Critique of article: BeyondPower Discourse: Alienation and Social Work
by Iain Ferguson and Michael Lavalette
John B. Thompson
University of Kansas
Article Summary
The thesis of Ferguson and Lavalette’s article (2004) is that Marx’s concept of alienation provides the best account of the causes of social discord in contemporary societies, and therefore serves as a proper basis for emancipation. Their criticism is of an enduring micro-level focus in social work thinking and practice which is, according to them, due in large part to the influence of postmodernism. Their understanding of postmodernism is that it focuses on the individual in its various philosophical conceptions, and in so doing it renders solutions to problems in the same manner. Social work has adopted this pattern. At the same time, macro-level theories, particularly Marxism, have fallen out of favor, because when viewed from said individualistic postmodern perspectives they are labeled “antediluvian,” or “totalizing” or “Eurocentric.” This intellectual trend has unfortunately led to an ironic alliance between social work and the new right, both of which now consider the causes of social problems only from the level of the individual. The new right blames problems such as poverty or chemical addiction on the putative laziness or immorality of the individual. Social work, in its attempt to solve such problems, has focused its assistive efforts on the individuals, and therefore failed to notice and address causal factors that exist at the macro, economic level. Thus, social workers fight an uphill battle in both policy and practice arenas as their solutions do not address the causes of the problems they wish to alleviate.
Ferguson and Lavalette propose that for true emancipation to occur—meaning emancipation for both the social worker and the social work client—a shift is due in theory to the macro level, reviving Marx. Despite postmoderns’ concerns about Marxism, it is suggested that Marx’s alienation concept can now have a great impact toward positive change in our communities, perhaps similar to the way macro-level thinking has had in the past with the women’s movement, anti-racism campaigns, etc.
The alienation concept does not merely denote a psychological state (though it is included), but attempts instead a more robust description of the ways in which the working class—the proletariat—are, via capitalist structures and relationships, dehumanized and denigrated. There are four aspects of alienation. First, the worker—the producer of the product—is alienated from what is produced. She has no say in the decision about what is made, and worse, encounters the product of her labors on the open market (post-production) as a consumer who may or may not have the financial means to purchase what she has produced. Second, the worker has no control over how the production takes place. She is no longer an artisan, learning her trade and adapting personal style with creativity. Her identity has been disconnected from the labor process, which she now experiences as a miserable task, performed robotically, simply as a means to an end. Third, proletarians experience “estrangement” from their “species being.” Marx believed that biological species have characteristic natures, for humans this means we produce more than what is required for basic subsistence. Wage labor in capitalist society leaves the underclass with not much more than this. They are effectively divorced from what it means to be a human being—to creatively produce in multiple ways. Finally, workers are alienated socially. The hyper-competitive nature of capitalism serves to drive a wedge between people such that healthy, cooperative relationships marked by friendship and solidarity are replaced almost exclusively with exchange relationships. The wedge exists between owners and workers, but also between workers themselves as they vie for scarce work opportunities and resources in the marketplace. This in turn breeds racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.
The authors conclude with implications for social workers, who they believe have experienced alienation as workers themselves, and for social work clients, who are subject to the oppressive and pathogenic capitalist structures, and are in need of intervention on that level. Social workers, it is suggested, should band together for group empowerment and self-advocacy as a profession. And social work in general should take note of the ways in which capitalist structures—particularly the hyper-capitalism of the new right, or Neo-liberals—are having a severe and detrimental impact on our communities so that problems can be addressed accordingly.
Theory Analysis and Critique
This section includes four brief critiques of Ferguson and Lavalette’s article. The first is a fairly straightforward evaluation of their argument, focusing on the relevant informal logic. In the second critique I’ll appeal to Robbins, chaterjeeCanda’s fourth and fifth criteria for theory analysis in order to describe several strengths of the article. In my third critique I’ll offer a sketch of a postmodern response to Ferguson and Lavalette. Finally, I will use Robbins, et.al. again (ninth criterion for theory critique) to consider the practical application of the proposed social solutions in the article. The nature of each analytic tool should become apparent in each section as I go.
Argument Analysis
This analysis concerns the argument put forth for the conclusion that social workers have lost significant control over the content of their work. In other words, the conclusion states that social workers are subject to the same alienation that is experienced by workers in other lines of work such as factory or farm labor. The premises offered in support of this conclusion include citations from several social science research studies that stated the following: 44% of social workers report value differences between themselves and the organization they work for; 50% of social workers report being interested in work as independent counselors; 30% of social workers desire to leave the field altogether; various reports of job stress and unhappiness. The suggested reasons for the apparent dissatisfaction of social workers with their employment situations are all related to increased managerialism—too much form-filling, target-setting, efficiency, budgeting and routinized practice techniques. I do not dispute the validity of either the research findings, or the attribution of the findings to excesses in managerialism. These may very well be the case.
The question that is most significant for the purposes of the present argument, however, is whether the assumed truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion—the definition of a valid argument. In this case it does not. The reason for this is a logical fallacy called the “false alternative” (Kelley, 1988). According to the false alternative fallacy, an argument is invalid when the reasons—the premises—for the conclusion, while they may indicate the conclusion, do not ensure it because competing alternatives have not been eliminated or accounted for. In this case the fact that social workers report dissatisfaction or a desire to enter private practice, while it may indicate alienation and a need for Marxist-style emancipation, it does not guarantee it. There are many alternative conclusions that can be drawn from the cited research: perhaps social workers report wanting to leave social services altogether because they find the work too emotionally taxing. Social workers who want to enter private practice may desire to do so, not because of alienation, but because they think it is a more effective intervention. Both of these might assume that social workers, far from being alienated, are actually rather bourgeois, simply moving up the ranks of social enterprise. In any case, the authors do not consider any alternatives, but simply jump to the conclusion that social worker dissatisfaction is due to alienation. They further fail to make explicit the necessary conceptual connections between the subjective reports of social workers, and the idea of alienation. Without these, an unjustified leap is required on behalf of the reader in order to find that the evidence truly indicates the occurrence of alienation in social work.
Article Strengths
The fact that Ferguson and Lavalette’s article refocuses the reader’s attention to macro-level considerations for social work theory and practice is a prima facie strength from the outset. It is generally known that social work practice is mostly done at the micro-level, so it is always good to see an article written for macro considerations. At a deeper level, it is good to remember that it is implicit in the NASW code of ethics that both micro and macro theory and practice are important. For instance, in the preamble to the code of ethics it is written, “Social workers promote social justice and social change with and on behalf of clients. “Clients” is used inclusively to refer to individuals, families, groups, organizations, and communities.” And later, “Social workers also seek to promote the responsiveness of organizations, communities, and other social institutions to individuals’ needs and social problems.” (NASW, 2008) The explicit mention of groups, organizations and communities as clients, and the statement that social workers promote the responsiveness of social institutions, both serve to demonstrate the ethical importance of ongoing macro-level considerations.
Though the Ferguson and Lavalette article may have some flaws, it also brings up an important and valid criticism of much postmodern thought, namely that any focus on individual level thinking alone will be practically complicit with the same victim-blaming thinking of the new right. They are not alone in this criticism. Paul Garrett of the National University of Ireland wrote a similar article, citing Marx’s book Capital, and arguing that capitalism is a dangerous system that serves to exploit adults and children, harming both bodies and minds. This “devastating” critique of capitalism is then applied to macro social work theory as a basis for resistance to Neoliberalization. (Garrett, 2009) Similarly, Mike Cole at the University of Brighton wrote an article in 2003 stating that the current state of global capitalism and its concomitant social and educational problems simply cannot be undone with individualistic postmodern ideas. On his thinking, only Marxism is sufficient to affect significant change in the direction of social justice. (Cole, 2003)
I remain unconvinced that Marxism is the only possible way to overcome the problems associated with modern industrial capitalism, but I do find Marx’s ideas compelling and very much worth the attention of social workers at all levels. Marx may not have been right about everything, but he cannot be all wrong either. These are strong arguments, and it seems quite reasonable to recognize that blind adherence to capitalism alone cannot meet our human needs (Fives, 2008).
Postmodern Rebuttal
As compelling as the case may be for reviving Marxist discourse in thinking about social problems from an economic perspective, the postmodern theorist also has several valid points of rebuttal to any such argument. The first response a postmodernist might make to Ferguson and Lavalette is to show that, though postmodern theory can be individualistic, it is not necessarily so. In fact, one may argue that much (or most) postmodern theory is not, or at least is not intended to be, individualistic. For instance, P.J. Bracken, in his article on critical psychiatry (1995) argues that Foucault (one well-recognized as “postmodern”) would challenge any approach to psychotherapy that did not take into account the social, economic and other macro cultural and historically conditioned structures relevant to the construction of the theories and practices underlying the particular psychotherapeutic approach being used. His Foucaultian critique is of JurgenHabermas’s suggestion that clients can overcome neurotic behavior via reflexivity in psychoanalysis. The psychoanalytic fecundity of reflexivity initially seems promising until Bracken uncovers (note Foucault’s notion of “archaeology”) the lack of critical appraisal in Habermas’s thinking, “…which omits an analysis of the concrete historical circumstances in which the psychoanalytic encounter takes place.” “For Foucault this amounts to a betrayal and leads to psychoanalysis as an alienating therapy…” (Bracken, 1995) The point of this example is to highlight the fact that postmodern thinkers like Foucault have leveled their own assault on not just individualistic thinking, but any thinking—even Marx’s—that does not take into account the inherent historical conditioning. Thus, for Foucault (and many other postmodern theorists) the criticism of individualism simply does not stick.
This leads quite easily to a second postmodern objection to Ferguson and Lavalette. One may argue that the economic view of Marx, while it is a step in the right direction as it transcends the Neoliberal contamination of social work with hyper-individualism, it also remains limited because of its own totalizing viewpoint. In other words, the move is from one totalizing discourse to another—from individualism to Marxism, from very micro, to very macro. Ferguson and Lavalette mention the totalization critique in their introduction, but do not counter it in the paper. They do not explain why it is ‘good enough’ to characterize all the world in terms of Marx’s economic theory. It is not at all obvious, even if granted that individualism is problematic, that economic thinking alone should be the sole alternative. Why not a political solution instead? Or a social moral solution? What historical conditioning was involved in Marx’s development of socialism? Perhaps an analysis of that would lead to solutions to social problems that do not require a dogmatic adherence to the grand metanarrative of socialism (Critical theory for instance would be one option—among many!).
A final objection for the postmodernist (many other could be leveled) would be to note the role of opposition and antagonism that encompasses Marxism (Melchert, 2007). This objection follows the last as a totalizing discourse that includes antagonism/opposition as a necessary feature then elides any explanations, descriptions or understandings of human social phenomena that do not adhere to the same. Worse, this carries over into possible solutions to problems and to the nature and meaning of human identity in the first place. Marx would counter that it is not human nature per se that is oppositional, but that human nature co-opted and enslaved by capitalism is the problem. Humans created the capitalist system and then became its subjects. However, the postmodern can still reply that even though capitalism does have many of the effects that Marx says it has (e.g. alienation), there are still not only competing explanations and perspectives, but from within capitalism itself there is ample evidence of thought and behavior that resists Marx’s theory as totalizing. There is evidence of relationships that are not characterized merely by exchange concerns, for instance. People have not (all) been reduced to behavior based on rational self-interest alone. Moreover, there are competing theories such as feminist care ethics that advance these facts well beyond a pure Marxist framework. One may be sympathetic to a Marxist perspective without radicalizing it to the extent that conflict dominates one’s thinking.
Practical Application
My final critique is simply to suggest that the solutions proposed by Ferguson and Lavalette are fairly vague and non-specific. What they do suggest, based on their Marxist analysis of social work theory and practice, is that social workers should unite in several ways to promote macro-level changes that will counter the scourge of capitalism. They propose that social workers form trade union organizations in order to advocate for fair wages, good working conditions, proper worker-client relationships, power over social work ‘products,’ etc. Social workers should also refocus resources away from individual-level interventions and invest in various community development strategies. It is their hope that we will learn from the spirit of social activism that existed in the 1960’s and 1970’s when social work was allied more with social reform movements than medical-like office practices. They hope we will stand up and resist the “…blind destructiveness of global capitalism.” (2004)
These suggestions all sound like good ideas, in the most generic of ways. They also seem more like Marxist clichés than well thought out proposals for change. Several of the other Marxist theorists previously cited made very similar critiques to Ferguson and Lavalette’s, yet they went into much more detail in their proposed solutions. To be fair, Ferguson and Lavalette did offer solid examples (e.g. the narrative about socioeconomic conditions in Northern England) of how Neoliberal policies can create conditions that cause alienation and the subsequent violence, drug abuse, mental health problems, etc. But their solutions boil down to an offhand suggestion of banding together for strength. In order to actually put a solution like that into practice one would need to have a much higher degree of specificity and sophistication. A particular social work-related issue—the over-focus on individual practice, for instance—could be addressed in a particular geographical, political and social situation. The authors could describe the setting of the agency or practice site and then detail the relationships between social workers, managers, local government, and clients of the system. A brief history of relevant biological, social, environmental and religious/spiritual issues and problems could then be reported, along with the relevant policy and institutional histories. Finally, a proposal could be made that identified key players, processes, methods and modes of change, strategies and an outline for where, when and how the change might take place. Given article length considerations a full account may be impossible, but at least a sketch of a proposed solution—perhaps even a solution to one of the problem examples so nicely described already—is reasonable to expect.