ABSTRACT

Among social workers-and, indeed, in the public at large-the words participation and paternalism tend to evoke knee-jerk reactions of approval and disapproval respectively. Participation is loosely associated with notions of partnership between citizens, with the sharing of power between public servants and those they serve, with ideals of greater social equality in making and implementing welfare policies, and with enhancing the freedom of individual service users to make choices in pursuing their own welfare. Paternalism, on the other hand, is taken to imply assumptions held by professionals and bureaucrats of the right to exercise controls over welfare decisions-in respect of both public and individual matters-on the basis of knowledge and expertise not generally available, and sometimes even deliberately withheld from those they profess to serve; it is thought to imply restriction of choice in the interests of achieving uniformity of disposal; and to be virtually a conspiratorial retention of power differentials in favour of elite groups. The abrupt change of attitude from the professionalization of the 1950s to the anti-professionalism of the 1960s was associated with a change in values; both owed more to political doctrine than to a greater appreciation of human needs.