ABSTRACT
In 1977, Gilbert and Specht identified one of the essential factors which distinguishes social work from the 'true' professions. It was, they contended, that social work held no commitment to welfare as a whole, despite its obvious commitment to services (Gilbert & Specht, 1977 p. 219). By failing to commit itself fully as an instrument of change, social work remained one-dimensional. By defaulting on the challenge presented by the material and social circumstances of the people which it claimed to serve, social work was merely a palliative. Social workers stand accused, as a profession, of avoiding a confrontation with the forces which lie behind the causes of their clients' distress. Except for a minority, social workers have done what they have been told to do, rather than seeking to increase the relative power of their clients. This leaves the client, individualised and isolated by the framework through which social work operates, unable to benefit form the supposed purpose of the social work intervention. The good practice guidelines of 'support, enablement and empowerment' can achieve little for the individualised and powerless victim of structural social and economic forces. Pinker's minority submission to the Barclay Report emphasises the correctness of opting out of this conflict. He chooses to segregate social work from a communitychange perspective, limiting the action to the 'mandatory and permissive undertakings' (Pinker, 1982; see also, Payne, 1986). Hettne sums up this position when he cites the policy guidelines of the World Bank on this subject. The Bank promotes itself as the champion of'participation' but not as the champion of 'empowerment'. The reason for this, is that 'empowerment' stands for structural change, whereas 'participation' involves only involvement in the processes of the status quo (World Bank, 1992, Participatory development and the World Bank, edited by B. Bhatnager & A.K. Williams, quoted in Hettne, 1995). Recent discussions regarding the nature and purpose of Community Care have reinforced this tendency (Orme & Glastonbury, 1993). Even within community development circles, failure to concentrate on the key issues or confront these contradictions, leads to confusion and lack of effective direction (Kelly, 1991; Mayo, 1979; Standing Conference, 1995). Mayo argues for
radical and political goals, whereas Kelly is more concerned with a Gandhian, process concern for the process of engagement. The Standing Conference on Community Development is exploring how a 'representational' position can be maintained, within a position which is hostile to 'partnership' with the state (Kelly & Sewell, 1988, Mayo, 1994, Standing Conference, 1995).
