Dancing between the advocate and guardian (Excerpt)

This blog is an excerpt from the chapter Social Work as a Science of Doing[1] which I have published in a book that Tom edited with me more than ten years ago. I got it out to help me preparing a workshop in Demir Kapija institution, in Macedonia. The workshop is on personal planning. And it is in an institution used for the people with label of intelectuall disabilities. That makes the notion of dance between the role of an advocate and guardian more important.

Social work is always about doubles, about Max and Maurice, Lolek and Bolek, Pooh and Piglet. It is about being the two at the same time. And it is about being able to dance between these two faces. The classic endowment of social work is that it has to safeguard the (virtual) interests of a person, who cannot do it themselves. On the other hand it is also the essential task of social work to advocate for the same person’s actual desires and necessities (that they can nevertheless express).

The guardian role in the human professions (medicine, health care, education, social work) is historically based on the pledge of the feudal masters to take care of and protect their subjects, to be their patron and protector. It is the basic relationship of the feudal society. The bourgeois society in turn is based on the sovereign, autonomous, independent individuals forming contractual relations. For those who are not capable of doing this or are not acknowledged as such, a special institute is needed which insures them a place in the social process. This gap is filled to a certain extent by the philanthropic professions who have taken on the guardian (patron, protective) role for people lacking in contractual power. Basic characteristics of this role are that, on the grounds of presupposed knowledge, somebody takes care of the virtual interest of an individual; in doing this, security and care are of paramount importance, mandate from the society is given on the basis of the deficiency of the individual to be cared for; the underlying model of treating a person in care is one that of a child or a stranger, both being helpless and ignorant, in a need of help and patronage.

The advocate role is based on the tradition of the struggle for social emancipation of marginal groups (workers, women, ethnic minorities…). In principle it is intended to present the interests of the people who have lost their voice; it intends to make up for the deficiencies and lacks and to recreate the people as fully invested members of the society. It is a professional stance that takes into account the perspective of power and strives to strengthen the social position of the individual. Basic characteristic of this role are to start from the actual interests and desires of an individual, to create knowledge on the basis of analysis of reality, to stress rights and prevent injustice, to get a mandate from the individual or a concrete social group, to concentrate on the irregularities and injustice in the society and to let the person regain the lost advantage. This is done on the principle of exchangeability of the roles (Prince and the pauper)[2].

	Guardian	Advocate
Interests	Virtual	Actual
Knowledge	Beforehand, prior	After, situation based
Mandate	From the general society	From the individual, concrete group
Deficiency	Inside the individual	In the social order
Figure of the user	Stranger, child	Absent individual, Prince and the pauper

Contradiction between guardian and advocate roles is resolvable in different ways: by separating the roles (one member of the team takes one and another member the other role), by abstaining from the role of guardian (in case the court or any other instance has that role anyway), or by synthesis of both roles.[3] 

Synthesis is possible if we follow both roles, continuously negotiate (in dialogue) our mandate and the possible outcomes, having in mind the interests and benefits of all the actors involved, especially of the user; if we consistently employ the least restrictive necessary measures and, together with the users, strive to reach the optimal solution.

For example, in removing a child from the parents, we can imagine the procedure as being twofold: moving in the direction of removing the child – at the same time checking the possibilities that will prove the removal unnecessary. Optimally we would create an alliance; the worker also on the side of the parents. Walk the path together, examining the possibilities of the child staying, eventually realising that the child cannot stay and has to be (temporarily) removed.

It is of vital importance to make decisions experientially. Sometimes we deem the desires of the users to be unattainable and impossible. However, we are not the advocates of reality; reality is strong enough to speak for itself. We, together with the user, have to test it. The experience will tell us what is possible and what is not. Social workers need not know in advance what is “real” and what is not. The user’s desire is a hypothesis to be tested. Life is an experiment anyhow.

Synthesis is possible also, because assessment, planning and happening are interwoven. In social work it is useless and even harmful to follow traditional scientific pattern of reasoning. Social work is not bound to assess first and intervene after. Concrete actions that we take from the start, go beyond pure assessment as they immediately change situation (a young offender gets a job, finishes school, the father changes his communication patterns with his children). Good and concrete plans for the future change the present.

We can act as both - advocate and guardian, also because we can make things happen. If we as social workers can really sort things out and change something, the synthesis in action is possible. In this ability we assume the role of commissioner, integrating the user’s actual desires and necessities with their perceived virtual interest. We can plan and construct the arrangements (services, settings, resources, etc.) that will satisfy both – what he or she really wants and is supposed to be good for her or him.

---

[1] Flaker, V. (2006) Social work as a science of doing : in the praise of a minor profession. V: Flaker, V. (ed.), Schmid, T. (ed.). Von der Idee zur Forschungsarbeit : Forschen in Sozialarbeit un Sozialwissenschaft. Wien: Böhlau Verlag, pp. 55–78. The excerpt is on pp.: 68–71.

[2] N.B.: These general roles and stances should not be confused with the concrete roles of an advocate or a guardian.

[3] Separation and abstinence are reasonable and productive in some situations, but we give up power invested in deciding. And this power can be the power to be used for the solution, desired by the user.