculinity/fatherhood.