• Embed Doc
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
Public services in the UK have undergonesignificant changes, as a result of New Rightpolicy implementation and a cultural shift fromwelfare to market values, underpinned by anincreasing emphasis on competition andcost/efficiency models. A new discourse of managerialism has entered the public services,with attention to quality, performanceindicators and productivity. In the wider socialcontext, there is a deepening recession and massunemployment and underfunding of publicservices. In the midst of fears of the dismantlingof the welfare state, the concept of empow-erment has entered the vocabulary of both theemployment and service delivery functions of public services in the 1990s. In education,youth, social, probation, community and healthwork, social personnel are required to providethe necessary preconditions which will facilitatethe development of clients’ sense of autonomy,well being and effectiveness, while simul-taneously implementing the policies of the NewRight. In the discourse of new managerialism,employer empowerment is believed by some tobe part of a strategy to motivate and accelerateproductivity in the face of economic stringencyand declining employment conditions[1]. It isalso believed that the new managerialism is indirect confrontation with traditionalprofessional values[2,3]. In this article, I intendto explore the concept of empowerment, andraise questions about why it has become adominant discourse in the public services in theUK at this particular moment.Empowerment is an abstract concept. Tounderstand it requires an analysis of power.How one depicts power determines whetherthere will be an alertness to its full implicationsin social relations. The new economy of powerin the UK public services, with its mana-gerialism and accountancy-based culture re-quires empowerment, without necessarilyacknowledging that a major cause of powerlessness is social and economic inequality.Critics are suspicious of the motivation for theintroduction of the concept. Cochrane[4,p. 178] argues that, “in a situation of poverty,empowerment must of necessity take on apolitical meaning in the sense that thetransformation of needs into rights is asociopolitical process”. He notes that, “In manyways the current pressure to
clientise’ poor
35
Theorizingempowerment in the UKpublic services
 Louise Morley
The authorLouise Morley
is at the University of Reading, UK.
Abstract
Explores the concept of empowerment and raises questionsabout the reason for its rise to dominance as a currentdiscourse in the UK public services. Notes that empowermentmay be a motivational but also a manipulative concept whichcan be used by the “New Right” as a means of introducingmarket values into the public services and to attack thewelfare state. Questions whether empowerment can bereclaimed to support oppressed groups.
Empowerment in OrganizationsVolume 3 · Number 3 · 1995 · pp. 35–41MCBUniversity Press · ISSN 0968-4891
 
people is an effective form of control becausethey become categorised and therefore sub-divided politically”[4, p. 180]. Empowermentcannot be divorced from its political context. AsDeem[5] suggests, “who becomes empoweredand what they do with those powers is morecrucial than an abstract notion of empowermentregarded as “a good thing” in itself”.
‘…clients are deemed in need ofempowerment if they display behavioraltraits that distinguish them from the“empowered” middle classes
In education, empowerment was traditionallyassociated with liberal and Marxist positions[6-13]. Theorists from the USA, UK, Australiaand Brazil focussed on the role education couldplay in liberating people from powerlessness.Central to these arguments was theproblematization of the power relationshipbetween teacher and learner, expert and“client” and the introduction of interactivemethods in which learners moved out of passivity and into dialogue with educators. Theprivileging of experience and the developmentof critical consciousness were seen asfundamental requirements in this process. Itwas believed that there is a clear connectionbetween the silencing of students demanded bytraditional, transmission modes of teaching, andthe supression of people’s political voices. In thewider context of citizenship, empowerment wastraditionally linked to enlightenment values of universalism and rights, such as franchise, therise of the trade union movement, housinginitiatives, employment contracts and access toeducation. Paradoxically the concept (but notnecessarily the ideology), has now been usurpedby the New Right. Kreisberg[14, p. 19] arguesthat the term empowerment “has an expandingpresence in a broad range of fields andcontexts…used as a rhetorical device withoutbeing carefully defined by its wielders”. He alsonotes that “it is has begun to be drained of itscritical edge”[14, p. 21]. Jeffs and Smith[15]believe that there is a control culture and a newauthoritarianism masquerading in the languageand philosophy of progressivism. It is arguablethat, in the context of the New Right, theprocess of empowerment is aimed atrefashioning those members of the communitymost distant from the social mainstream.Clients are deemed in need of empowerment if they display behavioral or attitudinal traits thatdistinguish them from the “empowered” middleclasses. Whereas empowerment ostensiblyappears client-centered and liberatory, it couldwell be a normalizing discourse, or part of theideology about the powerful bearing the socialand economic burden of the less powerful. Apostmodernist interpretation suggests thatempowerment is a new regulatory discourse, anextension of the panopticon of modern publicservices.
Multiple definitions
A question that has to be asked about theprocess is empowerment for what end? Forsome it is a cognitive exercise, with an objectiveof promoting psychological benefits, for othersthe aim is sociopolitical, with materialimplications and changes to substantive socialreality. Shor and Freire[16, p. 111] believe thatit must incorporate both elements and refer to“social class empowerment”. They argue:
…if you are not able to use your
recent 
freedom tohelp others to be free by transforming the totalityof society, then you are exercising only anindividualist attitude toward empowerment orfreedom[16, p. 109].
Shor and Freire emphasize that “this
 feeling
of being free…is still
not 
enough for thetransformation of society even though it isabsolutely necessary for the process of socialtransformation”[16, p. 110]. Giroux[8] speaksof “self and social empowerment”,distinguishing between and connecting theempowerment of individuals and socialpositions. In the current usage by the NewRight, social transformation may also be a goal,but with a different value base. By focussingattention on individual agency, rather than onstructures, empowerment could be perceived asan extension of the New Right’s commitment toself-sufficiency; one which ignores socialformations such as “race”, class and gender.Empowerment, then, becomes part of thelanguage of efficiency, cost-effectiveness, qualityand standards, employed to mask the extent towhich the government has sought to prepare for
36
Theorizing empowerment in the UK public services
Louise Morley 
Empowerment in OrganizationsVolume 3 · Number 3 · 1995 · 35–41
 
privatization and the erosion of the welfarestate.In the context of patriarchal domination of influential organizations, such as the academy,feminist educators have seen curriculum andteaching/training methodologies as sites of struggle, but also as potential areas for changeand empowerment[17-21]. O’Brien andWhitmore[22, p. 309] define empowerment as:
…an interactive process through which lesspowerful people experience personal and socialchange, enabling them to achieve influence overthe organisations and institutions which affecttheir lives, and the communities in which they live.
The idea here is that by exposing people to theappropriate educational interventions, they willgain the confidence to critically engage andchange their environments. However,Lather[23, p. 4] argues that empowerment is“not something done to or for someone, butinstead is a process one undertakes for oneself”.She uses the term to mean “analysing ideasabout the causes of powerlessness, recognisingsystematic oppressive forces and acting bothindividually and collectively to change theconditions of our lives”. Shrewsbury[24, p. 8]claims that:
To be empowered is to recognise our abilities toact to create a more humane social order. To beempowered is to be able to engage in significantlearning. To be empowered is to be able toconnect with others in mutually productive ways.
Robinson[25, p. 7] maintains that:
Empowerment is a personal and social process, aliberatory sense of one’s own strengths,competence, creativity and freedom of action; tobe empowered is to feel power surging into onefrom other people and from inside, specifically thepower to act and grow.
Gore[26, p. 56] believes that empowerment firstpresupposes an agent of empowerment(teacher, youth worker, therapist, manager);second holds the notion of power as property;and third has some kind of vision or desirableend state. Ellsworth[27, p. 306] concludes fromher attempts at progressive education that“strategies such as student empowerment anddialogue give the illusion of equality while infact leaving the authoritarian nature of thestudent/teacher relationship in tact”. Shequestions the relationship between teachers andlearners by asking how a teacher “makes”students autonomous without directing them.Discourses on power frequently includereferences to both Marxist and postmodernpositions. In Marxism, power operating in thesocial formation is ultimately grounded in theeconomic power of the dominant class. In apostmodern analysis power is no longer seen asa reified possession, but as capillary, that is,exercised in every moment of social life. In thisconstruction, power is conceptualized as agenerative, productive phenomenon, as well asrepressive. Gore[28, p. 120] argues that:
It is this productive conception of power thatundergirds notions of empowerment and notionsof emancipatory or liberatory authority, authority
with
rather than
over 
others.
A fundamental challenge is how one person, orgroup, ethically and practically can empoweranother, and whether the absence of politicizedreflexivity means empowerment could involvenew forms of domination[28]. A key questionthen arises as to how those on the left canempower, without playing into the hands of theNew Right?
Managing empowerment
In the UK public services, managerialism hasplayed an essential role in achieving the shift tothe values of the New Right. Employermalleability and motivation are increasinglyimportant in times of social and organizationaltransition and transformation. Public serviceshave been traditionally characterized as wastefuland extravagant. By introducing competitionand market forces there is a belief thatinefficiency, inertia and antiquated methods of working will be exposed[29]. Empowermentenables the transition from one
modus vivendi
toanother. The literature of managementdevelopment in the USA has been threadedwith references to empowerment for the last twodecades[30-33].
‘…much of early management developmentthinking on empowerment appears todraw on mechanistic, behavioristnotions of reward and punishment…
The implication is that, in order to wieldinstitutional power, the manager has to connectwith his or her own power, and foster the
37
Theorizing empowerment in the UK public services
Louise Morley 
Empowerment in OrganizationsVolume 3 · Number 3 · 1995 · 35–41
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...