Curriculum „Enhancing participative practice in social work”
3. Level 1: Basic academic level (1st cycle) module
3.4. Lesson 4 (3 hours): Conceptual clarifications 2: Political contexts of participation
Theme | Topic | Guiding questions |
Participation as a right |
Social and civil rights movements and their demands: Social movements (feminism, black empowerment, civil rights, disability rights, gay rights …) criticise In response, international and national legislation opened up new or stronger participation and self- representation rights Examples: “Convention on the Rights of the Child” (UNICEF, https://www.unicef.org/child-rights-convention) or the UN “Convention on the Rights of Disabled Democracy as an instrument for both inclusion and exclusion? “Grounds for optimism” are the |
Looking back in history, In what areas are you or would you like to become active to campaign for better participation rights? Where would you draw the line and limit public participation rights to |
Participation as an |
The neoliberal critique of prioritising citizen rights over citizen obligations. Activation as pre-condition for participation Examples: “In variance to the previous government (in Finland), the government in power from 2011–2015 that continued implementing policies for active citizenship and participation, changed the ideological focal point of Finnish citizenship from social rights and benefits to an obligation to work. This impacted the distribution of citizenship rights and duties in a way that increased inequality”(Matthies, Närhi, & Kokkonen, 2018, 10).
|
How do you perceive your social rights as a citizen of your country – do they Discuss indications of the following phenomena in current political |
Participation as "consumer choice" |
Privatisation of former public services is being advertised by governments as “giving service users as customers and consumers a wider range of options to choose from”. Trends in the “outsourcing” of social and care services, creation of a “market of services” instead of the “monopoly” of state services create new forms and conditions of participation. “Participation under ideology-determined social policy conditions of neoliberalism becomes “Janus faced… We argue that this type of two-fold participation paradigm deepens the disparity within society, as people dependent on welfare services and in a precarious labour market situation do not benefit from the greater freedoms, and instead have to behave according to the increased expectations |
Can public goods and services be treated like commercial goods and services? What are the likely effects of the emphasis on personal choice for |
Risks for a “mechanical” application |
The inflationary, prescribed use of participation can lead to the concept becoming |
In what context does the invitation / condition to practice participation arise? What is the declared and what is the hidden agenda of a programme that |
Resources:
Beresford, P. (2010). Public partnerships, governance and user involvement: A service user perspective. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 34(5), 495-502. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2010.00905.x
Boone, K., Roets, G. a Roose, R. (2019). Raising a critical consciousness in the struggle against poverty: Breaking a culture of silence. Critical Social Policy, 39(3), 434–454.
Cornwall, A. a Brock, K. (2005). What do buzzwords do for development policy? A critical look at ‘participation’, ‘empowerment’ and ‘poverty reduction’. Third World Quarterly, 26(7), 1043-1060.
*della Porta, D. (2022). Progressive Social Movements and the Creation of European Public Spheres. Theory, Culture and Society, 39 (4). https://doi.org/10.1177/02632764221103510
Handler, J. F. (2005). Workfare Work: The Impact of Workfare on the Worker / Client Relationship. Social Work 3 (2), 174–181.
Matthies, A.-L., Närhi, K. a Kokkonen, T. (2018). The Promise and Deception of Participation in Welfare Services for Unemployed Young People. Critical Social Work, 19(2), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.22329/csw.v19i2.5677
Roets, G., Roose, R., De Bie, M., Claes, L. a Van Hove, G. (2012). Pawns or pioneers? The logic of user participation in anti-poverty policy making in public policy units in Belgium, Social Policy & Administration, 46(7), 807–822. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9515.2012.00847
*Rosanvallon, P. (2011). The Metamorphoses of Democratic Legitimacy: Impartiality, Reflexivity, Proximity. Constellations 18 (2), 114–123. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8675.2011.00631.x
Taylor-Gooby, P. (1989). The politics of welfare privatization: The British experience. International Journal of Health Services 19 (2). https://doi.org/10.2190/NGX2-3YK9-CRKU-P4T3
*Tronto, J.C. (2013): Caring Democracy. Markets, Equality, and Justice. New York University Press.
Watson, S. (2015). Does welfare conditionality reduce democratic participation? Comparative Political Studies, 48 (5), 645–686.