Critique of article: Beyond Power Discourse: Alienation and Social Work
by Iain Ferguson and Michael Lavalette
John B. Thompson
University of Kansas
Article Summary
The thesis of Ferguson and Lavalette’s article (2004) is that Marx’s concept of alienation
provides the best account of the causes of social discord in contemporary societies, and therefore
serves as a proper basis for emancipation. Their criticism is of an enduring micro-level focus in
social work thinking and practice which is, according to them, due in large part to the influence
of postmodernism. Their understanding of postmodernism is that it focuses on the individual in
its various philosophical conceptions, and in so doing it renders solutions to problems in the
same manner. Social work has adopted this pattern. At the same time, macro-level theories,
particularly Marxism, have fallen out of favor, because when viewed from said individualistic
postmodern perspectives they are labeled “antediluvian,” or “totalizing” or “Eurocentric.” This
intellectual trend has unfortunately led to an ironic alliance between social work and the new
right, both of which now consider the causes of social problems only from the level of the
individual. The new right blames problems such as poverty or chemical addiction on the
putative laziness or immorality of the individual. Social work, in its attempt to solve such
problems, has focused its assistive efforts on the individuals, and therefore failed to notice and
address causal factors that exist at the macro, economic level. Thus, social workers fight an
uphill battle in both policy and practice arenas as their solutions do not address the causes of the
problems they wish to alleviate.
Ferguson and Lavalette propose that for true emancipation to occur—meaning
emancipation for both the social worker and the social work client—a shift is due in theory to the
macro level, reviving Marx. Despite postmoderns’ concerns about Marxism, it is suggested that
Marx’s alienation concept can now have a great impact toward positive change in our
communities, perhaps similar to the way macro-level thinking has had in the past with the
women’s movement, anti-racism campaigns, etc.
The alienation concept does not merely denote a psychological state (though it is
included), but attempts instead a more robust description of the ways in which the working
class—the proletariat—are, via capitalist structures and relationships, dehumanized and
denigrated. There are four aspects of alienation. First, the worker—the producer of the
product—is alienated from what is produced. She has no say in the decision about what is made,
and worse, encounters the product of her labors on the open market (post-production) as a
consumer who may or may not have the financial means to purchase what she has produced.
Second, the worker has no control over how the production takes place. She is no longer an
artisan, learning her trade and adapting personal style with creativity. Her identity has been
disconnected from the labor process, which she now experiences as a miserable task, performed
robotically, simply as a means to an end. Third, proletarians experience “estrangement” from
their “species being.” Marx believed that biological species have characteristic natures, for
humans this means we produce more than what is required for basic subsistence. Wage labor in
capitalist society leaves the underclass with not much more than this. They are effectively
divorced from what it means to be a human being—to creatively produce in multiple ways.
Finally, workers are alienated socially. The hyper-competitive nature of capitalism serves to
drive a wedge between people such that healthy, cooperative relationships marked by friendship
and solidarity are replaced almost exclusively with exchange relationships. The wedge exists
between owners and workers, but also between workers themselves as they vie for scarce work
opportunities and resources in the marketplace. This in turn breeds racism, sexism, homophobia,
etc.
The authors conclude with implications for social workers, who they believe have
experienced alienation as workers themselves, and for social work clients, who are subject to the
oppressive and pathogenic capitalist structures, and are in need of intervention on that level.
Social workers, it is suggested, should band together for group empowerment and self-advocacy
as a profession. And social work in general should take note of the ways in which capitalist
structures—particularly the hyper-capitalism of the new right, or Neo-liberals—are having a
severe and detrimental impact on our communities so that problems can be addressed
accordingly.
Theory Analysis and Critique
This section includes four brief critiques of Ferguson and Lavalette’s article. The first is
a fairly straightforward evaluation of their argument, focusing on the relevant informal logic. In
the second critique I’ll appeal to Robbins, chaterjee & Canda’s fourth and fifth criteria for theory
analysis in order to describe several strengths of the article. In my third critique I’ll offer a
sketch of a postmodern response to Ferguson and Lavalette. Finally, I will use Robbins, et.al.
again (ninth criterion for theory critique) to consider the practical application of the proposed
social solutions in the article. The nature of each analytic tool should become apparent in each
section as I go.
Argument Analysis
This analysis concerns the argument put forth for the conclusion that social workers have
lost significant control over the content of their work. In other words, the conclusion states that
social workers are subject to the same alienation that is experienced by workers in other lines of
work such as factory or farm labor. The premises offered in support of this conclusion include
citations from several social science research studies that stated the following: 44% of social
workers report value differences between themselves and the organization they work for; 50% of
social workers report being interested in work as independent counselors; 30% of social workers
desire to leave the field altogether; various reports of job stress and unhappiness. The suggested
reasons for the apparent dissatisfaction of social workers with their employment situations are all
related to increased managerialism—too much form-filling, target-setting, efficiency, budgeting
and routinized practice techniques. I do not dispute the validity of either the research findings, or
the attribution of the findings to excesses in managerialism. These may very well be the case.
The question that is most significant for the purposes of the present argument, however,
is whether the assumed truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion—the
definition of a valid argument. In this case it does not. The reason for this is a logical fallacy
called the “false alternative” (Kelley, 1988). According to the false alternative fallacy, an
argument is invalid when the reasons—the premises—for the conclusion, while they may
indicate the conclusion, do not ensure it because competing alternatives have not been eliminated
or accounted for. In this case the fact that social workers report dissatisfaction or a desire to
enter private practice, while it may indicate alienation and a need for Marxist-style emancipation,
it does not guarantee it. There are many alternative conclusions that can be drawn from the cited
research: perhaps social workers report wanting to leave social services altogether because they
find the work too emotionally taxing. Social workers who want to enter private practice may
desire to do so, not because of alienation, but because they think it is a more effective
intervention. Both of these might assume that social workers, far from being alienated, are
actually rather bourgeois, simply moving up the ranks of social enterprise. In any case, the
authors do not consider any alternatives, but simply jump to the conclusion that social worker
dissatisfaction is due to alienation. They further fail to make explicit the necessary conceptual
connections between the subjective reports of social workers, and the idea of alienation. Without
these, an unjustified leap is required on behalf of the reader in order to find that the evidence
truly indicates the occurrence of alienation in social work.
Article Strengths
The fact that Ferguson and Lavalette’s article refocuses the reader’s attention to macrolevel considerations for social work theory and practice is a prima facie strength from the outset.
It is generally known that social work practice is mostly done at the micro-level, so it is always
good to see an article written for macro considerations. At a deeper level, it is good to remember
that it is implicit in the NASW code of ethics that both micro and macro theory and practice are
important. For instance, in the preamble to the code of ethics it is written, “Social workers
promote social justice and social change with and on behalf of clients. “Clients” is used
inclusively to refer to individuals, families, groups, organizations, and communities.” And later,
“Social workers also seek to promote the responsiveness of organizations, communities, and
other social institutions to individuals’ needs and social problems.” (NASW, 2008) The explicit
mention of groups, organizations and communities as clients, and the statement that social
workers promote the responsiveness of social institutions, both serve to demonstrate the ethical
importance of ongoing macro-level considerations.
Though the Ferguson and Lavalette article may have some flaws, it also brings up an
important and valid criticism of much postmodern thought, namely that any focus on individual
level thinking alone will be practically complicit with the same victim-blaming thinking of the
new right. They are not alone in this criticism. Paul Garrett of the National University of Ireland
wrote a similar article, citing Marx’s book Capital, and arguing that capitalism is a dangerous
system that serves to exploit adults and children, harming both bodies and minds. This
“devastating” critique of capitalism is then applied to macro social work theory as a basis for
resistance to Neoliberalization. (Garrett, 2009) Similarly, Mike Cole at the University of
Brighton wrote an article in 2003 stating that the current state of global capitalism and its
concomitant social and educational problems simply cannot be undone with individualistic
postmodern ideas. On his thinking, only Marxism is sufficient to affect significant change in the
direction of social justice. (Cole, 2003)
I remain unconvinced that Marxism is the only possible way to overcome the problems
associated with modern industrial capitalism, but I do find Marx’s ideas compelling and very
much worth the attention of social workers at all levels. Marx may not have been right about
everything, but he cannot be all wrong either. These are strong arguments, and it seems quite
reasonable to recognize that blind adherence to capitalism alone cannot meet our human needs
(Fives, 2008).
Postmodern Rebuttal
As compelling as the case may be for reviving Marxist discourse in thinking about social
problems from an economic perspective, the postmodern theorist also has several valid points of
rebuttal to any such argument. The first response a postmodernist might make to Ferguson and
Lavalette is to show that, though postmodern theory can be individualistic, it is not necessarily
so. In fact, one may argue that much (or most) postmodern theory is not, or at least is not
intended to be, individualistic. For instance, P.J. Bracken, in his article on critical psychiatry
(1995) argues that Foucault (one well-recognized as “postmodern”) would challenge any
approach to psychotherapy that did not take into account the social, economic and other macro
cultural and historically conditioned structures relevant to the construction of the theories and
practices underlying the particular psychotherapeutic approach being used. His Foucaultian
critique is of Jurgen Habermas’s suggestion that clients can overcome neurotic behavior via
reflexivity in psychoanalysis. The psychoanalytic fecundity of reflexivity initially seems
promising until Bracken uncovers (note Foucault’s notion of “archaeology”) the lack of critical
appraisal in Habermas’s thinking, “…which omits an analysis of the concrete historical
circumstances in which the psychoanalytic encounter takes place.” “For Foucault this amounts
to a betrayal and leads to psychoanalysis as an alienating therapy…” (Bracken, 1995) The point
of this example is to highlight the fact that postmodern thinkers like Foucault have leveled their
own assault on not just individualistic thinking, but any thinking—even Marx’s—that does not
take into account the inherent historical conditioning. Thus, for Foucault (and many other
postmodern theorists) the criticism of individualism simply does not stick.
This leads quite easily to a second postmodern objection to Ferguson and Lavalette. One
may argue that the economic view of Marx, while it is a step in the right direction as it
transcends the Neoliberal contamination of social work with hyper-individualism, it also remains
limited because of its own totalizing viewpoint. In other words, the move is from one totalizing
discourse to another—from individualism to Marxism, from very micro, to very macro.
Ferguson and Lavalette mention the totalization critique in their introduction, but do not counter
it in the paper. They do not explain why it is ‘good enough’ to characterize all the world in
terms of Marx’s economic theory. It is not at all obvious, even if granted that individualism is
problematic, that economic thinking alone should be the sole alternative. Why not a political
solution instead? Or a social moral solution? What historical conditioning was involved in
Marx’s development of socialism? Perhaps an analysis of that would lead to solutions to social
problems that do not require a dogmatic adherence to the grand metanarrative of socialism
(Critical theory for instance would be one option—among many!).
A final objection for the postmodernist (many other could be leveled) would be to note
the role of opposition and antagonism that encompasses Marxism (Melchert, 2007). This
objection follows the last as a totalizing discourse that includes antagonism/opposition as a
necessary feature then elides any explanations, descriptions or understandings of human social
phenomena that do not adhere to the same. Worse, this carries over into possible solutions to
problems and to the nature and meaning of human identity in the first place. Marx would
counter that it is not human nature per se that is oppositional, but that human nature co-opted and
enslaved by capitalism is the problem. Humans created the capitalist system and then became its
subjects. However, the postmodern can still reply that even though capitalism does have many
of the effects that Marx says it has (e.g. alienation), there are still not only competing
explanations and perspectives, but from within capitalism itself there is ample evidence of
thought and behavior that resists Marx’s theory as totalizing. There is evidence of relationships
that are not characterized merely by exchange concerns, for instance. People have not (all) been
reduced to behavior based on rational self-interest alone. Moreover, there are competing theories
such as feminist care ethics that advance these facts well beyond a pure Marxist framework. One
may be sympathetic to a Marxist perspective without radicalizing it to the extent that conflict
dominates one’s thinking.
Practical Application
My final critique is simply to suggest that the solutions proposed by Ferguson and
Lavalette are fairly vague and non-specific. What they do suggest, based on their Marxist
analysis of social work theory and practice, is that social workers should unite in several ways to
promote macro-level changes that will counter the scourge of capitalism. They propose that
social workers form trade union organizations in order to advocate for fair wages, good working
conditions, proper worker-client relationships, power over social work ‘products,’ etc. Social
workers should also refocus resources away from individual-level interventions and invest in
various community development strategies. It is their hope that we will learn from the spirit of
social activism that existed in the 1960’s and 1970’s when social work was allied more with
social reform movements than medical-like office practices. They hope we will stand up and
resist the “…blind destructiveness of global capitalism.” (2004)
These suggestions all sound like good ideas, in the most generic of ways. They also seem
more like Marxist clichés than well thought out proposals for change. Several of the other
Marxist theorists previously cited made very similar critiques to Ferguson and Lavalette’s, yet
they went into much more detail in their proposed solutions. To be fair, Ferguson and Lavalette
did offer solid examples (e.g. the narrative about socioeconomic conditions in Northern England)
of how Neoliberal policies can create conditions that cause alienation and the subsequent
violence, drug abuse, mental health problems, etc. But their solutions boil down to an offhand
suggestion of banding together for strength. In order to actually put a solution like that into
practice one would need to have a much higher degree of specificity and sophistication. A
particular social work-related issue—the over-focus on individual practice, for instance—could
be addressed in a particular geographical, political and social situation. The authors could
describe the setting of the agency or practice site and then detail the relationships between social
workers, managers, local government, and clients of the system. A brief history of relevant
biological, social, environmental and religious/spiritual issues and problems could then be
reported, along with the relevant policy and institutional histories. Finally, a proposal could be
made that identified key players, processes, methods and modes of change, strategies and an
outline for where, when and how the change might take place. Given article length
considerations a full account may be impossible, but at least a sketch of a proposed solution—
perhaps even a solution to one of the problem examples so nicely described already—is
reasonable to expect.