ABSTRACT
Practice which emphasizes the relation between objective conditions and subjective perception and experience cannot separate direct practice and its focus on empowerment from indirect forms of practice and their focus on advocacy. It would be partially correct to say that empowerment often leads to ‘case advocacy,’ while the larger frame of reference for advocacy might be called ‘issue advocacy.’ What makes this perspective only partially accurate is that it does not necessarily presume that there is an ongoing relationship between the two realms of problem definition and social action. We do make this assumption about the internal relatedness of both people and issues, but we separate the realms of activity on the basis of strategic choices. In every ‘case-advocacy’ matter there are vital issues, but none which can supersede the person whose life and courage have brought the particular issue forward at that moment in time. Yet, the issues represented by that person, and crystallized in the lives of the other people who share common oppression, must be addressed. Furthermore, when these issues are addressed, in the form of ‘issue advocacy,’ they cannot be severed from the lives of the people who were the primary reason for the emergence of the issue. Issues emerge from the lives of the people and must be represented to them throughout any process of advocacy which does not include them directly in the advocacy activities undertaken.
