Even the casual observer of politics knows that the very mention of the word “welfare” elicits a visceral, negative reaction from many (e.g., see Tom W. Smith, “That Which We Call Welfare by Any Other Name Would Smell Sweeter,” Public Opinion Quarterly 51 [Fall 1987]: 75–83). In The Politics of Disgust, Ange-Marie Hancock explains that this reaction is a result of the well-ingrained public identity of the welfare recipient, an identity that so marginalizes this group as to lead to their almost complete exclusion from the political process.

By bridging political theory and empirical policy research—an endeavor into which political scientists should increasingly venture—Hancock offers an important contribution to our understanding of the stereotypes manipulated during the passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) in 1996. There are two additional contributions of her work that are important. First is her intersectional approach to the public identity of the “welfare queen,” a “public identity shaped by inegalitarian traditions of racism, sexism, and classism” (p. 25). Second, and most importantly for democratic theorists, is her model of the politics of disgust by which the public identity of the welfare queen has politically marginalized welfare recipients. Indeed, for those concerned about inequality and democratic theory in America, Hancock's introduction alone, in which she frames the characteristics of the politics of disgust, makes the book worthwhile.

According to Hancock, the politics of disgust includes four key elements. First is the assignment of a public identity, which perverts democratic attention such that the rights of out-group members are restricted and the group is locked out of the political process. Second, democratic deliberation ceases, as the assigned public identity becomes so pervasive as to resist contestation or counterevidence. Third, under these politics, even well-intentioned policymakers engage in correspondence bias: Not fully understanding the situation of out-group members, they fail miserably at attempts to represent their needs. Last is the lack of political solidarity between imagined allies; in the case of welfare reform, neither feminists nor African Americans in positions of power fought the welfare queen image or proffered adequate policy solutions.

Although Hancock focuses exclusively on the plight of welfare recipients, the four elements of the politics of disgust could easily be applied to members of other out-groups, including the homeless, drug addicts, and “criminals.” For example, see James Q. Wilson's “Paternalism, Democracy, and Bureaucracy,” in Lawrence Mead, ed., The New Paternalism, 1997. Wilson argues that out-group members, including “single mothers claiming welfare benefits,” are properly under government paternalism, that is, control, because “their behavior indicate[s] that they do not display the minimal level of self-control expected of decent citizens” (pp. 340–41). Indeed, following Hancock's politics of disgust, Wilson argues that out-group members are not worthy of full citizenship rights.

Following the introduction, Chapter 2 traces the history of the public identity of the welfare queen with its two attendant characteristics: laziness and hyperfertility. While important, this chapter is simultaneously too long and repetitive and not quite informative enough. Hancock roots the origins of the stereotypes of laziness and hyperfertility to slavery with little evidence. Many of the problems of African American poverty in modern America stem from slavery, a point clearly examined in Jason DeParle's American Dream (2004). Hancock would have done well to flesh out this argument for her readers. Particularly useful would have been primary sources to document these historic stereotypes, similar to the evidence provided in Chapters 3 and 4 about the contemporary public identity of the welfare queen. Her account of the National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO), however, is fascinating, offering the one counterexample to the politics of disgust. As she notes, “the NWRO fostered an identity of citizenship and political participation among its members, lessening the sense of stigmatization, alienation, and powerlessness” (p. 46).

Chapters 3 and 4 contain the qualitative and quantitative results of Hancock's content analyses of the news media and the Congressional Record, respectively. Including the ample appendices, her empirical evidence is compelling. In both the media and in Congress, the welfare queen stereotypes hold, limiting deliberations about both the problems and solutions of poverty and welfare. She concludes, “everyone, no matter race, gender, party identification, or class, is susceptible to the power of public identity under the conditions of the politics of disgust” (p. 115).

In Chapter 5, Hancock gives welfare recipients the power that was withheld from them during passage of the PRWORA: the ability to speak for themselves. In their own words, they discuss the public identity assigned to them, the hardships they face in and out of the system, and the policy solutions—education and living wage employment—most likely to help them attain real self-sufficiency. Hancock's argument is reinforced by the fact that neither education nor living wages are part of the PRWORA. In fact, as she notes, the opportunities for education were reduced under welfare reform, and there is ample evidence to indicate that welfare leavers have not earned enough to keep their families out of poverty, especially during the recent recession (for some of the most recent research, see Kasia O'Neill Murray and Wendell E. Primus, “Recent Data Trends Show Welfare Reform to Be a Mixed Success,” Review of Policy Research 22 [May 2005]: 301–24).

The concluding chapter reiterates Hancock's most important point: “In a political context of disgust, genuine democratic deliberation falters as public identities long debunked by empirical research persist in the memories of elites and citizens” (p. 150). Finally, the short epilogue shows the durability of the politics of disgust as the welfare queen stereotypes continue to shape the discussion of PRWORA reauthorization. In her conclusion, Hancock suggests that agency in the public sphere is not completely lost for welfare recipients; however, her evidence leaves one less than optimistic. Excepting the successes achieved by the NWRO in its short duration, it is clear that welfare recipients have been subject to the political process, rather than participants in it. If she is correct about out-groups and the politics of disgust, the implications for democratic citizenship are staggering.