Heroic Agency

British Journal of Social Work (2012) 42, 1022–1038
doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcs062
Advance Access publication May 24, 2012
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjsw/article/42/6/1022/1626860 by Tulane University Library, Serials Acquisitions Dept. user on 01 December 2020
Getting beyond ‘Heroic Agency’ in
Conceptualising Social Workers as Policy
Actors in the Twenty-First Century
Greg Marston* and Catherine McDonald
Greg Marston is Professor of Social Policy in the School of Public Health and Social Work,
Queensland University of Technology, where he is involved in researching the impact of
social policies on communities and individuals. He is also interested in the mediating role that
organisations play in policy change and implementation. Catherine McDonald is Professor of
Social Work, School of Global Studies, Social Science and Planning, RMIT University.
Catherine has taught and researched in social work, social policy and the human services for
over twenty years and, in recent years, has focused her attention on the future of social work
under the conditions of neo-liberalism.
*Correspondence to Professor Greg Marston, School of Public Health and Social Work,
Faculty of Health, Queensland University of Technology, Kelvin Grove, Qld, 4059, Australia.
E-mail: [email protected]
Abstract
The professional project of social work assumes a particular orientation to human agency
on the part of social workers. Specifically, the social work educational literature focusing
on the nature of the profession suggests that social workers exert considerable control
over the means and ends of their practice. In this paper, we ask whether this assumption
is warranted. While we conceptualise this issue as relevant to the entire spectrum of pro-
fessional social work practice, here we discuss our claim in relation to social workers
adopting policy activist roles. We suggest that the actual engagement of social workers
in policy practice and political change in liberal democracies is muted and we canvas a
number of reasons that help explain why this is the case. We canvas the impact of naive
conceptualisations of what we call the ‘heroic agency’ of social work identity as employed
in texts used in pre-service social work education. Specifically, we pose the thesis that new
social work graduates, when immersed into the organisational rationalities of reconfi-
gured ‘welfare states’, may experience a considerable mismatch between the promise
of being a social change agent and their experience as a beginning practitioner,
making it difficult for them to confidently articulate their political identity and purpose.
Keywords: New managerialism, political agency, policy activism, professional identity
Accepted: January 2012
# The Author 2012. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of

The British Association of Social Workers. All rights reserved.
Conceptualising Social Workers as Policy Actors 1023
Introduction
Social work has been an important project of modernity. Its origin is part
of the modernist impulse to create a better world conducive to the devel-
opment of happy, healthy and industrious citizens. This normative orien-
tation continues to be relevant to the current period of late modernity
shaped, in large part, by the expansion of market capitalism across the
globe and its association with old and new inequalities. These conditions
pose a challenge to the profession, as they undermine the possibility of
pursuing a model of social protection committed to collective well-being.
The last twenty to thirty years have seen the triumph of a more individu-
alist understanding of social relations that weakens the idea of collective
responsibility (Young, 2011). Associated with this redrawing of rights and
responsibilities, the social science knowledge informing social work
practice has also undergone significant shifts. Critics of the welfare
state (e.g. Mead, 1997) have dismissed what they call sociological
and political-economy approaches to problems like poverty, and have
instead opted for behavioural-economic understandings of human
behaviour. The combined effect of these changes is to cast doubt on
the knowledge and actions of social workers as political actors, particular-
ly those social workers directly engaged in work that seeks to redress
social injustice and to influence public policy.
The validity and legitimacy of the radical tradition in social work knowl-
edge and practice have been thoroughly challenged by these developments
(Lymbery, 2001). One effect of this shifting landscape is the
de-politicisation of issues such as unemployment, homelessness and house-
hold poverty both within society and within the organisational settings
where most social workers practise. In the latter context, this process of
de-politicisation has been facilitated by the adoption of New Public Man-
agement, emphasising technical and managerial discourses and devaluing
the professional knowledge of social workers (Funnell, 1995). Overall,
this framing of social problems encourages those professions working on
social problems to adopt an ‘inward-looking’ perspective that minimises
the connections between structural change and the manifestation of individ-
ual problems. Our contention is that social work needs to maintain an
‘outward-looking’ perspective, particularly if it seeks to remain relevant
to the material needs of citizens and the goals of old and new social move-
ments that seek to redress injustices. In this paper, we suggest that the task
of ensuring social work remains relevant to contemporary political and
social change will require a number of steps, including (i) rethinking the
construction of the political agency of social workers to help re-establish
a clear and realistic purpose in social work education, (ii) questioning
assumptions about how social justice claims can be advanced in the contem-
porary period of global governance, (iii) identifying appropriate metaphors
1024 Greg Marston and Catherine McDonald
to re-imagine the political dimension of social work practice and (iv) revalu-
ing the local level of organisational practice as a site of policy activism.
Specifically, we mount an argument that the professional identity prof-
fered to beginning social work practitioners in pre-service educational
programmes is one that conceives workers as embodying and projecting
a form of human agency seemingly impervious to the many pitfalls em-
bedded in the world of contemporary practice. One such problem lies in
what we conceive here as the ‘heroic’ claims made about what social
workers can achieve in the name of empowerment and social justice.
These claims, historically more aligned with the radical tradition in
social work education and practice (Rojek et al., 1988), are often not
warranted when one considers the weight of recent evidence on how
social work as a profession has been actively involved in redressing
social disadvantage, growing inequality and continuing injustice.
Lymbery (2001) argues that an increase in destitution and social division
has combined with the demoralisation of social work to reduce its effect-
iveness in responding to social problems. In response, we suggest that
social justice needs to remain central to the social work mission;
however, we also argue that emerging practitioners should be supported
to develop greater clarity about what they can and cannot do in the
context of twenty-first-century spaces of social work practice.
In working through the steps to reconstruct social work, we must decon-
struct the contemporary manifestation of the professional project. First, we
outline the imagined identity of social workers reflected in literature pro-
duced for use in pre-service social work education. Second, we draw out
the proposed and actual nature of social work policy activism and policy
practice. Third, we address the notion of ‘heroic agency’—what we mean
and how it plays out, particularly in the genre of radical or critical social
work but nevertheless more broadly applicable. Fourth, we examine well-
known and well-documented New Public Management-inspired develop-
ments that have occurred in the actual spaces of practice over the past
twenty to thirty years and the impact these have had on professional auton-
omy and political agency of practitioners. Finally, we point to the concept of
‘friction’ as developed by Tsing (2004) as a useful metaphor for thinking
about the possibilities for challenging injustice at a local and international
level. This concept, we argue, helps us transcend one-dimensional notions
of power transfer as suggested by some writings on ‘empowerment’ (see
Bay (2003) for a critical analysis of empowerment social work) and helps
infuse a more deliberative conception of what emancipation means in a
global context. What we hope to achieve in the final section of the paper
is to furnish some new conceptual resources for social work education
and practice. Our core contention is that thinking critically and acting
politically are mutually informing skills for social workers interested in
intervening in the public sphere to advance social justice claims.
The imagined identity of social workers
The first part of our thesis is that the identity of the profession and of pro-
fessionals promoted in pre-service educational literature positions social
workers as having considerable capacity to achieve progressive social
change, particularly at levels beyond the individual—that is, at the organisa-
tional, policy and even at the societal level. We contend this is the case even
when such claims are hedged by prevarication. Such grand thinking has a
long tradition in social work. Writing as long ago as 1970, Harriet Bartlett,
a foundational contributor to the profession in the USA, argued that social
work is a profession that helps society ‘work better’. This mission continues
to be reflected in contemporary writing about the purpose of social work.
Here, we make this point by briefly examining professional identities and
roles present in literature originating from the International Federation
of Social Workers (IFSW), as well as examples drawn from Australia,
Great Britain, the USA and Canada. In the examples we canvass here,
we italicise those words and phrases that, in our view, promote ‘heroic
agency’.
We begin with the IFSW. In 2000, this organisation produced a much-
cited statement about the purpose of social work:
The social work profession promotes social change, problem solving in
human relations and the empowerment and liberation of people to
enhance wellbeing (IFSW, available online at www.ifsw.org/f38000138.
html, emphasis).
Later in the same statement, it claims that:

Social work addresses the barriers, inequities and injustices that exist in
society . . .. Interventions also include agency administration, community
organisation and engaging in social and political action to impact social
policy and economic development. The holistic focus of social work is uni-
versal, but the priorities of social work practice will vary from country to
country and from time to time depending on cultural, historical, and socio-
economic conditions (IFSW, available online at www.ifsw.org/f38000138.
html, emphasis).
In Australia, key authors Chenoweth and McAuliffe (2008) write:

To our mind, the purpose of practice can be summarised as follows: to pos-
ition human welfare and human rights as a primary social responsibility,
acknowledging that humanity exists in a balance with the environment,
and to celebrate and nurture the diversity of humanity. Social workers . . .
are charged with the responsibility of bringing to public notice the values,
attitudes, behaviours and social structures and economic imperatives that
cause of contribute to the oppression of human welfare and rights. They
are further charged with the duty to respond, with passion and hope, to
human needs wherever and however it is manifested, and to work towards
the attainment of social justice for individuals, groups and communities in
a local and global context (Chenoweth and McAuliffe, 2008, p. 13,
emphasis).
From Great Britain, Adams, Dominelli and Payne (1998) state that:
Social work, as a socially constructed project aiming to tackle oppression, is
in this sense a perpetually changing and unfinished project (Adams et al.,
1998, p. xvi, emphasis).
Dominelli, in a subsequent chapter (Adams et al., 1998) makes the follow-

ing claim about anti-oppressive practice:
Transcending commonsense attitudes about ‘difference’ requires the exer-
cise of an empathy which goes beyond placing oneself in another’s shoes
by daring to put these on and wear them for a while to develop a deep
understanding of the other person’s position whilst at the same time reflect-
ing on the privileged nature of one’s own (Adams et al., 1998, p. 10).
More recently (quoting the IFSW definition referred to above and writing
in the British context), Thompson and Thompson (2008) claim, among
other things, that social work promotes social change, is focused on em-
powerment and social change, enhances well-being and works to achieve
human rights and social justice. We provide these examples not to belittle
the authors or to undermine their intent. Rather, we wish to bring to the
forefront of our readers’ minds the manner in which the profession posi-
tions its collective identity and purpose. In these humanist definitions of
social work, the purpose is defined as acting in the interest of a person, a
group, a community in order to transform policy and practice in the
name of the ‘good society’ or more specifically in the name of redressing
a social or personal injustice. It is the triumph of agency over structure
that characterises these actions as heroic.
Social work literature has its fair share of heroes and heroines that exem-
plify this figure of transformative action. Going back as far as Jane Addams,
for example, in her pioneering settlement work in Chicago during the late
1800s and early 1900s, we can identify a narrative in an emerging concep-
tion of radical social work of overcoming significant structural obstacles
in order to improve standards of living for poor people in general and
women in particular. The reference to historical figures in professional
education serves the present in important ways; it helps to inspire the
moral imagination of beginning social workers seeking to make a difference
in the world. All vocations need historical figures and narratives that
embody certain principles if they are to be successful in offering a profes-
sional identity that is both inspirational and utopian in its ideal form.
There is nothing problematic about that proposition per se. What is prob-
lematic, however, is if these principles and narratives are not reworked
and refined to suit changing social, political and economic circumstances.
There are continuities across time and space about the nature of social
and political struggle, but there are also important discontinuities that
bring into the question the relevance of ‘heroic agency’ as a way of con-
ceptualising the purpose and legitimacy of social work. In thinking about
these discontinuities, we need to get beyond normative claims about the
means and ends of social work and consider some of the evidence about
how the idea of the social and the political are changing. Our purpose in
interrogating heroic agency is to promote sufficient destabilisation of the
imagined professional identity of social work to allow other possibilities
to emerge—other ways of thinking and acting that are more consistent
with uncertainty and complexity. In the next part of the paper, we
trace the notion of heroic agency as it manifests in policy practice specif-
ically, an arena of practice that we consider to be a core area of endeav-
our for social workers. We show that, despite every attempt to bring
order and certainty to social policy making through policy science and
policy training, a great deal of uncertainty still prevails.
Social workers as policy activists and policy practitioners

Social workers are always engaged in policy work, whether as end users, as
producers or somewhere in between, engaged in what Lipsky (2010) refers
to as a ‘street-level’ bureaucracy. In these spaces, social workers exercise
varying degrees of professional discretion in interpreting government
policy within the resource constraints and norms of a variety of organisa-
tional settings. Some social workers become official and semi-official
policy makers in their own right, either within or outside of government.
As such, teaching policy skills such as policy submission writing, political
lobbying and understanding government are a core part of the pre-service
social work curriculum. The social policy knowledge and the skills taught,
however, can also promote limitations in how agency and purpose of
social work policy activism are conceptualised—an understanding encapsu-
lated by our notion of social workers as ‘heroic agents’. There is a real risk
that what is presented in social work education about what is required by
social workers to secure conditions for the ‘good life’ continues to be con-
ceptualised in what Nancy Fraser (2009) refers to as the ‘Westphalian
frame’. This term refers to the hegemonic idea that the subjects of socio-
political justice (social work clients) are more often than not constituted
with reference to the national territorial state. This position, as we demon-
strate subsequently, is inadequate, especially when coupled with a concep-
tualisation of social workers as heroic agents. What is required are
principles that can supplement this national frame to deal with the more
complex realities of acting under conditions of contemporary global gov-
ernance. Nancy Fraser (2009) explains this point in relation to the need
to rethink the Western welfare state so that other political spaces emerge
in which social workers as policy activists can act:
The idea that state-territoriality can serve as a proxy for social effectivity is
no longer plausible. Under current conditions, one’s chances to live a good
life do not depend wholly on the internal political constitution of the
territorial state in which one resides. Although the latter remains undeni-
ably relevant, its effects are mediated by other structures, both extra and
non-territorial, whose impact is at least significant (Fraser, 2009, p. 25).
We can elaborate on the example that Fraser uses to make this point, which
is manufacturing goods and economic justice for workers in a global
economy. While capital flows to parts of the world where the labour is
cheapest, those made dependent on that capital through the sale of their
labour are unable to leave when that capital takes flight. The shoe and
clothing factories in Indonesia where people live in conditions of abject
poverty in labour camps is an apt illustration of this predicament. It also
helps to illustrate the connections that make territorial justice struggles
(such as national anti-poverty campaigns) difficult to sustain. In the face
of rising living costs in developed countries, consumers may demand
lower prices for goods. The workers that produce those cheap goods are
demanding better wages and conditions. Not only are the parties to the
justice claim in dispute, but so is the arena/s in which these justice claims
are heard and debated. Offshore interests, such as multinational companies,
try to influence domestic debate, even as nationalists and local democrats
seek to territorialise them. Similarly, the offshore workers’ economic inter-
ests are to dismantle protectionist trade barriers, while the domestic trade
unions seek to resist neo-liberal encroachment and protect local jobs
through higher prices for imported goods. International bodies, such as
the World Trade Organisation, seek to facilitate this free movement of
capital through their influence on national governments. At the same
time, civil society actors and social movements may protest the very
legitimacy and authority of the World Trade Organisation. The effect of
these developments, argues Nancy Fraser (2009), is a bewildering lack of
consensus even among professed social democrats about how to understand
the injustice, let alone redress it.
In light of this example, we need to ask how do social workers act as
policy activists when the ‘who’ the ‘what’ and the ‘how’ of social justice
are all in dispute? We will return to this question in the final part of the
paper. For the moment, our purpose is to problematise the framing of
justice and the idea that there can be certainty about how to proceed as a
policy activist. Social work, as a creature of modernity, has traditionally
sought to overcome uncertainty through its faith in social science-informed
technical knowledge as a basis for action. The embrace of ‘evidence-based’
social work and ‘evidence-based policy’ illustrates this desire for certainty
in the face of deeply conflictual and fraught practice contexts. There has
been considerable debate about both of these related movements (Webb,
2001) that emerged out of evidence-based medicine and their relevance
for the social work profession (see McDonald, 2003). One of the criticisms
of previous social justice claims making is the assertion of technical expert-
ise by social workers as policy practitioners, particularly when they rely on a
rational policy-making paradigm. Within this paradigm, it is the social
worker as ‘hero’ who, when armed with ‘facts’ and the ‘truth’, prevails
over disorder, entrenched power and politics. This naive and positivist
conception of policy practice has been thoroughly challenged by the
argumentative turn in policy analysis (Fischer and Forrester, 1993), delib-
erative policy making (Fischer, 2003) and interpretative approaches to
policy analysis (Yanow, 2000).
In deliberative and interpretative approaches to policy activity, the
practitioner must engage in understanding how different communities
and interests understand a given social problem and, as such, the role
of a policy activist in the political sphere is more about acting as an in-
terpreter and mediator of competing worldviews, rather than a technical
legislator (Bauman, 1987). These ways of doing policy work may not be
as expedient as ‘top-down’ policy approaches; however, they are likely
to be more inclusive and therefore more consistent with how social
workers engage with communities of interest. Participatory action
research frameworks, community development approaches and delibera-
tive democracy are all examples of a more inclusive mode of political
engagement and policy development that involve social work practi-
tioners (McBride, 2005). What works against these modes of policy
research and action, however, are the concrete organisational realities
that many social workers now find themselves within. In the next
section, we discuss the governance effects of New Public Management
and its impact on social work within public sector organisations and
its reach into non-profits and charities.
Limits on political agency arising from without

and within organisational settings
Recently, there have been growing concerns that social work as a profession
and individual social workers are disengaging from policy practice. For
example:
Social Work’s adoption of micro practice and hyper-professionalism led to a
form of anti-intellectualism, which manifested itself in several ways, includ-
ing a partial withdrawal from its earlier social justice mission. For example,
a cursory examination of the two leading social work education journals
(Journal of Social Work Education and Social Work Education) showed
that in 2001 – 2002 they published 167 articles, only 19 addressed diversity
and social justice . . .. Current pressure to firm up a professional identity
has also produced practitioners that function mainly as administrators and
clinicians, while overlooking the historic role of advocate and public intel-
lectual (Karger and Hernandez, 2004).
There are many reasons why this trend has continued—the rise of neo-
liberalism and associated social conservatism have had a major impact on
the purpose of social work (see Lymbery, 2001), as have the associated con-
straints imposed by New Public Management—especially in the public
sector, but also in the non-profit sector. Other broader factors include the
speed of economic and social change and the general rise in ‘amoral famil-
ism’, defined as an unwillingness in a society by its members to engage in
activities devoted to the collective good because of an overinvestment in
the well-being of the nuclear family (Banfield, 1958). And, for social work
in Australia and the UK, limited involvement in policy advocacy is a
major issue. A relative lack of profile in the policy process compared to
other professions (e.g. lawyers) increasingly renders social work irrelevant
to the decisions that shape the experiences of disadvantaged populations
and the organisational conditions of social work practice. While the trade
unions can advance reform of social work labour conditions, the profession-
al associations have a responsibility to be actively engaged in policy debates.
However, Lymbery (2001, p. 380) points to the fact that, in the UK, the
British Association of Social Workers has not been able to operate as an
effective mass-membership organisation, thereby limiting its ability to
affect the destiny of the profession. The perceived irrelevance of profession-
al association raises important questions about what sorts of factors are
shaping social work identities and actions in organisational settings.
As is well known, the last twenty years of the twentieth century witnessed
the rise and eventual dominance in the liberal welfare states of the doctrines
of New Public Management in public administration (Peters, 1996; Rhodes,
1994). In combination with various programmes of welfare reform, these
had the effect of transforming welfare service delivery in both the state
and non-state sectors. Drawing on micro-economics in the form of public
choice theory (Buchanan and Tullock, 1980) and principle-agent theory
(Grossman and Hart, 1983), these processes drew previously autonomous
and distinct state agencies into the now dominant logic of the market that
has penetrated many aspects of state activity. Just as neoclassical economics
is centrally implicated in the reconfiguration of national economies, public
choice and principal-agent theories reconfigured the state. In doing so,
professional autonomy was deemed problematic and was increasingly
challenged and systematically eroded.
In the language of public choice theory, rational actors (in this case, social
workers) wish, at all times, to maximise their own return by using their pos-
ition for material self-advancement and enrichment. As a consequence of
this, advocates of public choice theory argue that policy and service delivery
in the human services is distorted away from the preferences and interests
of the majority of citizens. The (assumed) characteristics of public servants
(again, read social workers) cause them to run service delivery agencies in
their own interests rather than in the interests of economic and social
efficiency, a supposed phenomenon known as rent seeking.
Agency theory is a particularly influential strand of public choice theory,
introducing many of the concepts that now characterise public service deliv-
ery, such as the notions of principals and agents. Agency theory examines
the relationship between principals and agents. These roles operate in a cas-
cading chain of relationships from politicians to department heads down
through the hierarchy of administration all the way to the team leader
and the front line social worker. A principal is she who sets the task; an
agent is he who implements it. The central problem for principals is how
to control agents, particularly opportunistic agents such as professionals
(social workers) who may harbour pretensions of autonomy.
When set in motion, both sets of theory underpin the design prescriptions
of New Public Management, which, among other things, is clearly related to
increased distrust of bureaucracy and disquiet about the autonomy, practices
and decisions of bureau-professions such as social work (Harris, 2003). Social
workers now find themselves firmly drawn into redesigned service delivery
systems that, in turn, promote new forms of control and accountability.
They must demonstrate efficiency and effectiveness within the calculative
rationality of the principal. Performance measurement and performance
indicators represent one (albeit very effective) tool of this rationality. (We
note that there are others, such as performance appraisal, performance-
related pay, quality assurance, total quality management, risk, audit and so
forth.) Through their use, control is exerted all the way down from the
centre of government to the street-level of service delivery—through all
aspects of policy, programme and service delivery (Newman, 2001).
In these new circumstances, what is deemed as ‘effective’ is determined not
by the profession, but by politicians. These same people are themselves heavily
influenced by the ideas of New Public Management and by the political impera-
tives of the day dominated by the twenty-four-hour news cycle—imperatives
that, in many cases, are generated by mass media, which regularly underesti-
mate and oversimplify the nature of the problems faced and responses made
by such operatives as social workers. In this way, the emerging design principles
of the reformed state become the driving force for the reconstitution of profes-
sional practice. This then brings us back to the question about how to act in the
conditions of the present. In addressing this question, the next and final section
of the paper tentatively suggests some new metaphors and conceptual
resources for thinking about the political agency of social workers, particularly
those regularly engaged in policy activism, broadly defined.
Possible pathways for conceptualising social workers

as policy actors
From the discussion above, it is clear that one of the ways in which the
agency of social workers needs to be rethought is in line with the same
way we must rethink the expansion and contraction of the welfare state. As
discussed previously, it is important to think beyond the national frame in
conceptualising how to act in making social justice claims. Here, we think
there needs to be a continuing emphasis on redistribution and the inequal-
ities arising from mal-distribution of economic and social resources, both
nationally and internationally. The economic realm remains important to
social work practice in addressing social injustice. The cultural realm is
also a sphere of social action that the social worker must attend to as a pol-
itical agent. Discourses that circulate in the public sphere about disadvan-
tage can add what Nancy Fraser (1990) succinctly refers to as adding
cultural insult to economic injury. Constructing the long-term unemployed
as ‘dole-bludgers’ or ‘scroungers’ in the public sphere serves to legitimate a
punitive policy response and limited resource allocation in addressing the
problem of unemployment. As such, matters of recognition are inextricably
tied to redistribution and, accordingly, social workers as political agents
must become adept at working both material and cultural injustices.
The case of refugees and the conservative politics of border protection is
a good illustration of the connection between material and cultural justice.
When refugees are demonised by politicians and the mass media as ‘illegals’
or ‘queue jumpers’ (as they regularly do in Australia and other countries), it
becomes possible to deny this group of people material resources granted to
others. The discourse of illegality is powerful precisely because it resonates
within a society that supposedly respects and upholds the rule of law. Con-
structing people as ‘unlawful’ puts them on the side of a moral binary that
works against their claims to be recognised as a person with rights. To
address these injustices, social workers must become involved alongside
members of these communities in reframing these identities in the public
sphere. In Australia, for example, social workers in multicultural commu-
nity organisations and members of the public and local councils have
been effective in organising competitive football teams involving both refu-
gees and members of the mainstream community. These sporting events
have attracted positive local and national media attention, which has
helped to break down cultural stereotypes and a politics of mistrust
between new arrivals and the established community (Ollif, 2008).
The cognitive scientist George Lakoff (2003) argues that cultural refram-
ing is an important aspect of political work in a variety of contexts, such as
the media, workplaces and other sites of practice. For social workers, this
means knowing one’s values and being prepared to articulate them in chal-
lenging myths and stereotypes. Arguably, it is a collective and professional
responsibility to challenge cultural misrecognition when it is encountered.
Lakoff (2003) argues that cultural frames are more powerful determinants
of political and social attitudes than available evidence. He suggests that,
when a politician or policy maker is confronted with a fact or a piece of in-
formation that contradicts his or her mental frame, it is often the inconveni-
ent fact that is rejected. Similarly, we know from research into the
connection between the internet and political opinions that, more often
than not, citizens use the internet to locate information and knowledge
that reinforces rather than challenges their political views (Muhlberger,
2006). So, it is not enough to speak truth to power, as a naive conception
of heroic agency in rational policy practice would lead us towards. We
must also contest the frame itself, which, in an international sense of politics
and justice, means questioning the state – territorial frame when it is
imposed on transnational sources of injustice. Nancy Fraser expands on
this point in her argument for a three-dimensional politics of misdistribu-
tion, misrecognition and misrepresentation in relation to feminism:
Developing such a three dimensional politics is by no means easy. Yet it

holds out tremendous promise for a third phase of feminist struggle. On
the one hand, this approach rebalance[s] . . . the politics of recognition and
the politics of redistribution. On the other hand, it . . . explicitly contest[s]
injustices of mis-framing Fraser (2009: p. 121).
This emphasis on the transnational in Nancy Fraser’s work is consistent

with the emerging interest and scholarship in global social work. The
recent contribution by Harrison and Melville (2010), Rethinking Social
Work in a Global World, offers an example of how social work scholarship
can bridge critical theory and social work to expand the imaginary of polit-
ical action to include transnational actors and landscapes. The book
explores contemporary global issues such as the environment, new informa-
tion and communications technologies, and examines the implications of
adopting global notions of citizenship for social work. This emerging litera-
ture is engaging with post-colonial writing and critical ethnography in
moving the conceptual apparatus of social work practice forward. A critical
ethnographer and anthropologist’s work of particular interest here is Anna
Tsing (2004) and her conception of ‘friction’ as a metaphor for thinking
about how to act as a political agent in the contemporary context. Meta-
phors help to establish a new frame because they include representations
of the social and physical world in new and novel ways.
Challenging the widespread view that globalisation invariably signifies a
‘clash’ of cultures, for example, Tsing (2004) develops friction in its place as
a metaphor for the diverse and conflicting social interactions that make up
our contemporary world. Tsing (2004) defines friction as the awkward,
unequal, unstable and creative qualities of interconnection across differ-
ence. It is these relations of difference that mean neither party to the en-
counter can go on unchanged by the contact. Friction is an appropriate
metaphor in thinking about social change in the contemporary period
because it helps to overcome the fatalistic thinking that can sometimes be
associated with the discourse of globalisation. In the popular conception
of globalisation, the flow of goods, ideas, money and people proceeds en-
tirely without friction. Tsing (2004) gives political thinkers and policy acti-
vists a way of working through the productive friction of global connections
to see what sorts of unpredictable and uncertain possibilities for emancipa-
tion might emerge. Tsing (2004) wants us to go beyond thinking about
globalisation as a programme of integration that is unfolding towards
some dystopian or utopian end point. Given the social work profession’s
interest in social justice, the point here is to follow connections to see
whose social justice claims are relevant, from what perspectives and in
what frame (national and extra-national).
Finally, we want to return to how this construction of policy activism
relates to the question of moral agency and purpose—an issue of direct rele-
vance to articulating what social work can achieve in the contemporary
period. Our emphasis in this paper has been to start from a more humble
position. We have suggested that being presented with a socio-cultural dis-
course of passive agency in the face of marketisation and a professional dis-
course about the possibilities that arise when ‘heroic agents’ confront social
structures can be difficult for beginning practitioners to reconcile. Rossiter
(2005, p. 4) argues, in her insightful analysis of these contradictory dis-
courses of agency and responsibility, that social workers as people suffer
when the results of practice seem so meagre in comparison to the ideals in-
herent in social work education, in agency expectations and in implicit
norms that define professional activity. The result of this asymmetry can
be ambivalence, uncertainty and doubt. A more humble starting point
helps to reduce the contradiction, while maintaining a politics of hope.
This position is similar to what Marion Young proposes when she talks
about the idea of the perhaps in conceptualising political agency:
Let us try together to alter the social processes that we understand produce
injustices and perhaps we will have some success. People in solidarity for the
sake of justice are determined to improve social relations, but they are also
tentative.
This conceptualisation also means looking past large-scale structural

change as an indicator of the efficacy of political agency. Returning to
the discussion of New Public Management, we should acknowledge, for
example, those moments when social workers refuse to use the generic
market language of ‘customer’ when referring to ordinary citizens in their
everyday practice (Marston, 2004). Some social workers working within
large and small organisations have learned to become ‘bi-lingual’, strategic-
ally using managerial language when communicating with funding bodies or
senior managers to secure funding and other resources, while using a more
explicit social justice discourse when connecting with ordinary citizens and
their struggles (Marston, 2004). This ‘double speak’ might be interpreted as
a form of conservative resistance—a better starting point, we think, is to
acknowledge and validate the multiple forms of political agency that exist
at all levels of policy practice. The local level of social work practice is
acknowledged as an important site of policy practice (Brodkin, 2000)
and, as such, we need to develop a clearer recognition of the political
potential inherent in everyday interactions between workers and citizens.
Symbolic refusals and covert resistance can sometimes amount to a
seismic shift—a point acknowledged by Scott (1990) in his work on the
potential power of practical resistance in confronting domination:
These are the forms that political struggle takes when frontal assaults are pre-
cluded by the realities of power. At another level it is well to recall that the
aggregation of thousands upon thousands of such ‘petty’ acts of resistance
have dramatic economic and political effects (Scott, 1990, pp. 191 – 2).
In emphasising the importance of the discursive dimension of political

action, we take our analytical cue from governmentality studies (Dean,
1999) that suggest that an important point of political action is to make
hegemonic truths appear as neither inevitable nor natural, so that other pos-
sibilities might emerge. For social workers in policy settings, this might
mean making explicit the behavioural or economic determinism that under-
pins devalued social identities, such as ‘welfare dependant’, ‘bad tenant’ or
‘illegal immigrant’. Highlighting alternative forms of social organisation
might also be done through social workers being actively engaged in
social research experiments or comparative policy research that challenges
prevailing policy assumptions.
The point of these interventions is to open up a space for inclusive policy
deliberation. The conception of a more ‘humble’ political agency being
articulated here does not mean giving up on a claim to the universal, par-
ticularly universal discourses such as human rights. The universal remains
necessary for ambitions for a better future. The universal is always
present in the work of political agency. Inspiration for action always
begins with and ends with a claim for something in the name of the univer-
sal. We must, however, also accept that the universal is given meaning
through the particular, and it is these local contexts that require us to pay
attention to the complexity of social relations and social problems. For
social workers as policy activists, this means abandoning the modernist
search for one policy or variable as either the sole cause or the sole solution.
Social problems are always made up of interconnected policies and prac-
tices and, in many cases, it is difficult to find a single culprit. Simple
moral binaries and single cause-and-effect chains can inadvertently
promote blind spots in thinking clearly about the who, what and how of
social justice in the twenty-first century. This lack of clarity can lead to
confusion about how to act and what can be achieved, which can have an
immobilising effect on beginning social workers.
Conclusion
In this paper, we have attempted to deconstruct and then reconstruct a form
of policy activism that suits the present conditions of social work practice.
Overall, what we have tried to do is sketch a reconceptualised political
agency to encourage social work to gain some critical purchase in policy
change and activism, while at the same time not giving up hope that
social work can make a positive and progressive difference. In the face of
evidence of growing social inequality, social workers undoubtedly need in-
dividual hope to inspire collective action. What might seem to be unrealistic
hope can begin in considering the possibility that tiny cracks might yet
break open the dam and contingent openings are sites of unexpected
force—for better or for worse (Tsing, 2004). But, given the unpredictable
nature of these encounters of friction, we can also embrace the liberating
thought that social workers are not acting alone as heroic agents. There is
no certainty that anyone’s actions, acting individually or collectively, will
be the factor that breaks the dam wall. If we think about policy practice,
with or without the benefit of hindsight, it is inherently difficult to deter-
mine the decisive factors that lead to policy change. It could have been
the persuasively written submission, the delegation to the Minister, publicly
drawing on the discourse of universal human rights and a nation’s obliga-
tions under those conventions in a media interview that made the differ-
ence. Or it could have been that the Minister was simply trying to win
favour from his or her more left-wing colleagues in caucus because they
needed their support for an unrelated piece of legislation in the near
future. As such, the social worker as policy activist must live with uncer-
tainty and accept the inevitability of politics in policy change and they
must be agile enough to work with diverse coalitions and unexpected
allies to effect change.
Indeed, we have suggested the social worker as policy activist needs to
eschew mono-modal self-conceptualisations that position the professional
self as a ‘heroic agent’ capable of single-handedly effecting individual and
social change on a large scale. As Lymbery (2001, p. 381) concludes:
some writing about social work has tended to identify radical practice as
existing entirely at the structural level, implicitly devaluing the small-scale
activities with which social workers are typically engaged. What we have
tried to do here is to acknowledge the potential for political change
within local organisational settings, while remaining cognisant of how prac-
tice settings have changed dramatically over the last twenty to thirty years.
We have offered some directions consistent with a framing of justice that is
deliberative and inclusive, but also humble about what might be achieved.
We are not suggesting this is the only way to map out a way of pursuing
social justice and policy reform in the conditions of the present. We hope
this paper makes a contribution to the ongoing conversation about how
the purpose and identity of social work can be clarified in the interests of
providing a confident and socially engaged professional identity for
beginning practitioners.
References
Adams, R., Dominelli, L. and Payne, M. (eds) (1998) Social Work: Themes, Issues and
Critical Debates, Basingstoke, Macmillan.
Banfield, E. (1958) The Moral Basis of a Backward Society, New York, Free Press.
Bartlett, H. (1970) The Common Base of Social Work Practice, New York, National
Association of Social Workers.
Bauman, Z. (1987) Legislators and Interpreters: On Modernity, Post-Modernity and
Intellectuals, Oxford, Polity Press.
Bay, U. (2003) ‘Theorising the radical potential of empowerment social work’, TASA
2003 Conference, University of New England, 4 – 6 December 2003.
Brodkin, E. (2000) ‘Street-level research: Policy at the front lines’, in T. Corbett
and M. C. Lennon (eds), Policy into Action: Implementation Research and Welfare
Reform, Washington, DC, Urban Institute Press.
Buchanan, J. and Tullock, G. (1980) Towards a Theory of the Rent-Seeking Society,
Texas, A and M Press.
Chenoweth, L. and McAuliffe, D. (2008) The Road to Social Work Practice,
South Melbourne, Cengage Learning.
Dean, M. (1999) Governmentality: Power and Rule in Modern Society, London, Sage.
Fischer, F. (2003) Reframing Public Policy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Fischer, J. and Forrester, F. (eds) (1993) The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and
Planning, Durham, Duke University Press.
Fraser, N. (1990) ‘Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually
existing democracy’, Social Text, 25/26, pp. 56– 80.
Fraser, N. (2009) Scales of Justice: Reimagining Political Space in a Globalizing World,
New York, Columbia University Press.
Funnell, R. (1995) ‘Corporatism, self and identity within moral orders’, in R. Smith
and P. Wexler (eds), After Postmodernism: Education, Politics and Identity,
London, The Falmer Press, pp. 156 –81.
Grossman, S. J. and Hart, O. D. (1983) ‘An analysis of the principal-agent problem’,
Econometrica, 51, pp. 7– 46.
Harris, J. (2003) The Social Work Business, London, Routledge.
Harrison, G. and Melville, R. (2010) Rethinking Social Work in a Global World,
Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan.
International Federation of Social Work (2000) Definition of social work, available
online at www.ifsw.org/f38000138.html.
Karger, H. and Hernandez, M. T. (2004) ‘The decline of the public intellectual in social
work’, Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 31(3), pp. 51 – 68.
Lakoff, G. (2003) Don’t Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate,
New York, Chelsea Green Publishing.
Lipsky, M. (2010) Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Ser-
vices, 30th Anniversary Expanded Edition, New York, Russell Sage Foundation.
Lymbery, M. (2001) ‘Social work at the crossroads’, British Journal of Social Work, 31,
pp. 369 – 84.
Marston, G. (2004) Social Policy and Discourse Analysis: Policy Change in Public
Housing, Hampshire, Ashgate Publishing, Farnham.
McBride, C. (2005) ‘Deliberative democracy and the politics of recognition’, Political
Studies, 53(2), pp. 497 – 515.
McDonald, C. (2003) ‘Forward via the past, evidence based practice as strategy in social
work’, The Drawing Board: An Australian Review of Public Affairs, 3(3), pp. 123 – 42.
Mead, L. (1997) Beyond Entitlement: The Social Obligations of Citizenship, New York,
Free Press.
Muhlberger, P. (2006) ‘Political values, political attitudes, and attitude polarization in
internet political discussion: Political transformation or politics as usual?’, Communi-
cations, 28(2), pp. 107 – 33.
Newman, J. (2001) Modernising Governance: New Labour, Policy and Society, London,
Sage.
Ollif, L. (2008) ‘Playing for the future: The role of sport and recreation in supporting
refugee young people to “settle well” in Australia’, Youth Studies Australia, 27(1),
pp. 52 – 60.
Peters, G. (1996) The Future of Governing: Four Emerging Models, Lawrence, University
of Kansas Press.
Rhodes, W. (1994) ‘The hollowing out of the state: The changing nature of the public
service in Britain’, Political Quarterly, 65, pp. 138 – 51.
Rojek, C., Peacock, C. and Collins, S. (1988) Social Work and Received Ideas, London,
Routledge.
Rossiter, A. (2005) ‘Discourse analysis in critical social work: From apology to question’,
Critical Social Work, 6(1), pp. 1 – 8.
Scott, J. (1990) Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts, Yale, Yale
University Press.
Thompson, N. and Thompson, S. (2008) The Social Work Companion, Basingstoke,
Palgrave Macmillan.
Tsing, A. (2004) Friction: An Ethnography of Global Connection, Princeton, Princeton
University Press.
Webb, S. A. (2001) ‘Some considerations on the validity of evidence based practice in
social work’, British Journal of Social Work, 31, pp. 57 – 79.
Yanow, D. (2000) Conducting Interpretive Policy Analysis, Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage.
Young, I. (2011) Responsibility for Justice, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Heroic Agency

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Heroic Agency

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Heroic Agency

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

British Journal of Social Work (2012) 42, 1022–1038

Keywords: New managerialism, political agency, policy activism, professional identity

Accepted: January 2012

# The Author 2012. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of

Later in the same statement, it claims that:

In Australia, key authors Chenoweth and McAuliffe (2008) write:

Dominelli, in a subsequent chapter (Adams et al., 1998) makes the follow-

Social workers as policy activists and policy practitioners

Limits on political agency arising from without

Possible pathways for conceptualising social workers

Developing such a three dimensional politics is by no means easy. Yet it

This emphasis on the transnational in Nancy Fraser’s work is consistent

This conceptualisation also means looking past large-scale structural

In emphasising the importance of the discursive dimension of political

You might also like