The postmodern as an aid to empowerment: understanding staff and users

Author:

Gail Wilson  

Issue Date:

2007

Abstract(summary):

Whatever happens in the future, knowledge is power and professionals who have knowledge will still be the most powerful influences on service outcome and quality for individual users. It follows that no amount of organisational change can improve services for users without the good will and dedication of front line workers and even more important, since front line workers cannot carry the whole morality of their service, without the back up of managers at all levels in the organisation. Managers in turn will need the support of the politicians and governing body members who are ultimately responsible. The postmodern social work organisation therefore presents the opportunity for a new professionalism which is able to admit that user knowledge is valuable and that users can assist in service development. However the full input of users is only possible when their existing contributions in the forms of co-production, service planning and quality assurance are understood and properly managed. Users in the postmodern social service have a legitimacy which they have not had before, but when users are frail or mentally ill or otherwise stigmatised and see themselves as such, something more is needed. Consumer power is meant to substitute for hierarchy, and competition is meant to ensure that services are developed with users in mind, but they are not automatically successful. The postmodern organisation offers the chance for users to take part in the organisation - fluidity and lack of hierarchy open up opportunities - to sit on committees, to be consulted and to complain and be listened to and get redress. The trouble is that, as mechanisms, these can be even worse than hierarchy at delivering quality for people who are frail, poor or socially stigmatised. Such systems allow elitist managers and professionals to point to structures of user involvement, but the structures can be very easily subverted. And finally the concept of users must include diversity and difference. Minority writers have highlighted a problem that is often assumed away within the dominant majority. Communities and groups have their own power hierarchies, and representation by the powerful will suppress others - often women or older people, or relegate them to tea making and similar low status support activities. Representation by marginalised members of a group may fail to carry credibility, either with service users or their own community, and worse still may lay them open to victimisation. So are trained user representatives essential? The answer today is probably yes. when the number of user representatives is strictly limited, a loud and politically aware voice is essential. The downside is that a focus on disadvantage produces a victim oriented discourse and denies users the self respect that comes from not being victims. Being a user can be seen as 'normal' only when there are large numbers of users representatives who can support one another - even if this then means that they do not all speak with one voice. A postmodern stance therefore lets us see that we are not alone in facing management and resource problems which have a negative impact on marginalised users, but part of world wide trends. The ability to see service users as agents and producers of services and knowledge is an important part of building better and more professionals services in the future.

Page:

Unknown