Operacija C: Spreminjanje diagrama moči (operacije 10, krepitev moči 2)

Predpostavljamo lahko, da obstajajo razne družbene (politične, ekonomske) silnice, ki delujejo v danem družbenem polju. Njihova rezultanta je to, kar se kaže kot družbena situacija – ali sama po sebi ali za neko skupino ali človeka – v obliki statusov, zmožnosti interakcije in družbenih vlog. Nekatere od teh delujočih sil so v sami situaciji opazne, jih zlahka zaznamo, druge so pogosto prikrite v ozadju ali v tem, čemur Kurt Lewin (1947) pravi kvazistacionarno ravnotežje – v kombinirani vzajemni akciji sil, čigar rezultanta je ravnotežje, ki prikriva prav te sile, ki delujejo. Te sile je treba dekodirati in kartografirati v diagramu – med drugim tudi s tem, da z akcijo, dejanjem porušimo ravnotežje v samem polju. Tak zemljevid nam lahko pomaga ugotoviti, katere vire moči lahko uporabimo za krepitev moči nosilca, ki mu moči primanjkuje, kakor tudi, da razločimo sile, ki moč jemljejo, jo zmanjšujejo in povzročajo slabitev moči. Za primer uporabe takih zemljevidov glej Flaker in sodelavci, 2007).

Osnovni diagram moči v socialnem delu, pa tudi drugih dejavnostih, ki služijo ljudem, je razmerje moči med uporabnikom storitev in strokovnjakom. Čeprav se zdi tak odnos diaden, dvojiški, gre za trojni, tripartitni diagram – ne gre le za vzajemna pričakovanja uporabnikov in socialnih delavcev oz. delavk, gre tudi za moč, ki jo v socialno delo investirajo središča moči (in ki jo odvzamejo uporabnikom). Socialno delo je v resnici le »vmesni pes« v razmerju med »nad-mrcino« in uporabnikom kot družbenim »pod-kužkom«.

Tipi odnosov moči (Basaglia, 1987)

• aristokratski odnos – pogodbeni odnos med nosilcem ekonomske moči in nosilcem strokovne moči, 
• odnos pomoči – odnos med upravičencem in strokovnjakom (birokratom) 
• institucionalen odnos – odnos čistega nadzorovanja med nosilcem institucionalne moči in brezpravnim

Prvi odnos temelji na ekonomski moči. Storitve strokovnjakov lahko kupimo (npr. psihiatrična privatna praksa) in ljudje ostanejo izven dogovorjenih uslug svobodni posamezniki. Strokovnjaki dajejo nasvete in ne ukazov. Težko je ukazovati kralju. Primer: Kralj Jurij III., britanski absolutistični monarh s konca 18. stoletja, je znorel. Zdravnikom je bilo precej težko mu ukazovati, saj je bil vrhovna oblast v državi. Zato, da je postal bolnik, je bila potrebna velika politična akcija.

Drugi odnos je povezan s socialno državo. Socialni delavec ali zdravnik imata monopol in država jima da določeno moč. Uporabniki pa lahko po drugi strani uveljavljajo svoje pravice kot državljani, so upravičenci. Gre se za birokratsko razmerje moči. Uporabniki so odvisni od strokovnjakov, vendar pa se jim vseeno dopušča nekoliko svobode in celo moči nad strokovnjakom (npr. pritožbe).

V ustanovah je moč zelo majhna, če že ne minimalna oziroma jo stanovalcem vzamejo.  Varovanci ustanov so goli predmeti moči, so stvari, za katere naj bi osebje poskrbelo in jih nadziralo.

Strokovna moč se artikulira z mandatom, ki ga strokovnjak dobi v svojem dejanskem odnosu z uporabnikom in z nosilci (vektorji) moči zunaj tega razmerja. V aristokratskem odnosu moč in mandat izhajata iz dejanske zmožnosti strokovnjaka, da se s situacijo ukvarja, na eni strani, na drugi pa iz splošni ugled in prestiž strokovnjaka, vendar pa ga dejansko podeli prav uporabnik oz. uporabnica sama. V odnosu pomoči mandat izhaja predvsem od države (javne službe), a tudi od uporabnika, ki je kot državljan tudi upravičenec. V institucionalnem odnosu strokovni mandat strokovnjaku podelijo predvsem drugi (država, uporabnikovo okolje), uporabnikov mandat pa je prezrt, zanikan.

Medtem ko je prvo od teh tipov razmerij horizontalno, sta druga dva vertikalna, zadnji še posebej. V teh diagramskih konstelacijah bi moral mandat socialnega dela (in katerekoli druge podobne stroke) operacija, ki premika diagram proti horizontalnemu razmerju. Umetnost stroke pa je, kako uporabiti moč, ki je vanjo investirana, da bi okrepili uporabnike. Gre za prenos moči, ki je investirana v stroko na uporabnike. To lahko storimo tako, da uporabnikom zagotovimo moč, da »govorijo«, da jih slišimo in sprejmemo njihovo stisko, in potem prenesemo sporočilo tistim, ki imajo odločilno moč, jih vpletemo v situacijo in tako vnesemo vanjo njihovo moč, ki naj prispeva k okrepitvi in izboljšavam življenja »pod-kužka«.

 

Zgornji diagram ponazarja tok informacij in vpletanja nosilcev moči v situacijo – torej redistribucijo moči. S tem socialno delo ni le agent prerazdelitve družbenega bogastva temveč tudi družbene moči. Hkrati pa ponazarja dvojni mandat, ki ga socialno delo potrebuje.

V socialnem delu gre vedno za iskanje in zagotavljanje dvojnega mandata – od močnih in od šibkih, od uporabnikov pa tudi od centrov moči, ki imajo moč, ki jo potrebujemo, da spremenimo uporabnikovo situacijo.

Reference:

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

Flaker, V. (2007), Krepitev moči v teoriji in praksi (EX-IN modul za usposabljanje). Ljubljana: Fakulteta za socialno delo.

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.

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.