Analysis of the meaning of Empowerment and the strategies for maximising

users’ empowerment in social work practice. By Dr Ignatius Gwanmesia.

As a result of the contextual meaning when using the concept of empowerment,

“analysing the meaning of ‘empowerment’ is inherently problematic”, Adams, (1996,

p. 10), not only because “it is a social construct” Moonie, (1997), but more so

because “empowerment has yet to achieve maturity, either as a critically understood

concept, or as a reflective practice.” Baistow, (1994). According to Campell, (1996)

“the sphere of articulation in empowerment is to far-reaching to be defined from a

single perspective” Some analyst even point out that “empowerment is not “even

simply an elaboration of any single existing social work methods, nor derived

exclusively from individually-based, person-centred or problem-focused, social or

environmental approaches to social work” Faced with these polarisations, it is only

through a critical analysis of the concept of ‘empowerment’ that related social work

theories can be efficiently and appropriate integrated into reflective social work

practice.

The Discourse

The Oxford English Reference Dictionary defines empowerment as “authorise,

license (a person to do) give power to; make able (a person to do). This definition

implies the notion of ‘enabling’ and ‘giving power to’. According to Adams, (1996,

p. 2), while empowerment literally means ‘becoming powerful’; in social work, ‘it

means much more since it embraces both theory and methods’. Within this context,

Thomas and Pierson, (1995, p. 134) define empowerment as concerned with how

people can be enabled to “gain collective control over their lives, so as to achieve

their interest as a group and a method by which social workers seek to enhance the

1

power of people who lack it.” Taking the plight of the socially excluded or

disempowered ethnic minorities in Britain for example, rather than the conventional

or direct approach, the analysis of the concept of empowerment could be given a

more critical scrutiny by analysing its antonyms; ‘oppression’ and ‘discrimination’.

Within this context, analysts are consensual about the centrality of the concept of

‘power’ in related relationships in empowerment. Adams, (1996, p. 2); Ashrif, (2001,

p. 2); Thompson, (2007). The ambivalence about power in such analysis of

empowerment is that it is simultaneously good and bad. If misused or abused as in

institutional discrimination (racism) in the case of ethnic minorities in Britain, the

resulting disempowerment or oppression is perceived as ‘bad’; denying them the

respect, self-determination and rights to be proactive participants in matters affecting

their lives. Conversely, the reverse is true where the concept empowerment is

synonymous with “anti-discrimination, gender equality, intercultural and anti-racist

practices.

In relating empowerment to power within the context of oppression, in his ‘PCS

model’ Thompson, (1998, p. 21) asserts that empowerment occurs at three

interconnected levels – the Personal, the Cultural and the Structural levels.

At the personal or psychological level, oppression reproduces itself as the beliefs,

attitudes and behaviour of one individual towards another. Within this context,

disempowerment is rather akin to;

- that service user in the residential home who has to choose between eating

marsh potatoes or marsh potatoes for lunch simply because the social worker

prejudicially does not see the client as deserving of the right to choose.

Similarly, there is suggestion that the ‘one-package-fits-all’ approach to service

delivery can amount to disempowerment since service users are denied their right to

choice. Indeed, the seemingly democratic rhetoric of being allowed to “use any

colour shopping bag, so long as it’s red” Crow, (2002) seem most applicable in most

of UK’s welfare service deliveries.

2

Ideally, the empowered approach to social work service delivery should entail helping

or working alongside people to enable them develop confidence, boost their self-

esteem and enhanced their skills to render them proactively assertive and

participatory in matters affecting their lives. For example, in contemporary society

where through ageism, the elderly is made to feel devalued and even undeserving of

their rightful entitlement to certain welfare benefits; and where people with disability

may be pathologised into sub humans; the prevalent concept of empowerment as

giving power to, seems rather simplistic or reductionist. For example, there is need to

question the rationale behind giving power to incapacitated, oppressed and devalued

service users who may lack the ability to exercise it effectively, efficiently and

appropriately in helping themselves? In fact, Moonie, (1997, p. 132) cautions that in

practice, “the mere fact that clients need social services or receive social care is

because they are not able to make, or not confident in making their own decisions.”

Within this context, empowerment should entail a partnership in which social workers

work alongside clients to enable them either regenerate their resilience, or use

advocacy to enable them access those privileges that are theirs by right. Here, social

work practice based on ethics of the Kantian model will be most appropriate.

At the cultural level, disempowerment is the result of being judgmental or prejudicial

about “what is true, right and good or perceived as normal about others; leading to

internalised oppression in which people take on board negative messages about

themselves as a result of discrimination” Thompson, (2007). Empowerment at this

level can include undermining such frameworks of meanings- like in challenging

stereotypes, or for people using the Agency concept to make decisions for

themselves as in community development programmes where the democratic

approach to interaction provides for fairness or relative equality in relationships. The

problem here is that even democracy can never be comprehensive.

At the structural level as in institutional discrimination where the life chances or the

opportunities available to members of ethnic minorities are determined by the

network of social divisions; resulting in acute deprivations (social exclusion, poverty);

3

empowerment here refers “to raising the users awareness of how the problems they

experienced often have much to do with wider social and political issues relating to

the structure of society’ Thompson, (1998, p. 22). For example within the rather

reductionist definition of empowerment as “giving power to” Thompson, (2007, p.

21),’ females in our essentially patriarchal society are supposed to be empowered by

being given power to, in emancipatory politics. The inadequacy of this perspective is

exposed by the reflective questions; how can power be given to already equally-

righted human beings? How could the term empowerment be implicitly applicable

when the very oppressive structures that have hitherto disempower people (sexism,

racism, ageism, etc.) are being institutionally protected and sustained? As such,

structural empowerment entails, not only creating a society in which neither race,

gender nor religious differences are reasons for discrimination, but “a cohesive

society in which people, irrespective, are enabled to feel valued, enjoy equal

opportunities to develop their respective talents and lead fulfilling lives.” Donald and

Rattansi, (1992, p. 4). Where sexism and gender discrimination are the case,

feminist activists stress that “empowerment is not replacing one form of

empowerment with another but should lead to the liberation of men from false value

systems and ideologies of oppression” Batliwala, (1994, p. 131).

Holistically, even within Thompson’s PCS model, the process of empowerment can

be argued to be a multifaceted and inter-connected phenomenon since “oppression

or discrimination take place not in isolation but within the context of culturally

assumed norms in a broader societal framework of structures and institutions.”

Ashrif, (2001). As such, the remedial empowerment in oppressions will be defined by

the intercultural models, “which challenges not only the personal and cultural levels

of oppression, but also vitally the institutions which support those attitudes and

behaviours.” Oxaal, and Baden, (1997).

So far, preceding analysis have been articulated around the notion of empowerment

as enabling, working alongside side clients, regenerating resilience in hitherto

dormant potentials as opposed to the simplistic notion of given power to oppressed

4

or discriminated persons or groups. However, the United Nations Human

Development Report 1995, stresses that empowerment is about participation in

which actions and decisions “must be by people, not only for them; People must

participate fully in the decisions and processes that shape their lives. (UN, 1995 b).

Within this context, Thomas and Pierson, (1995, p. 134) define empowerment theory

as concerned with how people can be enabled to “gain collective control over their

lives, so as to achieve their interest as a group and a method by which social

workers seek to enhance the power of people who lack it.”

Opinions on empowerment.

In his attempt to locate empowerment within an enabling perspective, Mcleod, (1987)

points out that the concept of empowerment is derived from the Latin word ‘potere’-

meaning ‘to be able’. Nevertheless, Thompson, (2007, p. 22) argues that since

empowerment embraces personal, cultural and structural perspectives, ‘it is clearly

more than just enabling. In fact, while Banks, (2001, p. 131-133) defines

empowerment in terms of; user involvement (consumerist approach), partnership,

power-sharing or negotiation (citizenship approach); and advocacy (radical

approach); other perspectives abound. For example; in consensus with Thompson’s

PCS model, Williams, S. et al., (1994), Rodwell, (1996); asserts that,

“empowerment is about challenging oppression and inequality; which compel people

to play a part in society on terms which are inequitable or in ways which deny their

human rights”. Similarly, Rowland, (1995, p. 104) in consensus with Oxaal and

Baden, (1997, p. 6) defines empowerment as “a bottom-up process and cannot be

bestowed from the top down.” Likewise, Thompson, (2007, p. 22) argues that

empowerment is not something we can do to or for people, but that, which we can do

only with them.”

Essentially, empowerment in social work involves deconstructing the ‘power over’,

concept at a;

5

- structural level where, despite all the talk of user involvement or citizenship,

“old people are rarely involved in managing and running residential homes or

day centres” Beresford and Croft, (1986);

- personal level where, individuals are devalued or denigrated, thereby

depriving them of a voice in decisions on matters affecting their lives.

- cultural level, where “through internalisation certain groups like the disable

take on board negative messages about themselves as a result of

discrimination” Clarks, (2000, p. 57) .

Social work empowerment in these contexts involves, the practitioner “locating and

coordinating the appropriate resources and working alongside or enabling these

vulnerable and disempowered clients to regenerate their inert potentials and

resilience to take control of their lives and circumstances.” Thompson, (2007, p. 21-

24).

Strategies for maximising the empowerment of service users

Where Banks (2001, p.1) has pin-pointed the traditional values and ethics of the

social work profession as; “self-determination, acceptance, non-judgementalism, and

confidentiality” one of my primary strategies to maximise client’s empowerment will

be to ensure that these seemingly altruistic ethical values are made implicit rather

than just guiding practice as through code of social work practices. Within the context

where D’Onofrio, (1992) posits education as “a very significant transport for

empowering clients”; and where Gibson, (1991) defines empowerment as “the

individual’s recognition, promotion and improvement of his ability to achieve his own

requirements, solve his own problems and mobilise resources to control his own

6

live”; I will adopt a client-centred approach and implicit user involvement in

maximising client empowerment through awareness practice. For example where

service users have hitherto been disempowered to make choices through the lack of

information, the availability of relevant information in forms and formats readily

accessible to client will be absolute in my repertoires of strategies for maximising

client’s empowerment.

Similarly, with effective communication consensually perceived not only as the most

empowering tool in social work intervention, but central to social work practice,

Adams, (1996); Moonie, (1997, p. 134); an implicit repertoire in my empowering

strategies would be to ensure effective communication in all interactions with clients;

not only will clients be listened to and their questions answered with respect, the

ethics of confidentiality will be stringently implemented. As such, “simplicity in the use

of language, objectivity in ensuring that context and space enhance communication”

Moonie, (1999); Adams, (1996); will be implicit in my practice. Equally, emphasis will

be put on understanding both the service users’ physical as well as psychological

needs; with every effort made to understand their cultural background in view to

showing respect for their beliefs and identity. All these will be achieved first through

self-reflecting on my practice approach to iron-out my personal biases and prejudice

that may inadvertently lead to oppressive or discriminatory practice.

Conclusion

The preceding analysis of the meaning of empowerment is not only confirmative of

the chronic polarisation that shrouds its definition at the personal, cultural and

structural levels, but more so that the specifics of its myriad of applications are

context-based. Despite these, there is an almost universal consensus of the virtuous

or humanitarian antecedents to empowering service users. The realisation that;

rather than being without power, the supposedly vulnerable service users either

harbour dormant, repressed power or resilience at a personal, cultural and structural

level; the logical approach in maximising their empowerment is to adopt approaches

7

that enable the social worker, policy makers and organisation to work alongside

rather than for the clients to help or enable them regenerate their potentials. Within

this context, efficient, effective and appropriate strategy for empowerment will only be

achieved if the client-practitioner relationship is based on the altruistic ethics of

mutual trust, respect, non-judgementalism, self-determination and confidentiality;

underpinned by empathetic approach to service delivery from the practitioner.

Nevertheless, in our society that is institutionally segregationist by reason of its

capitalist governance that rather upholds and sustain inequality, the extent of

maximising my client’s empowerment will always be a factor of my own

empowerment to empower others.

Bibliography

8

Adams, R. (1996) Social Work and Empowerment: Practical Social Work.

Basingstoke Hampshire: Macmillan Press ltd.

Ashrif, A. (2001). Lecture in Anti-oppressive Practice in Community Education. Leicester: DMU

Baistow, K. (1994)’Liberation and Regulation? Some Paradox of Empowerment’

Critical Social Policy, issue 42, vol. 14, no.3. pp. 34-46.

Banks, S. (2001) Ethics and Values in Social Work. 2nd (eds.) Basingstoke

Hampshire: Palgrave.

Batiwala, S. (1993) Empowerment of Women in South Asia. New Delhi: Asian-South

Pacific Bureau of Adult Education,

Beresford P. And Croft, S. (1986) Whose Welfare: Private care or public services?

London: Russell Press

Campbell, R.J. (1996). Psychiatric Dictionary (7th ed.). New York: Oxford University

Press.

Clark, C. (2000) Social Work Ethics: Politics, Principles and Practice. London:

Macmillan.

Crow, K. (2002) Neighbourhood Report: Chinatown; Use any colour shopping bag,

so long as it’s red. New York: They New York Times.

D'onofrio, R.S. (1992).Theory and the empowerment of health education

practitioners, Health education quarterly 19(3), 385703.

Gibson, C. (1991). A concept analysis of empowerment, Journal of Advanced

Nursing, 16,354361.

Mcleod, W. (1987) The New Collins Dictionary and Thesaurus vol. One. (2nd edn.)

London: Collins.

Moonie, N. (1999) Advanced Health and Social Care. 2nd (eds) Oxford: Heinemann

Educational Publishers.

9

Oxaal, Z. and Baden, S. (1997) Gender and empowerment: definitions, approaches

and implications for policy. Brighton: University of Sussex

Pearshall, J. and Trumble, B. (1996)The Oxford English Reference Dictionary

( Thumb index edn.) Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Rodwell, M. (1996).An analysis of the concept of empowerment, Journal of advance

nursing,

Rowlands, J, 1995, .Empowerment examined, Development in Practice 5 (2)

Thomas, M. and Pierson, J.(eds.) (1995). Dictionary of Social Work.. London: Collins Publishers.

Thompson N. (1998) Promoting Equality. . London: Russell House Publishing.

Thompson, N. (2007) Power and empowerment. London: Russell House Publishing.

UN, 1995b, The World’s Women 1995; Trends and Statistics. New York: United Nations.

Williams, S. et al., (1994), Oxfam Gender Training Manual. Oxford: Oxfam.

10