Is community work about liberation, social control or neither? Discuss this
question, illustrating your answer with examples from practice where
appropriate”
Source:
Sayer, J. (1986)
Introduction
To discuss this question
we will first highlight the very problematic nature of what is collectively
termed `community work`. In
attempting to define the role of community work we will look at the theoretical
educational role of the community worker, particularly discussing the concept of
empowerment. The disparity between the theory of community work and its practice
on a day to day basis will be discussed within the context of political
ideological frameworks. The processes of liberation and social control will be
discussed briefly in relation to community work theory and practice and some
attempt will be made to propose how community work may operate within these
processes.
Understanding `Community` & the Role of Community
Work
Before we can begin to
discuss the role of community work we must first come to a common understanding
of the term community. This is more complicated than it may sound, as the phrase
has been, and is used in many different ways to indicate different things to
different individuals and groups. The term community has three major uses within
community work practitioners:
1)
It may be employed to describe locality (a given geographical area) as a
basis of social organisation.
2)
It may be used to refer to a local social system or set of relationships
that centre upon a given locality (such as an administrative boundary area e.g.
a Local Education Authority).
3)
Community is used to describe a relationship which produces a strong
sense of shared identity, or common interests which is not dependent on physical
location (e.g. black community or Jewish community).
(O`Donnell,
1992; Hawtin, Hughes and Percy-Smith, 1994)
Thus it is impossible to
provide a simplistic definition of what is implied and understood by the term
community work. The concept of community is in itself problematic. As we can
see, it has numerous interpretations, making it difficult, if not impossible to
determine an absolute answer to the question “what is community
work?”
Compounding the difficulty
in explaining the concept and nature of community work is its ability to operate
within political climates which it would often seem are in diametrical
opposition. Thorpe outlines this notion concisely, explaining that `the term
community work can refer to a wide range of quite disparate approaches,
reflecting diverse, and often opposing, political ideologies` (Thorpe,
1985).
Popple’s analysis of the
development of community work describes a plethora of compatible and conflicting
theories, ultimately concluding that `there is no distinct community work
theory, rather a clutch of theories which can broadly be divided into categories
related to macro-theories of society` (Popple, 1995, p.32).
Sayer concurs that
`Community work has long been characterised by a multiplicity of theoretical
perspectives, and ideological principles` leading to a `confused understanding
of the field of practice, and the role and tasks of the workers`. She discusses
the difficulty is seeing a link between the various facets of the work, being
learning, action, or resource development, ultimately concluding that `Community
work tends to end up trying to be all things to all people` (Sayer,
1986).
However, Smith (1999)
provides a synopsis of the development of community work in the UK, which goes
some way to helping us to understand the role of community work. The term
community work has a relatively short history in the UK. In the late 1950’s and
early 1960’s accounts of practice and theoretical texts began to appear which
classified community workers as a distinct occupation in opposition to earlier
views of separate groups of workers such as community centre wardens and
development workers (Smith, 1999). Thomas (1983, p.25) argues that the main
orientation of this new common occupational identity was education. This
education of communities had previously existed and was earlier described as
`community organization`, being a division of social work, the complementary
methods being `casework` and `group work`. Community organization was described
as:
`primarily
aimed at helping people within a local community to identify
social
needs, to consider the most effective ways of meeting these and to
set about
doing so, in so far as their available resources permit`
(Smith, 1999 citing
The Younghusband Report (1959))
¨
Helping local people to decide, plan and take action to meet their own
needs with the help of available outside resources;
¨
Helping local services to become more effective, usable and accessible to
those whose needs they are trying to meet;
¨
Taking account of the interrelation between different services in
planning for people;
¨
Forecasting
necessary adaptations to meet new social needs in constantly changing
circumstances
(Gulbenkian, 1968, p.140)
The term often used to
describe this educating process is empowerment. Interestingly the
Gulbenkian committee believed that community work intervention, as an
educational concept, far from being the
sole role of specialist workers, was the role of teachers, social workers, the
clergy, health workers, architects, planners, administrators and others. This
belief points towards a recognition that divisions within society are to blame
for the unequal treatment of individuals and groups in communities, and without
addressing these divisions from a holistic viewpoint, little real improvement
will occur. This basic value, it will later be argued is fundamental to
understanding the climate in which community work is undertaken.
Empowerment – Theory and Practice
Schuftan defines
empowerment as `a continuous process that enables people to understand, upgrade
and use their capacity to better control and gain power over their own lives`
(Schuftan, 1996, p.260). Thus empowerment provides groups and individuals with
`choices and the ability to choose` and to `gain more control over resources
they need` for improvement in their lives (Schuftan, ibid.). Thus we see that empowerment is
indeed an educational process, which does not directly seek to control people,
but allows them to exercise choices.
Paulo Freire’s definition
of empowerment describes a collective process in an open forum with a shared
control over the curriculum (Freire, 1970, 1973; Heany 1995). Indeed Jeffs and
Smith describe non-formal educators as those who have an interest in building a
`bottom up or negotiated curriculum` (Jeffs and Smith, 1996). Freire describes
education for liberation in terms of providing a forum open to the imaginings
and free exercise of control by learners, teachers, and the community. Thus
empowerment is both the means and the outcome of a pedagogy which some have come
to call `liberatory education`. This is delivered via a complex process of
praxis in which cycles of action-reflection-action develop a `critical
consciousness` in which one becomes open to revision when analysing problems
(Freire, 1970, 1973; Heany 1995). This educational process would appear to be
congruent with many of the definitions of community work theory, as Shaw (1997)
upholds, community work is essentially an educational activity (Shaw 1997, cited
in Forrest, 1999).
This is a very thought
provoking theory, however it is a theory that is rarely transposed into
community work practice. Indeed if education for liberation is based on
`praxis`, that is creating a culture in which individuals and groups become
`critically conscious`, then surely community work as a process should have at
least as much involvement with those groups who hold power as it does with those
who face discrimination and oppression. If community work `empowerment` is
indeed about dialogue rather than polemics, in its practice as well as its
theory, would we see the plethora of community workers in projects working with
the poor, ethnic minorities, women, and gays and lesbians? Or would community
workers be dispersed throughout the whole community, communities with and
without power, communities with and without wealth, and communities both
oppressed and who oppress? Indeed the paradox of empowerment is that for every
group we seek to empower, we are conversely seeking to get another group to
disempower themselves. This empowerment process therefore involves more than one
group, as community workers seeking the progress of liberation and democracy is
it not required that we work with and on the behalf of all of these involved
groups?
Community work practice
both historically and currently tells a very different story. Community work in
reality is an inherently political activity. Smith describes the demise of the
educational influence in community work into nothing more than rudimentary
expression in the texts of the 1950’s and 1960’s (Smith, 1999). Thus community
work as an educational experience has been more or less confined to theory as
the practice has begun to focus on process goals which reflect the ideology of
the individual community worker, the organisation for which they work or those
of local or national government.
Hence we have seen the
contemporary explanations of community work described within a context of
political ideologies (Lambert, 1978; Hanmer and Rose, 1980; Thomas, 1983;
Sutton, 1987; Thorpe, 1985). Various community work methodologies are prescribed
to particular political leanings, for example self-help and self-reliance, and
the avoidance of dependency is prescribed to a Conservative ideology, whilst
neighbourhood organisation is aligned to the political left of the
Liberal/Reformist.
However, for some
commentators `empowerment is a contested concept` (Forrest, 1999, p. 93).
Forrest distinguishes the use of the term empowerment as a capitalist tool for
increasing productivity in the workplace from `educational practice` empowerment
which he feels can build `hegemony within the working class` (ibid. p. 93-107). Thus we become aware
of not only an element of rhetoric surrounding the term empowerment but a
disparity of meanings. As workers it is imperative that we are clear in what we
perceive to be empowerment and that we remain focussed upon the educational
process as discussed by Freire (1970, 1973).
Defining Liberation and Social Control
Liberation
For the interests of
community work, liberation may be described as a process seeking to promote
freedom from the social hegemony, which institutes inequality and oppression.
Thus liberation is about addressing issues of inequality and oppression and
redressing the balance of power within society. We can see therefore that this
process of liberation is only concerned with freedom from institutionalised
oppression and poverty created within our advanced industrialist capitalist
society, and thus is in reality liberation of the oppressed. The process of
empowerment discussed above can be used to foster this liberation, by
challenging the models which create oppression and educating that alternative
models are available.
Conversely there is a
group within society which currently holds power and wealth. It is the role of
liberation and empowerment to re-educate this group towards ways of thinking
which are not based purely on profit and greed, but on redistribution of wealth.
So that ultimately every member of society has at least a minimal standard
within essential services such as income, housing and medicine.
Rosendale discusses the
suitability of community workers supporting direct political action from
community groups attempting to redistribute power, emphasising that this may
only be possible with the use of civil disobedience. These `political acts` are
described as ``activity concerned with the acquisition of power, or gaining
one’s own ends`. The argument concludes that `History teaches us that there is
an irrefutable link between politics and education`, yet debates the difficulty
faced by a community worker who wishes to endorse or maintain this role. Indeed
Rosendale’s analysis of the situation is inconclusive, not least because of a
lack of practice based experience with which to augment theoretical argument
(Rosendale, 1996, p.60-67).
Social
Control
Traditionally social
control has been seen as a coercive process, which engenders social conformity
and maintains status quo. Indeed `Without its values, society would have no way
of regulating the interchange of citizens; without its order, chaos, anarchy and
continuous war for hegemony are likely to result. The process which enforces
values and maintains order is termed social control` (Hoghughi, 1983,
p.26).
Social control within a
context of community work may be regarded as a process of continuity. Indeed
much community work, especially that of those with right wing political
ideology, involves self-help and making the best of what you have. Thus, it
could be argued that this kind of work reinforces the current hegemony and
deflects from attempts to challenge the oppression it creates, especially if
this challenge may manifest as civil disobedience. Furthermore it could be
argued that many community workers who work towards small political gains and
improvements for individual communities are only serving to pacify a potentially
threatening collective group of radicals. That is by allowing them political
gains in their local community they are discouraged from seeking collective
action with other groups in similar positions of disadvantage and attempting a
radical change at a regional or even national level. Thus by working with
relatively isolated communities for individual political gain we can see that it
is possible to interpret this work as protection of the current hegemony, within
the context of society as a whole, and thus the work could feasibly be described
as social control.
Similarly, it may be
argued that by adopting a `non-directive` approach to community work, that is
one in which consensus, discussion and consultation is used to reach agreement
on goals with the worker taking a `passenger seat` may also reinforce current
hegemony (Massallay, 1990, p.78). The theory of this work is truly empowering,
yet as Massallay (ibid.) describes as
the disadvantages of this style as a possibility that it may prove
`counter-productive`, for example if unrealistic goals are set and thus not
achieved communities may lose confidence in themselves and/or the worker. This
may lead to a negative attitude of defeatism, groups may potentially cease some
or all action, thus once more the current hegemony is retained. Perhaps a more
directive approach may help to prevent this potential.
Is this form of social
control really within the remit of the community worker or is this merely a
matter of individual interpretation?
Community Work Ideologies: Education, Egalitarianism and
Politics
Whilst endorsing the
educationalist stance on community work, Filkin and Naish dispute that community
workers should start with a neutral aim. They describe the main aim of community
work as `resource-redistribution from the powerful to the weak` arguing that
this would `bring enormous benefits to people living in inner city areas, outer
city estates … rural feudalism, or belonging to groups which society
discriminates against, such as women, black people, teenagers, gays or the
poor`(Filkin and Naish, 1982). Thus they have described not only the process
that is community work but also the groups for whom this process should be
applied.
Moreover they strongly
challenge a tradition of community work which has an `objective` or `neutral
tradition`. They argue that there are many fundamental conflicts within
community work such as:
·
the interests of the poor versus the interests of the
affluent;
·
between racists and those who they harass and oppress;
·
between tenants and landlords;
·
between the unemployed or homeless and those who own and manage jobs and
houses;
·
the whole question of resource distribution in an `outrageously unequal
society` (Filkin and Naish, ibid.).
They argue that community
workers should not ignore these conflicts of interest, for in working to
redistribute resources more evenly and not at present `by class, ability to pay
or sex, but less damaging and more egalitarian criteria, the life chances of
many people and neighbourhoods would be transformed` (Filkin and Naish, ibid.). Thus they argue that community
work must operate from fundamentally egalitarian principles.
Contradictory to this
ideal are the writings of commentators who believe in `politics –practice
congruency` (see Dixon, 1990). This is a belief that community work practice
will be, and is influenced by the ideological political beliefs of the
individual practitioner. The Association of Community Workers (1975) asserted
this notion, stating in their manual on community work skills and knowledge,
that the ideology of the worker will influence which groups a worker does and
does not support and the strategies endorsed by the worker. Thorpe (1985)
expands upon this creating a model directly relating political ideology to
community work practice (see Appendix 1. `Political Models of Community
Work`).
Sayer builds on the
question of ideology in community work theory and practice explaining that `the
way a worker makes sense` of concepts will influence their practice. She quotes
an example of how a practitioner with a feminist ideology may react differently
to a child who says `women don’t work` than another worker. This is because
their ideological concepts of `family` are very different.
Sayer discusses a
redefinition of ‘community’ as not
dependant on locality, or organisation, but on `multiplicity of discourses which
may or may not be articulated into the current hegemony of the state`, thus
believing the process of community work is about celebrating the multiplicity of
society and involving communities in discourses which `create expansive
hegemony`. She proposes that by a) being aware of current social ideologies,
their own ideological perspectives and any points of alliance and confrontation;
b) promoting active conscious involvement in rearticulating the above; and c)
using activity to negotiate and transform ideology, workers are able to define,
understand and explain their role within communities (Sayer, 1986). Thus she
believes that the key to defining the position of community work lies in
bridging a current gap between theory and practice.
Conclusion
To even attempt a
definitive assessment of what is understood by the term community work is highly
problematic. Historically it is true that community work has been relatively
chaotic, lead by governmental, organisational and individual politics. This has
created confusion over the role of community work, both within the field and
with external bodies who have created and developed issue based community work
with manipulation of funding and targeted objectives.
It is argued that,
theoretically at least, the role of the community worker is primarily that of an
informal educator. This education as we have seen may be relatively
non-directive, however this becomes problematic as individual and organisational
political ideologies materialise when this educational theory is put into
practice. Thus it can be seen that it is possible for community work to be used
both as a tool for liberation, and a device for social control. Indeed it is
possible that practitioners and projects may jump from one mode to another
instantaneously, or even work simultaneously towards both ends within certain
activities.
Community work has thus
become a marginal activity which although boasting a grandiose philosophical
theory of empowerment, redistribution of power and wealth, and equality, has
delivered minor gains for individual communities, and very little major benefit
to society as a whole. Indeed as Cooke describes `Despite the rhetoric
surrounding it, community work is not an inherently radical activity ... several
studies … have demonstrated that community work is more often about continuity
than change` (Cooke, 1996, p.6). This is not an attempt to be hyper-critical of
the very important function carried out by the profession, but is an
acknowledgement of the difficulties encountered in a largely confusing role in
which workers are often in a position of incongruity. As Forrest suggests
`community workers, like plumbers or teachers are more often than not in work
environments which are at odds with a radical view of the world` (Forrest,
1999).
It is time that community
workers reanalyse their role and become clear of their political agenda. Now is
an important period to act to interrupt the widening divide between rich and
poor, powerful and powerless. It is key to the role of community work that
challenging oppression and a redistribution of wealth is placed firmly on the
political agenda. Critical to the effectiveness of this role is the process of
education, not only as an underpinning theory, but as a tool for everyday
practice. Indeed, `A radical agenda for community work practice needs to be
articulated in critique, analysis, and prescription. This agenda can only be
activated by a revitalised and proactive educational role` (Shaw,
1997).
© Sean Harte & Student
Youth Work Online 2000
|
References & Recommended Reading
|
|
Association
of Community Workers (1975) Knowledge
and Skills for Community Work London: ACW
Calouste
Gulbenkian Foundation (1968) Community Work and Social Change. A
report on training London: Longman
Cooke, I.
(1996) `Whatever Happened to the Class of
`68? – The Changing Context of Radical Community Work Practice` Chapter 1.
in Radical Community Work –
Perspectives from Practice in Scotland Great Britain: Moray House
Dixon, J.
(1990) `Will Politically Inspired
Community work be Evident in the 1990’s?` Community Development Journal
Vol. 25 No. 2, 1990
Filkin, E.
and Naish, M. (1982) `Whose side are we
on? The damage done by neutralism` Chapter 4. In Community Work and the State
London: RKP
Forrest, D.
W. (1999) `Education and empowerment:
towards untested feasibility` Community Development Journal
Vol. 34 No. 2, p. 93-107
Freire, P.
(1970) Pedagogy of the
Oppressed New York: Seabury
Freire, P.
(1973) Education for Critical
Consciousness New York: Seabury
Hanmer, J.
and Rose, J. (1980) ‘Making sense of
theory’ in The Boundaries of
Change in Community
Work Edited by Jones, D. and Thomas, D. London: Allen and Unwin
Hawtin, M.,
Hughes, G. and Percy-Smith, J. (1994) Community Profiling: Auditing Social
Needs Great Britain: Open University Press
Hoghughi, M.
(1983) The Delinquent: Directions for
Social Control Great Britain: Burnett
Jeffs, T.
and Smith, M. K. (1996) Informal
Education – conversation, democracy and learning Great Britain:
Education Now Books/George Williams College
Lambert, J.
(1978) ‘Political values and community
work practice’ in Political
Issues in Community Work Edited by Curno, P. London: RKP
Massallay,
J. L. (1990) `Methods, techniques and
skills of youth and community work: Community Action and Groupwork` Chapter
4. in Youth and Community Work
Practice Edited by Osei-Hwedie, K., Mwansa, L-K. and Mufune, P. Zambia:
Mission Press
O’Donnell,
M. (1992) A New Introduction to
Sociology Great Britain: Nelson
Popple, K.
(1995) Analysing Community Work – Its
Theory and Practice Great Britain: Open University Press
Rosendale,
M. (1996) `Campaigning and Community Work` Chapter 4. in Radical Community Work – Perspectives
from Practice in Scotland Great Britain: Moray House
Sayer, J.
(1986) `Ideology: The Bridge Between
Theory and Practice` Community
Development Journal Vol. 21 No. 4, p. 294-303
Schuftan, C.
(1996) `The community development
dilemma: What is really empowering?` Community Development Journal
Vol. 31 No. 3, p. 260-264
Shaw, M.
(1997) `Community work: towards a radical
paradigm for practice` The
Scottish Journal of Community Work and Development No. 2 (Summer) p.
61-72
Sutton, C.
(1987) A Handbook of Research for the
Helping Professions London: RKP
Thorpe, R.
(1985) `Community work and ideology: an
Australian perspective` in Community Work or Social Change? An Australian Perspective Edited by
Thorpe, R. and Petruchenia, J. Great Britain: RKP
Thomas, D.
N. (1983) The Making of Community
Work London: George Allen and Unwin
Younghusband, E. L. (1959) Report on the Working Party on Social
Workers in the Local Authority Health and Welfare Services London:
HMSO
Heany, T. (1995) Issues in Freirean Pedagogy
http://nlu.nl.edu/ace/Resources/Documents/FreireIssues.html
Smith, M. K. (1999) The Informal Education
Homepage
APPENDIX 1 -
Source: Community
Work or Social Change (Thorpe, 1985)
|
