Operation C: Changing the diagram of power (operations 9, power 2)

We can assume that there a diverse social (political, economic …) forces (powers) at work in a given social field. They result in what presents itself as a social situation – be it per se, or of a certain person or a group – in the form of statuses, interaction capacity and social roles. Some of the forces at work in a situation are manifest, easy to spot, some are often hidden in the background or in, what Kurt Lewin (1947) terms a quasi-stationary balance – combined in a mutual action resulting in a balance that hides the forces in themselves. The forces should be decoded and mapped in a diagram by, inter alia, breaking the balance by an intervention in the field. Such a map can help identifying the sources of power that can be used of empowerment of the power-lacking agent, as well as spotting the forces that are taking away, reducing the power and causing dis-empowerment. (For example of use of such mapping see Flaker et al. 2007: 37–39).

The basic power diagram in social work and other people serving activities is the power relationship between the service user and the professional. Although seemingly a dyadic relationship, it is a threesome, a tripartite diagram – it is not only about the expectations of users and social worker regarding each other, it is also about the power endowed into the social worker by the centres of power (and extracted from the users). Social work is basically a “middle-dog” to the user as a social “under-dog”.

Types of relationship (Basaglia, 1987)

→           Aristocratic relationship – contractual relationship between the economic power holder and the professional power holder

→           Helping relationship – relationship between a rightful claimant and expert (bureaucrat)

→           Institutional relationship – relationship of sheer control between the institutional power holder and the person without rights

The first relationship is based on the balance of the professional power (knowledge and skill) of the professional and economic power of the customer, the purchaser of the service. The second relationship exists within the welfare state. A social worker or another professional (a doctor, nurse etc.) has monopoly and the state gives them the power. The users, on other hand, are claiming their rights as citizens. The power is bureaucratic; the user depends on the professional, but also has some freedom and as a citizen some power over him. In the institution, the power is minimal or taken away from the inmates. They are sheer objects of power, things to be cared and controlled by the staff.

The professional power is articulated as a mandate and need to be derived from both his actual relationship with the user and from the power vehicles (vectors) from without. In the aristocratic relationship this power and mandate is derived on one hand on the actual capacity for dealing with the situation and on the general aura and prestige of the professional, however it is actually given by the user him or herself. In the helping relationship the mandate comes mostly from the state (public sector) but also from the user who is as a citizen at the same time a rightful claimant. In the institutional relationship the mandate of the professional comes mostly from others (state, users’ environment) and the user’s mandate is abrogated, denied.

While the first of these types of relationship is horizontal the other two are vertical, the last toughly so. In these two diagrammatic arrangements, the mandate of social work (and any other similar profession) should be of an operation that pushes the diagram at least towards a horizontal relation. The issue, the art of the profession is how to use the power invested in it in order to empower the user. It is about delegating and relegating the power invested in the profession to the users. This can be done by securing the power to “speak” to the users, listening to and being receptive to their distress and conveying the message to the powerful, thus implicating them in the situation and conveying their power to it in order to actively contribute to improvement and empowerment of the “under-dog”.

 

The diagram above depicts the flow of information, and of the involvement of the bearers of power in the situation – thus redistribution of power. In this way social work is not only an agent of redistribution of wealth but also of power. Besides if portrays the double mandate social work needs to have.

Social work is always about seeking and securing double mandate – from the powerful and the powerless, from the user but also from the centres of power who have the necessary power to alter the user’s situation.

References:

Basaglia, F. (1987), Psychiatry Inside Out: Selected Works of Franco Basaglia. European Perspectives, Columbia University Press.

Flaker, V. (2007), Empowerment In Theory And Practice (An EX-IN  training module). Ljubljana: University of Ljubljana, Faculty for Social Work.

Lewin, Kurt (1947). "Frontiers in Group Dynamics: Concept, Method and Reality in Social Science; Social Equilibria and Social Change". Human Relations. 1: 5–41. doi:10.1177/001872674700100103.