“1 – an economic model – whereby capital is created and circulated; 2 – a social model – whereby one class the bourgeoisie, exploits the other, the proletariat; 3 – an ideological model – whereby ideas and the apparatus of the state are used to maintain and justify exploitation”
Slattery, (1991). Pg.181 & 182
Marx argued that when alienation occurs within the workforce this has a direct effect upon the worker at home for when a person is unhappy in their work then this will normally be brought home to the family-causing disharmony. Alienation within communities can take on many forms and is still apparent in today’s society for example – on a council estate in Higher Broughton Salford, the council’s initiative was to integrate people from young and older generations. They built fifteen bungalows for people aged over 60 in the centre of twenty-four family houses. This initiative has not met its purpose at all if any thing it has increased alienation particularly for the older people. This is because many of the family homes as suggested have children many of who are quite young who want to play boisterous games. This has caused conflict between the children who want to play and the older people who want a quiet life, and the parents who cannot seem to be able to find a happy medium. Many of the older people now face the feelings of discontent and isolation that appear from alienation but in such circumstances is there a happy medium.
However, where Marx was pessimistic in his approach to alienation by seeing people trapped in occupational roles and dividing society into antagonistic social classes. Durkheim another sociological thinker was optimistic in his approach to society. He saw a number of problems arising from industrial societies but believed the division of labour outweighed these problems. Durkheim believed tat in pre-industrial societies everyone was form the same mould sharing the same beliefs, values and to appoint the same roles within a close knit communal life. Durkheim saw this as social solidarity in pre-industrial societies based on the similarities; he called this unity mechanical solidarity. Solidarity in industrial societies was based on differences between people i.e. they did not share the same beliefs, morals and values and roles were not similar. However, people still worked together despite this towards an end product. Durkheim used the term organic solidarity to explain this. He believed that the specialised division of labour and the rapid expansion of industrial society contained threats to social solidarity. Haralambos & Holborn (1991). Durkheim explained the conflict of tension between individuals in society was an absence of normlessness in which he termed it anomie. The concept of anomie has been adopted to explain many ideologies juvenile delinquency and the collapse of social consensus in societies like Northern Ireland.
In the 19th centuries, the community relied heavily upon welfare. However, welfare was mainly in the form of ‘self help’ such as friendly societies and trade unions. Friendly societies emerged much earlier than this and in a form continue today. They provided financial assistance in emergencies such as sickness and death. In return, the parish that at the time controlled the principle collected a small weekly fee. However, this initiative was only open to the skilled working classes and above. Towards the end of the 19th century the co-operative society emerged which was later given friendly society status. It helped the working classes by providing unadulterated food, running voluntary hospitals with a national system of panel doctors, which were financed by health insurance contributions, which were collected by co-operative societies.
In 1906 the liberal government won a landslide victory, although welfare reform was not on the agenda it did come in terms of a non contributory means tested old age pension for those of seventy or more. However, this was quite ridiculous as the life expectancy at this time was 48. National health and unemployment benefits were introduced by the 1911 act. Contribution and benefit levels were laid down by parliament but were managed by friendly societies at local levels. Mayo (1994)
Throughout the 1920’s and 1930’s, there were many economic problems. The general strike of 1926 was taken in May in support for the miners who were resisting the imposition of logger hours and lower pay. Since the end of world war one strikes at individual pits had become common and much social unrest between miners and mine owners the government had failed to come up with anything to solve the dispute and eventually the trade union congress called a general strike of all railway, road transport, iron, steel, printing and building industries to stop work. This was direct action at a national level. Throughout the 30’s there was periods of mass hunger mainly because of the Wall Street crash that occurs in New York in October 1929 the slump led to massive unemployment and it was estimated that more than 3 million people in Great Britain were unemployed. This led to a big shift in public attitudes and government policy towards welfare provision. Not to mention the breeding ground for the outbreak of World War 2. Baldock et al (2000)
This led to the Beveridge report in 1941. Beveridge’s purpose was to tidy up the welfare state and redesign British welfare through a series of legislation. This served to eradicate what Beveridge termed the five evils, which were want, squalor, ignorance, disease and idleness, these changes came at a time when Britain had victory in world war 2. The prize was security from ‘ the cradle to the grave’ – the report also became the benchmark for welfare that in a way still exists today. Baldock et al (2000)
Throughout the 50’s and 60’s, there was a period of consensus. The consensus was built upon an expanding confident national and international economy. It reflected rising levels of living standards, low unemployment and high levels of trade. It was a period of affluence. The period of 1968 – mid 70’s was a time when community work began to flourish in both statutory and voluntary sectors, as the stat became more involved in addressing issues of social, political and economic change. This led to the development of two major issues within community work the urban programme and the community development projects. Popple (1996)
Popple (1996) argues that the urban programme emerged,
“As a response by the labour government to Enoch Powell’s ‘rivers of blood’ speech which predicted racial tension in British cities and the governments concern to be seen to be acting on rising public panic to immigration and race relations”
Popple (1996), pg.16
Popple argues that both the conservative and labour governments were panicking that black immigrants would be attacked because of rising unemployment once again. They attempted to restrict immigration while at the same time make new settlers feel welcome. The urban programme was therefore a part of policy containing the ‘problem’ of black people living in urban areas. However, it was not restricted to ‘black areas’ for this might cause accusations of favour. The urban aid programme was aid fro combating deprivation at local levels because of unemployment, overcrowding, large families, poor environments, immigrant concentrations and children in care or in need
The other issue that arose at this time was the community development project, which was state – supported community work. It developed as popple (1996) argues from social democratic philosophy, which argued that some of the population were suffering because of a range of problems, popple argues,
“The projects were to assist people to use the social services more constructively and to reduce dependants on those services by stimulating community change”
Popple (1996) PG 18
When the projects began they supported a model of that argued people from disadvantaged backgrounds could fail to compete in the market place because of personal problems rather that structural inequalities. However, it has been argued that such programmes could not substitute the wider resources that were really required to tackle poverty. Dominellli (1990)
As poverty was rediscovered, so to was the theory and practice of community work. In the 60’s, pluralist theories began to dominate community work. Popple (1996) argues that power is not located in any single group or type of group but within democracy. All public policies are the outcome of compromises between different groups. Pluralist theorist, in regard to community work, believe the role of community work is to help people in neighbourhoods and communities face up to what’s happening around them, by offering mutual support, sharing activities and attempting to secure better services. Popple (1996) argued that
“This theory argued that by working towards peoples self directional and responsibility it was possible for them to change their attitudes and responses which in turn would lead to an improvement in their material conditions”.
Popple (1996), Pg 33
Pluralists argue that community work is vital to the state, as an activity to support vulnerable communities in addressing social problems at neighbourhood level. This is believed to be vital to social democracy. Over the years, we have seen an increase in pressure/interest groups such as shelter, which deals with housing issues, and mind, which deals with mental health issues. Pluralists see the existence of such groups as an important indicator of strength that fits comfortably with pluralist tradition within a social democratic society. Dominelli (1990)
The late 60’s and 70’s saw a shift towards radical and socialist thinking, in regards to community work. These kind of theories were seen as an attack on political or social and economic problems by getting to the socio-economic of the problem and getting at the fundamental or root cause of the social weakness. Popple (1996) argued that radical theories include anarchism believing that society can operate without a government. Anarchism advocates the establishment and relies heavily upon the voluntary sectors upon the co-operative principles. However socialism means a number of things, popple (1996) argues.
“Socialism at its most basic is a political – economic system where the state controls, to a greater or lesser degree the means of production in order to produce what is necessary for and needed by society without regard to the desire to obtain profit”.
Popple (1996), Pg 35
The main feature of socialism is the creation of an egalitarian society where poverty does not exist. The radical and socialist theories emerged in community work at what was termed the ‘golden age’. Community workers used these theories to understand inequalities within society and the disadvantages by a range of individual and groups. While rapid changes were occurring within industries, working classes began to face increasing difficulties. This led community workers to develop models of community action/development, which supported groups in conflict with authority.
However as Jacobs & Popple (1994) argue, the differences between these two contested approaches is one of emphasis and commitment. The pluralist approach on its emphasis towards skill is at the appreciation of ever changing social, economic and political spectrum. It appears that the pluralist approach is a pragmatic one that promotes self-help and self-reliance, which appeals to the right, centre and left of politics. It is also an individualistic/laissez faire approach that associates itself with anarchist and anti-statist views. The pluralist approach appears to have more in common with the new rights demand for people to “stand on their own two feet” by engaging in voluntary work and encouraging collective community activity at the grass root level.
Within community work there has developed many models which according to Dominelli (1990) are problematic, because most models overlap with one another. For the purpose of this essay, we will look in-depth at three models, the model of community development, community action and community care.
The community development model of community work is mainly about self-help at neighbour hood level. It aims to empower the community by developing skills so that the community can begin to make changes in their locality. Harris (1994) argues that this leads community development to being a method which,
“ - Focuses on collective action rather than on individual change.
- Actively works to counter discrimination and prejudice
- Makes working with disadvantaged and oppressed groups a priority
- Recognises the importance of formal and informal support and networks in bringing about change
- Is about opening up access to resources, services and information to assist people in making informed decisions.”
Harris, V (1994) section 2 PG 2
Popple (1996) argues that the skills and knowledge that are apparent within community development will actually improve people’s lives in obtaining power and control for themselves. However Dominelli (1990) argues that negotiation and confrontation are often used in the community development model, the group will often bring in outsiders to provide leadership around specific issues to organise and improve the situation. Popple (1996) argues that the experience of community work in Britain has focussed upon a process whereby community groups are encouraged to articulate their problems and needs often leading to collective action.
Groups who have little or no power to increase the group’s effectiveness often use the community action model. Popple (1996), argues that the community action model of community work has often been class based and uses conflict and direct action to gain power often around single issues. Harris (1994) argues that,
“Community action is community based campaigns and networks concentrating on issues of concern within a community. Methods can range from the presentation of a petition to a local councillor to non violent protest such as those held by some community development projects of the 70’s and the public demonstrations against deportation, or in support of the miners, and the camps set up in 1993 to save the pits.”
Harris, V (1994) section 2, PG, 2
Dominelli (1990) argues that community action was often class based and begins at local level. This is then extended to regional and national levels to achieve effectiveness. The main tolls used in this model are negotiation and confrontation to achieve goals. The community worker often becomes an egalitarian member of the group which often blurs the image of who the community worker is and who the group is. As the group often engages in conflict, the group often become community activists.
Lastly, we will look at the community care model of community work. This model often focuses upon the social networks and voluntary sectors to offer a direct and caring service. Women were central to this model as Dominelli (1990) argues for they performed and still do today the bulk of the work that makes up community care in an informal sense because it is unpaid. Women usually provide free services where there are gaps in statutory provisions. The model concentrates on developing the concept of self-help. Popple (1996) argues that community care involvement can be on one of three levels. The first being where professionals fulfil a supporting or monitoring role often using volunteers the second level is where community care is initiated by professionals for a short period of time until the individual can cope without the help. The third level is about people with no or little experience fulfilling caring roles – this is evident in the mobile caring schemes that are springing up today. Where companies provide services from personal care to cleaning and shopping, many of the people who work for these agencies have little experience and training is minimum it appears to be more about making profit than the actual quality of care that is given. Community care is an ever-changing model that has been subjected to much criticism particularly from social policies writers, who point out that community care is often dominated by family ideology and the possessive individualism.
Throughout the 1980’s and early 90’s, we have seen a period of what was to become known as Thatcherism. The conservative party under the leadership of Margaret Thatcher won the 1979 general election. There was a coherent thatcherite approach to welfare following the recession of 1980 –82 the full employment initiative appeared to be abandoned. The NHS budget continued to rise driven upwards by a growing set of expectations by health consumption becoming a lifestyle type choice, by advance in medical technology and by a rapid growth in life expectancy. Popple outlined the key theories of Thatcher as the primacy of wealth creation; the regulation of distribution based upon the trickle down theory; and an attack upon the restructuring of the states welfare system. Also the deregulation of public and private activity and the idea of absolute poverty instead of relative poverty. Despite all this occurring within society community work at this time was revived. The state frequently used community work as a means of intervening in neighbourhoods to dampen social unrest particularly at the time violent disorder in urban areas during the 80’s.
Community work today is still very much alive as we can see through the regeneration schemes that are taking shape in deprived areas. Credit unions, though not a new thing, are assisting people to save money, which can be then used to increase on a loan, and paid back in small weekly amounts with little or no interest. Business are developing subsides and are moving into develop areas by building new initiatives. There is also a new scheme in many areas called the sure start campaign that is aimed at improving the standards of living health and education for pre – school children the government has also supported this by raising the maternity grant to £500 in order for parents on benefits or low incomes.
Community work has been and will probably continue to be an ever-changing arena. We have seen the models and theories that exist within community work on a small scale there are many more ideas surrounding the issue. There is every possibility that economic crisis will continue to emerge and re-emerge throughout the future. As Jacobs and popple (1994) argue only a major social restructuring and a new kind of political settlement together with mass investments in education, industry, training and the welfare state will prevent worsening public services and larger inequalities in wealth. However, community work will continue to be the progressive force in liberating minds and supporting the actions of the disadvantaged.
