outcomes

3. ABOUT SOCIAL CHANGE AND INTERVENTION

3.1. About change

3.1.1. Introduction

This chapter deals with two concepts that are fundamental for a publication whose aim is to describe different forms of welfare work - the concepts of change and intervention. Social welfare work always means in some sense that a superior authority - the state - intervenes in the lives of individuals or groups in order to produce a change - a change in an undesired condition, defined as asocial problem from the point of view of the individual, but sometimes also of society. The fact that this change in turn can also be aimed at preventing another and undesired change will be dealt with later.

Change appears to be one of those central but at the same time elusive concepts that can sometimes seem too well known to require problemizing or even discussing. The fact that changes occur is far too obvious to need pointing out. Neither do we think very often about how they occur - what the basic nature of the change is - or how the change can be systematized and described. The concept of change is taken for granted. On the other hand, we often focus our attention on methods, techniques and ways of working for change, something which will be dealt with in the later chapters in this publication.

The other main concept in this chapter, however, is more tangible. Inter- vention is a comprehensive term for the way in which change can be achieved. If change is the content, then intervention is the form. The con- cept of intervention is the link to the concrete act, the action.

The first part of this chapter starts by drawing attention to the fundamental place of change in all human life. The conscious and planned ambition to change that is expressed in social welfare work can then be regarded as a special case on a meta-level, a change of the change. Some concepts from general system theory are then dealt with, a theory that is here considered suited to the continued discussion of change and intervention. The concept of rationality and questions about rationality and its limitations play an in- disputable role in a discussion of how change can be achieved as a result of political planning. Specific aspects of change are then dealt with and fi- nally a model for change in and of social systems is presented.

13

The intervention concept is linked to the levels and contexts where inter- ventions take place - in organizations whose task is to intervene in and in- fluence people's lives. The main functions of such "Human Service Organi- zations" (HSO) are to "sort", "support" and/or "change". Intervention always involves action. Human actions can be of various kinds and take place within a specific scope of action - actual or perceived. Time and our con- ception of time are also factors that influence the intervention. Some differ- ent ways of regarding the concept of time and using it in an intervention context are presented. The chapter concludes by introducing a general model for structuring societal change work.

3.1.2. Change is the fundament

The Greek philosopher Heraclitus of Ephesos (about 540-480 B.C.) has been given the epithet "the philosopher of change". According to him, real- ity consists of constant changes. The stability that we think we see in cer- tain respects is only due to the fact that the change is far too slow for us to be able to notice it at all. Heraclitus summed up his picture of the world in the expression "all things change" (panta rei), and used the constant movement of a river as a metaphor. We cannot step into the same river twice. The river appears to be the same over time but the water we step into is constantly new and different. Life is not entirely without coherence, however, i ts p rocesses a re n ot c ompletely i ndependent of e ach o ther. A special conformity to law - logos - steers the course of events. Logos has both a "mechanical" and a normative aspect. According to Heraclitus, every event must keep within its allotted space.

It is thus not a new idea that all human life is characterized by change. Nor that this is a question for people with wisdom and experience. Lagergren and Lund (1985) states that, in a long-term perspective, only unchangeabil- ity is inconceivable. This Is true forthe individual as a biological, social and cultural being. It is also true for all aggregates of individuals: groups, or- ganizations, societies and cultures.

Despite this basal insight, which we probably all share, we often have a tendency to think and behave as if stability, unchangeability and predictabil- ity were the natural state of things. Change is associated with imbalance and unpredictability, situations which we would prefer to avoid, or which should be replaced as soon as possible by {a return to) stability and security. Stability is associated with the normal, change with the abnormal, dysfunctional and sometimes even the patho- logical.

14

It can therefore appear paradoxical to describe and discuss the concept of change as something specific, a special case, as will be done here. Neither can we solve this paradox by talking about natural changes as opposed to artificial changes brought about by various forms of planned intervention. Of course, many changes can be characterized as natural - biological age- ing is a typical such change. Changes in an organization can also perhaps be regarded in the same w a y - relationships within the organization be- come deeper, a division of labour is developed, knowledge matures, etc. But many changes are neither natural nor planned. We can be afflicted by diseases, crises, breakdowns, wars and conflicts.

Perhaps it is therefore most correct to talk about various special cases of change in this case. What we will deal with are changes as a result of in- tention and planning. Someone (an individual, a group, an organization) tries to produce a change in their own situation or - in the capacity of public agents of change - in the situation of others. There is another limitation: we are in the field of welfare. The public intention is directed towards prevent- ing, remedying or at least mitigating the consequences of conditions that are defined by society as socially unacceptable.

It can also be expressed as a question of changes of changes, sometimes described as meta-changes, a concept we will discuss later on. By seeing change in this way we can also resolve another paradox, i.e. that a social change can sometimes be intended to protect or defend the prevailing situation. An example of this is social work for people with physical disabili- ties. The disability cannot be removed and can in many cases entail a con- tinuing deterioration forthe individual. Society's efforts can make it possible for people to live a life of good quality in spite of their disability. A change of the change, as in this case, is intended to protect.

3.1.3. Change as a "process" - change as a "result"

The concept of change, like the situation it describes (denotes) is diffuse and elusive in character. What does change mean? What demands can reasonably be made with regard to depth and breadth to enable us to talk about change? And how lasting should it be to be regarded as a real change?

A prominent characteristic of the change concept is its everyday-language quality. We are all familiar with the concept and use it in daily practice. And we do so without thinking very much about the meaning of the concept or making great efforts to define it. We know intuitively when the expression

15

"change" should be used, when a change occurs or has occurred. Every- day concepts like this often have exactly this quality of being generally de- fined. In fact, it makes them much more usable. The content and the lin- guistic intersubjectivity define the final meaning in relation to the particular application of the concept.

What may be an asset in everyday language can become a difficulty when the concept is to be used in a scientific and/or professional context. Here there is a quite different need of unambiguous definitions in order to ensure that the concept is used in the same meaning by everyone taking part in the discussion. A lack of common understanding, intersubjectivity, here, if the worst comes to the worst, can lead to people not talking about the same thing and therefore misunderstanding one another.

The concept of change can therefore refer to both the situation that In- volves something having changed and to the course of events that leads or has led to this situation. In the former case, change can be described as a structural concept that indicates a result {or, at all events, a fixed situation); in the latter case change can be described as a process concept, where the course of events itself is central and is causally connected with the re- sult. Process implies change by definition. Change as a structure and change as a process therefore bear a definite relationship to each other. In a more analytical discussion it is important to clarify which meaning - as a structure or as a process - the concept of change is being used in.

As we have noted, change is the basic condition for human life. Even if in isolated respects and for short periods we may appear to succeed in main- taining various factors constant, e.g. a relationship or a certain type of knowledge or skill, this is a deceptive picture. In reality, relationships change the whole time. Some knowledge and skills are forgotten, new knowledge and skills come into existence. This circumstance makes it so much more difficult to distinguish between changes due to the natural course of events and the type of consciously steered change processes that this is about. Perhaps some tentative requirements can at least be made (and here, as earlier, we are talking about social changes in human systems).

• Awareness A change should be conscious for the person it affects. In the family that has been able to change its pattern of interaction through social support, the members themselves must be aware that this has taken place for us to be able to talk about a change. This is, in a sense, a normative demand. Many of the natural changes we have talked about are naturally uncon-

16

scious for us (perhaps consciousness comes afterwards). In the same way. one might imagine that a skilful "changer" can make changes that the peo- ple involved themselves or the system itself is not aware of. We think that change work initiated and sanctioned by society must always be done "with all one's cards on the table", in complete openness and participation. This is a basic ethical requirement. If we start to compromise on this, the door may be opened for manipulation.

• Content and extent A change can in principle be localized to one or more of the following ar- eas: emotion, cognition or action. That is to say, it must include changes in emotions, for example, a changed attitude or expectation, changes in think- ing, knowledge about and understanding of something or - finally - it must involve a different way of acting or a changed preparedness for action. Many changes of the sweeping kind that we deal with here naturally affect all these areas. However, it does not go without saying that this happens, at all events not at the same time and in connection. Handicapped people who, by taking part in an empowerment project, get new instruments to af- fect their conditions do not perhaps at first use this knowledge in concrete action. Nevertheless, a change has taken place in thinking and action rep- ertoire, a change that, later on, can also lead to concrete acts of change. Something which in its turn can mean a changed outlook and attitude to their own possibilities and other expectations in the future.

It is naturally not possible to give an unambiguous answer to the question of how extensive a change must be to be able to talk about a change hav- ing taken place. This must be determined from case to case - often based on pragmatic assessments. The same applies to the question of when a change is "sufficient" or "good enough". The situation and its content must be decisive.

• Duration It is somewhat easier, however, albeit not unproblematic, to approach the duration criterion. In order for us to be able to claim with reasonable cer- tainty that a change has taken place, it must have a certain duration. Re- search into treatment in the field of drug abuse, for example, shows with great clarity that retention regarding positive results of treatment is strongly correlated to the length of the follow-up time. The longer the follow-up time, the less remaining change.

Naturally, assessment of the duration must be based on a situation where the intervention itself has finished and must cover a period (of perhaps 6 - 12 months) after this. The clients must have had time to go back to their

17

everyday lives. Extent and duration are also connected. While duration in time comprises a quantitative criterion, the extent and depth of the change comprise a qualitative criterion.

3.1.4. System theory - a basis for the understanding of change

Change - whether it concerns an individual, a group or a whole community - generally cannot be made comprehensible in itself or by itself. The visible course of events usually requires a comprehension background, a tool to be able to be analysed and understood. For example, human change can be seen from the perspective of humanistic psychology, where the possi- bilities for development and crossing boundaries are emphasized, but also from the behaviourist approach, which in its most orthodox form regards man as simply a receiver of stimuli, to which the organism then reacts through Its response. System thinking is a third example of an analytical instrument to explain empirical occurrences.

We will here give a short account of the distinctive features of general sys- tem theory, as a starting-point for the later discussion of change and the description of working methods for change work in the following chapters. System theory offers a basis for a general discussion of change. With this theory as a starting-point, many concepts can be discussed that are rele- vant to the discussion of change. The system theory is broad and can be applied at all the levels described in the previous section. Certain authors even regard system theory as an approach rather than a theory (e.g. Compton & Galaway. 1984), which emphasizes its breadth even more. System theory can also be used in a meta-perspective, as an instrument for examining theories and tools used in concrete change work.

The system concept itself is fundamental to system theory. A system is al- ways built up of several interacting parts, often referred to as "elements". The system is built up from and consists of its elements. But not only that - the elements must also have some form of reciprocal relationship. It is the elements and their reciprocal relationships with each other that constitute the system. Hall & Fagen (1956), who talk about objects instead of ele- ments, define a system as "a set of objects and the relationships between the objects and between their attributes. The objects are the constituent parts of the system, the attributes are the features of the parts and the rela- tionships hold the system together." Sometimes the metaphor of an old- fashioned (mechanical) clock has been used to illustrate the relationship between the elements in a system. When the clock works, the parts bear certain relationships to each other and all contribute to the joint result. If, on

18

the other hand, the clock is taken apart and the parts put in a pile, they are still spatially close to each other but have no reciprocal relationships. They no longer constitute a system, in spite of the fact that all the elements in the old system are still there. Osterberg (1978) links to Sartre's discussion of series and groups, a pair of concepts that can contribute to making the sys- tem concept clear A series is a collection of elements without any real re- ciprocal relationships, apart from purely spatial ones. People in a ticket queue constitute a series. They do not know each other and do not in any respect function in interplay with each other. If it now transpires that the price of the tickets is twice as much as expected, the people queuing may begin to talk indignantly to each other. They organize themselves to make a joint demand for tickets at the promised price. In this way they no longer act and function as a series, but as a group, where the elements - the Indi- viduals - bear defined relationships to each other. They form a system.

Here we can also note one of the most distinctive features of a system: that the whole (the system) comprises more and other things than the sum of its parts. The whole - the system in its entirety - has other features than the individual elements have. The whole is not obtained by adding together the individual parts but is something qualitatively different (Ahrenfelt, 2001). To choose a destructive example: a criminal youth gang can plan and carry out considerably more and more serious crimes than all the individual members together would be able to do if they each acted individually.

One aspect of this that is central to the understanding of the system con- cept is the reciprocal effect between the elements that is a consequence of the fact that they bear a relationship to each other. If one element is af- fected, all the others will also be affected. If a child, a member of the sys- tem that a family constitutes, has problems with school (that is to say, something that is strictly outside the system), it affects the whole family and its way of functioning. An element cannot be isolated except by being ex- cluded from the system. But the system that is then re-formed without this element is a different one from the previous one. This feature of reciprocal effect also contains an important part of system thinking's potential for change work. The system can be changed, set in movement, by one or a few of its members being affected. In the same way, conscious change work, for example in a family, can take place by one or a few of its mem- bers being affected, In this way the whole family's way of functioning is af- fected.

When we talk about human systems, most people perhaps think of small groups of people, such as youth gangs or families. (It was also in family therapy that system thinking was first developed in our context (Satir,

19

1991). It has later been developed Into a more general perspective on hu- man change.) But, strictly speaking, a single individual can also be re- garded as a system of different elements or functions, cognitive, emotive, physical, etc. Large groups, departments in a company or a public agency, the whole company or agency, small and large communities, even coun- tries, can in certain respects be regarded as systems. When we use the concept here, however, we think mainly of the individual and small-group level.

However, even within relatively small systems, a division into smaller sub- systems can be made. In the family system the children, for example, can form a subsystem, which in certain cases functions as an independent sys- tem, in others as part of the bigger system, the family. In the same way, most departments in a workplace can be regarded as separate systems, and, at the same time, there are formed and unformed groups within the departments that constitute subsystems. Looked at in this way, the ques- tion of how a system should be delimited perhaps becomes more a ques- tion of what dispersion level is chosen. Within a youth gang there may be sections that form subsystems and are in certain respects in conflict with each other. To the outside world they still appear as a whole, a collected system.

In order to function well and survive in the long run, every system must have some exchange with the surrounding world (Oquist, 1992). There must be an inflow into the system, in the most basal form in the form of physical necessities, but also through information and knowledge. Every system must relate to the world around it and to be able to do this the sys- tem needs knowledge and information. In a corresponding way, every sys- tem is expected to produce and provide information and knowledge in order to be able to keep its place in the greater context. The system interacts with its context, its surrounding world. This necessary openness towards the surrounding world must also be balanced, however, with clearly drawn-up boundaries so that the system is not dissolved or incorporated into other systems. If the youth gang is so open to the world around it that belonging to it is not experienced dearly by its members, it strictly speaking no longer exists. The system has been dissolved. Every system is thus dependent on this balance between "closedness" (maintaining closed boundaries) and openness towards the surrounding world.

A system that closes itself off completely from the world around it will be stifled and founder in the long run. The energy that exists within the system will become useless in the long run and wili be used in such a way that it does not benefit the system. In human systems you can then talk about

20

mental entropy (Ahrenfelt, ibid). The system then receives no impulses from the outside nor any information or other forms of energy. It is common that more and more of the system's activity is needed to defend its bounda- ries. A family system can completely close itself off around defence of the husband's/father's addiction t o alcohol. All its strength is used to defend this "family secret". The adults' social intercourse and the children's friend- ships die out. Working life and leisure activities break down. Everything is subordinated to the aim of hiding the state of affairs and preventing the so- cial shame that the alcohol addiction would give rise to if it became known to the outside world. In the end all normal family functions cease and in the long run the family is broken up by its members leaving it. Such cases are called dysfunctional families (Bernler & Johnsson, 1988). The dysfunctional family may seem to function well for a time. "A closed family is usually characterized by the fact that it has a clear inner structure, often hierarchi- cal, that it is governed by rules and that the individual is subordinate to the group. Such a family can function well as long as it is not subjected to stress." When something happens to upset this (dysfunctional) balance, the "closedness", the rigidity of the system, prevents the adaptation that would be necessary.

Every system must thus have a certain openness to the outside world in order to be able to survive and develop. Paradoxically enough, it is conse- quently the case that the system must change in order to be able to sub- sist. This, however, is a paradox that is resolved by our introductory state- ment - that change is the fundamental condition for human and social exis- tence. Being able to face changes, sometimes to fend them off, sometimes to benefit from them, is thus a necessary condition for stability and devel- opment.

In organization theory it is usually said that one of every organization's ba- sic driving forces is to survive and if possible also expand. In a more gen- eral sense this can also be true for any system (naturally every organiza- tion constitutes a system). In every system there is normally a built-in striv- ing to assure its existence and the system organizes itself to further this aim. A self-organization occurs within the system. The different elements, the people, develop or seek definite positions or roles. In the family system, for example, the wife/mother traditionally takes upon herself - or is given - duties that are required in order to keep the system together and satisfy its emotional and expressive needs. In working teams a certain "division of labour" is developed in many cases: someone is given the role of "the ana- lyst", another sees that decisions are put into effect - is "the doer", a third is 'the diplomat', who helps to enable conflicts to be solved, a fourth is "the constant joker", who can help to neutralize the tensions within the group,

21

and so on. In this way the system's self-organization takes the form of a differentiation. The stereotype roles that society provides, e.g. gender roles, facilitate this organization and differentiation. With a term from system the- ory this adaptation mechanism can be called morphostasis. Morphostasis means that the system is adapted continuously but always within its own repertoire. When the system goes outside its own action repertoire through a basic change or restructuring, it can instead be described as morpho- genesis.

An expression of the system's striving for survival is to develop a kind of balance between the constituent elements where the system functions as well as possible, Such a - "healthy" - balance can be said to characterize a functional system. This equilibrium, which is usually called "homeostasis", also means that the system economizes with its energy as far as possible. An open conflict, for example between two managers at the same level in a company, demands great energy, which is taken from the whole system. All the employees are affected. If the conflict cannot be settled, the result is often that it is encapsulated instead, for example by the two main actors, the managers, stopping speaking to each other. The exchange that it is necessary for them to have has to be carried out in a roundabout way through their employees. The conflict is not settled but the system learns to live with it. In this way the system can find a new equilibrium, a new ho- meostasis. At the same time, this means that the system does not function as well as it might. It is no longer a functional but a dysfunctional system.

The hierarchical level concept has been mentioned above. It entails a structure of super- and subordination, that the systems (or subsystems) can be arranged in a hierarchy, situated above or below other systems. There is also another level concept in system theory - logical levels. With reference to Bertrand Russell, Bernler and Johnsson (1988) say that "a system on the next logical level up designates or talks about systems on the next logical level down. The word "represent" can also be used to de- scribe the relationship between the systems on the n and n+1 logical lev- els." (p.63). This logical level concept is taken up later in the discussion of change of the first and second order. We would nevertheless like to eluci- date it now, as it is crucial for the overview of the system and its action possibilities that people have as members of the system. While at a certain, given, logical level they are limited to seeing the possibilities offered within the system, on the next logical level up they can also see alternatives to the prevailing situation. Consequently, options and action alternatives increase. The discussion of logical levels is therefore fundamental to understanding how real and lasting change can be achieved.

22

In the above section we have presented some fundamental concepts in system theory, a general theory that is applicable in the most varying fields, in natural science and technology, but also increasingly in the social and human sciences. Attempts to apply genera! system theory laws in the latter fields sometimes encounter criticism. Critics say that system theory may be suitable to describe thermodynamic or other physical conditions, but not to describe the incredibly complicated and multidimensional interaction be- tween people. Applying system thinking here involves a reduction and sim- plification that loses the nuances and what is specifically human. We would therefore like to emphasize that we see system theory as an aid and an in- stnjment to make inter-human interaction comprehensible, a kind of basic model. The behaviour of people and groups cannot be understood only with the help of the system theory. Other knowledge is also needed, for ex- ample from the field of communication theory. System theory must be used in conjunction with a humanistic perspective but can then be a fruitful start- ing-point for discussing change and intervention.

3.1.5. Rationality and change

In the introductory discussion of change, conscious planned change was specified, a special case of the change that always goes on at different lev- els. Behind this distinction there is a (sometimes unconscious) idea that - alongside the changes that are always going on - courses of development can be produced and steered, that change can first be planned and then carried out in accordance with the plans. An idea that is based on the the- ory of rationality.

The word rationality comes from the Latin word "ratio", which means rea- son. To act rationally is to act in accordance with reason, i.e. to act on the basis of your intellect. The sociologist Max Weber developed the concept of rationality in the social sciences. He talks about four diff'erent forms of ra- tionality: the traditional, the affective, the value-rational and the goal- rational. The first two forms mainly belong to earlier stages of social devel- opment while modern societies are permeated by the last two forms of ra- tionality. Weber describes value rationality as that "without considering the consequences, people allow themselves to be governed by their conviction of the importance of maintaining or attaining things like duty, dignity, beauty, religious influence, piety or of the importance of something of the same kind, Value-rational conduct is based on the conviction of the abso- lute unconditional, intrinsic value of a certain moral, aesthetic or religious attitude. " (From Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. p. 535, quoted in Boglind, Lindskoug, M^nsson, 1986, p. 143).). Thus value rationality has to do with

23

the fundamental bases of society. Every society has to decide on and han- dle these basic questions of ethics and values.

Goal rationality means that "people let their actions be governed by goals, means and the other consequences of their actions, so that they both weigh the means against the goals and the goals against the secondary effects and also rationally weigh up different goals against each other." (ibid, p. 143). Change work governed by goal-rational principles thus means that actions are well considered and planned and that the goal is allowed to steer every stage in the work. A goal-rational course of action ideally contains the following steps (Westlund, 1986. Wittrock & Lindstrom, 1984):

1. selecting (among several competing goals) the goal one above atl wants to realize 2. describing the goal (the state, result or situation one wishes to attain) 3. describing all the alternative ways of reaching the goal 4. describing the merits and weaknesses of each of these alternatives 5. selecting the alternative that leads to the goal best and quickest - at the lowest "cost" 6. deciding on action alternative 7. carrying out the decided alternative

Weber points out that modern society is characterized by both value and goal rationality. This simultaneous existence of double rationality forms is perhaps particularly evident in the welfare field. Society's activities to sup- port and help people in problem-filled situations can often not be motivated on goal-rationalist bases. They are rather expressions of fundamental ideas about solidarity, humanity and the equal value of all people. These values cannot be motivated scientifically, they express a basic attitude and as such can conflict with other value systems. The forms for giving help and support, on the other hand, can be developed - one imagines - within the framework of a goal-rational idea and action scheme. Different ways of working, for example in the care of old people or the treatment of drug ad- dicts, can be compared with each other with regard to advantages and dis- advantages. The comparison can afterwards result in reasonably certain knowledge as a basis for decisions about choice of ways of working, carry- ing out and evaluating the result.

It is certainly no exaggeration to claim that goal-rational thinking character- izes modern man's life, both in society and in the private sphere. We gen- erally imagine that not only individuals but also organizations such as com- panies, authorities and associations, arrange their actions so that they strive towards definite and defined goals. And that this striving is done on

24

the b asis o f c onscious a nd c onsidered c hoices o f a ction s trategies. I n a democratic society this is in fact a fundamental condition, that public money is used in such a way that it realizes political goals to as great a degree as possible.

At the same time, this goal-rational thinking has been subjected to severe criticism (Westlund, 1986, Ahlbaeck, 1988). The demands of goal rational- ity cannot be fulfilled in reality, say the critics. Political goals, for example, are not unambiguous and unanimous. In public life the goals are generally diffuse and ambiguous, sometimes even conflicting. Organizations consist of their members, who, in their turn, prioritize different goals. The organiza- tion does not constitute an independent unit that can strive towards other goals than those of its members (Rombach, 1991). All the action alterna- tives in a given situation are not known as a rule, even less their positive and negative consequences. In spite of this, we are often forced to act on the basis of the information available, regardless of whether this basis is really satisfactory or not. This is particularly evident when societies are faced with new and unexpected problems. An example of this is the dnjg abuse that arose in many European countries in the second half of the 20 century and developed to such an extent that it came to be characterized as a social problem. In spite of the fact that knowledge about this abuse and its consequences was in many cases incomplete, actions were re- quired to limit its extent and mitigate its injurious effects. The drug policies of these countries also developed very differently.

Critics of the goal-rational action model prefer to talk about satisfying ra- tionality (Perrow, 1986), i.e. that the thought model is retained but that its requirements are toned down - requirements that cannot in any case be fulfilled. So you can have a reasonably clear picture of the goal and a con- ception of the dominating action alternatives and their consequences, and thus be able to make a decision that is "sufficiently" good. An alternative pattern of action mightbe totalk about gradual rationality, which means that, instead of making an overall decision, you try to find your way by means of several successive decisions. In this way it is possible to correct developments on the basis of new knowledge and insight and to gradually build up a more and more complete basis for decision. An alternative way of toning down the requirements of the goal-rational model is that instead of talking about its linear rationality, you talk about circular connections, where different factors influence each other reciprocally and alternately. Such rea- soning is in line with system theory's basis of reciprocal effect between the elements of the system - if one element is affected, it has consequences for all the others. What in one situation is the cause of a certain change can in the next one be regarded as a result or effect, and vice versa.

25

The questions of rationality are of fundamental importance for the discus- sion of social intervention and change. Without a conception of the possibil- ity of achieving desired changes by formulating goals, planning, choosing action alternatives and carrying them out, the idea of societal intervention loses its point. A conception which is sometimes, in its most pregnant form, described as "social engineering" (Soydan, 1993, Hirdman, 2000). Even if one remains sceptical to the idea of any complete rationality - as appears reasonable on the basis of the criticism that has been levelled against the idea of goal rational, linear change in the field of welfare - it is reasonable to think that a certain, limited rationality can be reached in many cases. The idea of step-by-step rationality can in many cases be ap- plicable in the welfare field, where the intervention is often long-term and governed by many factors within a broader context.

3.1.6. Equifinality

System theory stresses the reciprocal dependence that prevails between all the elements in a system. If one of the elements is exposed to influence, this will have consequences for all the elements and thus for the system as a whole. The form these consequences take and how they are transmitted within the system depend in their turn on all the factors or forces working in the system, both the temporary ones and the more lasting or stable ones. Even in such a limited system as a family or a working team there are many forces working in different directions. The members have different desires, needs and demands. These desires, needs and demands also change over time and as a result of other change processes. This means that it is difficult to predict both the result of an intervention and exactly how this result comes about.

On condition that people within a system are in reasonable agreement on the goals and therefore "pull in the same direction", the result can still mean that the goals are reached, even if there are many conceivable ways of get- ting there. The concept of equifinality (Bertalanffy, 1949) describes just this. A system where there is a balance between openness and "closedness" is characterized by a constant exchange with the surrounding world. The sys- tem takes in impulses, knowledge and energy from outside and gives in exchange impulses, knowledge and energy to surrounding systems on dif- ferent levels. At the same time, there is a clear boundary between the sys- tem and the world around it; both its members and people outside the sys- tem know who are inside and who are outside the system. In such bal- anced open systems it is perhaps not very important what the way to the desired goal looks like. This question can be left to the system to solve in

26

the best way at the time. In systems that are closed, rigid and strictly gov- erned by rules, on the other hand, the procedure questions are important - sometimes perhaps more important than the goal itself. As has been pointed out earlier, it is this type of system that risks being afflicted by en- tropy, an increasing lack of differentiation, a lack of structure and, in the end, the death and dissolution of the system.

It is particularly meaningful to talk about equifinality in combination with the view of rationality that stresses processes and step-by-step rationality. On the basis of an overall consensus about the overall goals, the change proc- ess develops as a successive movement, characterized by continuous re- appraisal and revision of the course. The forms of the work are less impor- tant in such a context; they can also change over time. This also means that the system's energy can be directed towards the desired change and need not be used up in anxiety about not following a certain pattern.

Understanding that equifinality prevails in open systems also has conse- quences in respect of change. The focus can be placed on the content of the change and the "final result". Naturally, this does not mean that the forms of the intervention/the concrete work are uninteresting to the social worker. It means an understanding that the course of events can assume different forms and that the quality and long-term meaning of the work need not or even should not be connected to any given form.

3.1.7. Change, goals and means

Conscious change work means a striving away from the present, existing state towards a different state, a different situation. The change can be compared to a journey, away from something and to something else. The departure station is given - it consists of the present. The destination, how- ever, can be more or less clear and evident. In extreme cases the picture of where you want to go is very diffuse. Neither perhaps does the situation permit focussing on this. A child that is very badly treated in its family must be taken care of immediately, even if you have not had time to plan for its long-term future. Mostly, however, the situation is not quite so dramatic. Social change work usually takes place under circumstances that make it possible to think ahead and clarify what you want to achieve with your joint work. This planned future, this vision, can then be formulated as a goal. Goals can be defined, in fact, as formulations of desirable future states or situations, which do not exist but which you would like to see brought about.

27

Developing and establishing goals before and during social change work has several functions. The most important one is making dear - to ail the people involved - what you are aiming at, where you want to go. During the work of formulating the goal you also make it clearer and more realistic to yourself and others. The goal becomes a direction indicator, which steers and contributes to a mustering of strength around the joint action. There- fore it has an important role as an aid to communication. A clear goal for- mulation makes clear the degree of consensus between the people in- volved, e.g. members of the youth group or family and the social worker. For a goal to give as much help as possible, it should be clearly and unam- biguously formulated, known and accepted by all the parties included in the change work, realistic, and suited to the level where the work is planned to take place.

There are different kinds of goal. Usually we think of the goal as represent- ing a final point, a result, a position we want to reach. Such cases can be referred to as structure goals. But the goal can also be to bring about a de- sired development, a movement that involves changes of a positive kind. A final point of the change in the form of a structure goal may not have been formulated and may be impossible to formulate with the knowledge avail- able. Such cases can be referred to as process goals. Structure goals and process goals can bear a determined relationship to each other; where the structure goal represents the situation where the change work has been completed and the working alliance between the client and the social worker has been dissolved, the process goal can describe the way there, the time during which the change work is going on. When the conception of the goal is more vague and unclear, you may have to work with what can be called direction goals. The final goal is not known and neither is it known what form the way there should take. What Is known is the direction to- wards which one should strive (and inversely, which way developments should not go).

One way of handling a situation that is too chaotic and ambiguous for any tenable final goal to be formulated is to work with more short-term goals, part goals or stage goals. If the final goal is that the members of a family should be able to communicate with each other in a "normal" way, a part goal may be that each child should have satisfactory communication with at least one of the parents, tn this way the part goals are "steps on the way". Not least, they can have an important educational function by showing that change is possible and can be achieved through joint and long-term efforts. In this way the final goal can be built up successively and be the sum of all the part goals. Inversely, in situations where the final goal is already dear from the beginning but is too extensive to be used in the practical daily

28

work, the part goals can be derived from the final goal. In such cases the educational aspect is often dominant.

Now the goals do not realize themselves just because they exist. Change work, regardless of whether it involves a big or small change or perhaps work to prevent or slow down an undesired development, demands re- sources in the form of time, knowledge, and sometimes perhaps physical objects. A day facility for old people with incipient dementia demands prem- ises, skilled staff and ways of working to stimulate memory and social con- tact, and also perhaps buses or other means of transport. With a coltective term, all these material and intangible resources can be called the means of change work. Both goals and means are required for successful change work. They also bear a determined relationship to each other. Like the goals, the means must also be known and accepted, they must be suited to the goals and to the situation in question. Finatty the obvious: the means must exist, they must be there. Formulating goals that there is no chance of attaining only creates frustration and worsened conditions for the future.

The goal-means model can be seen as goal-rational thinking. As has been shown, it is based on the idea that desired change can be achieved through a range of consecutive logical steps in a work process. With knowledge about all the alternative ways to the desired goal, you select the alternative that leads farthest at the lowest cost, ideally the alternative that involves complete goal fulfilment. The thought model is based on goals that are distinctly formulated and embraced by atl the parties. One of the condi- tions for the modet's requirements being fulfitted is that all the alternative means, ways t o reach thegoal.are known and that their consequences can be calculated. As we have also mentioned earlier, the goal-rationat model has been subjected to severe criticism. The goals are often not as unambiguous as the model requires. Atso the various interested parties do not always agree on the meaning of the goats. Sometimes the goat descrip- tions can actuatly be of a symbolic character and regarded as non-binding forma! declarations. The ways to goal futfitment - the action alternatives - are often not completely known, particularty as regards their conse- quences. The decision process has to be carried out on an incomplete ba- sis.

The criticism of the goal-means rational scheme is certainly partly justified. In reality the sociat worker and the ctient are forced to work under condi- tions that mean that its requirements cannot be fulfilled. Nevertheless, there is reason to use this pattern of thought; it can help to create struc- tures and give a direction to the work, make clear the possibilities and diffi- culties, and function as an instrument of communication. Finally, it also has

29

an important democratic aspect. Openly accounting and working towards established goals opens the way for a democratic insight into the work (Vedung, 1988). It will then be possible to check that the activity does what it is supposed to do, i.e. that the goats are being pursued. When the goat- means model is used, it shoutd be reatized, however, that it usually cannot be apptied in futl. The goals, both structure goats and process goals, should often be regarded as provisional ones, which can possibly be refined as new knowledge is gained. In this way the goal-and-means discussion can perhaps contribute to deepening and probtemizing. What may at first ap- pear simple and straightforward proves to be considerably more debatable and complicated.

3.1.8. Change and "pseudo-change" or Change as an escape strategy

In the discussion on human systems we have asserted that a wett function- ing one, for exampte a famity or a working team, is characterized by a bal- ance between openness to the surrounding wortd and dear boundaries around the system. A system that desperatety shuts itself off from the sur- rounding wortd puts itself in an untenable position and paves the way for its own destruction. In order to be able to survive, the system must change. This process, by which the system takes in and utilizes resources from the surrounding wortd, for example in the form of new information, is a form of adaption. The adaption consists of successive daily adjustments, within the system and to its surrounding world. At the same time it is timited to the ac- tion repertoire that is normat for the system. It is actions based on given conditions and within given boundaries. Adaption can be characterized as the system's everyday strategy for survival. When a working team is over- loaded with work, the problem is solved by employing extra staff for a lim- ited period of time. A family's financiat situation can be saved temporarity by working overtime. What is characteristic of this adaption is that it in- volves more or less of the same thing. (Watztawick, Weaktand & Fisch. 1996). There is an increase or decrease of something that is already there rather than an extension of the action repertoire. In many respects this is an appropriate and wholly sufficient strategy. It can be problematic, how- ever, when the system is faced with completely new challenges or obsta- cles. When the working team is constantly overburdened, the temporary reinforcement does not provide a successful solution. If the family's finan- cial probtems demand continuat overtime, it puts a strain on the individuat members and consequently on the whote family. The long-term resutt can be failing heatth and even worse finances.

30

Changes based on the concept of more or less of the same thing may seem successful and effective at first. When more fundamental changes are required, these changes risk only becoming a camouflage, a facade that gives the impression of being able to act. The change proves to be a pseudo-change. As such it may even be counterproductive and prevent a reat and necessary change. In such cases the system's way of functioning needs to be restructured and its action repertoire broadened.

3.1.9. Change of the first and second order

Changes of the kind that have been described above can be called changes of the first order. They are characterized precisely by trying to sotve a problem by using more or less of what has already been tried (Watzlawick, Weakland & Fisch, 1996). When the therapy fails, you extend the treatment time, you "increase the dose". Or the solution can be the complete opposite. What does not seem to be working is removed com- pletely. When a child is badly treated by its parents, the problem is solved by taking the child away from its family, and perhaps ptacing it In another famity. (We are not here taking into account the safety aspects that may make such an action absotutety necessary in the short perspective.) Solu- tions based on changes of the first order can often be said to be in tine with common sense and proven experience (ibid, p. 93). Another characteristic is that they stay within the estabtished action repertoire. No new working methods or strategies are added to those that are atready known and used. Above ail, these solutions mean that you do not basicalty question your own solution models - "This is what we have always done and it has worked well". In many cases solutions based on changes of the first order can be appropriate and economical with resources from the point of view of the system.

In various contexts, however, problems arise that do not seem possibte to solve with the help of the more-or-tess-of-the-same-thing formuta. The working team does not function despite bringing in large numbers of con- sultants. Everything seems to have been tried. The system ends up in a vicious circle where what was supposed to be the solution is transformed into being the probtem itsetf. It can also be described as being deadlocked in and by one's own solution models. What is required is evidently a com- pletely new perspective, a new way of looking at things. But how can this be possible? The system is limited to its own approach and way of working, isn't it?

31

Human psychology emphasizes man's freedom and consequently also un- conditional responsibility (Johnsson and Ohisson, 1977). Human beings can benefit from experience, their own and others', and can thus also change their behaviour. Through this characteristic we are all the time abte to perform other and more appropriate acts today than w e could before. Tomorrow's acts, which are based on the knowledge we atready had be- fore and that which we acquire today, will probably be even more appropri- ate. Human beings can go beyond themselves, cross boundaries or be transcendent. As human beings we are in a sense free to use our knowl- edge, our experience and our competence. This also entails an individuat and collective responsibility. We have to take responsibility for our deci- sions and acts. Knowledge of this can often make us refrain from acting. If you don't do anything, at att events you haven't done anything wrong.

A system which is deadtocked in its own sotution modets - where the solu- tion tends to become the probtem itsetf - and which, at the same time, faces new and seemingly unfutfittabte demands can thus end up in dead- locked anxiety. The demand to act teads to anxiety and passivity - a situa- tion that tends to get worse through its own dynamics and become a nega- tive spiral.

What is required to be abte to break the deadlock and make progress in such a situation is a shift of perspective, a new way of tooking at things. It is not just a question of broadening the action repertoire. What is required is a restructuring, a process through which new and hitherto unseen possibili- ties appear. Sometimes It can be a question of changing the system. A separation and divorce can sometimes liberate energy within the famity system. The working team that cannot futfit its tasks in the organization, in spite of overtime and the hetp of extra staff, shoutd perhaps be given a new role and new tasks. A change of this type - a change of the second order - need not atways entail a change in the form of the system. On the other hand, it atways entails a change in the system's way of functioning. New possibitities are discovered and implemented, the action repertoire is broadened.

Watzlawick, Weakland & Fisch sum up the discussion so far in four points:

" 1 . Solutions of the second order are applied to solutions of the first order that are not only not solutions but which themselves constitute the problem to be solved.

2. Sotutions of the first order are often based on "common sense" (for ex- ampte, the more-of-the-same-thing recipe), white sotutions of the second

32

order often seem absurd, unexpected and "senseless". They are surprising and paradoxical in nature.

3. The fact that solutions of the second order are applied to problem- creating pseudo-solutions also means that the problem that is to be solved must be tackled here and now. What is changed by this is the effects and not the supposed causes of the situation in question. The decisive question is "What?" and not "Why?"

4. Solutions of the second order remove the situation that is to be solved from the paradoxical, introspective vicious circle where the solution at- tempts have been made hitherto, and places it in a new, wider framework." (ibid. p. 93).

3.1.10. A strategy for change in social systems

This heading is realty not quite correct. What witi be described here is more a strategy, or a theory, for awareness in social systems. It is about provid- ing the system with an instrument that makes it possible to see the old situation in a new way, to see new and other possibilities. It is up to the system itself to decide whether these new perspectives then actually lead to changed actions.

Bernler and Johnsson (1988) have developed their working model for in- creased awareness in social systems on a system-theory and psycho- dynamic basis in psychosocial work. Here we will take up chiefly the parts of the theory that are influenced by system thinking. The authors stress, however, that their ideas are based on a theory of human systems and not systems in a general sense - a system theory with a "soul" - and that psy- chodynamic concepts and models therefore provide a suitable "auxiliary theory". Since in this introductory chapter we treat change from a general and broader perspective - albeit within the framework of social welfare work - we choose not to inctude the psychodynamic part, which chiefly re- fers to psychosocial work with a focus on the individual.

The concept of togicat tevel, which we have touched upon earlier, is central to the theory and goes back to Bertrand Russett's togicat typology. It shoutd not be confused with the more traditionat, hierarchical level concept. We all know this level concept, which is based on super- and subordination and power relationships. Every organization is normatty buitt up around this "axis" of status and power ranking, with bosses and subordinates ranked according to a certain, known and accepted system.

33

The concept of logical tevel is completely different from the hierarchical levet concept and constitutes rather a given "stratum" in our thinking. The concept is therefore meaningful mostly as a way of distinguishing one such "stratum" from another. There lies the similarity with the traditionat tevel concept. In an analytical sense such a "stratum" can be regarded as being ranked above or below another because it contains or is contained by it. However, these different strata do not represent a status or power hierar- chy.

The logical level concept is based on our everyday thinking and acting. Every day we ptan and perform a number of actions, e.g. we get up, have breakfast and go to work. Thus the day goes by with one activity linked to the next. In many cases, even the items that can be regarded as trivial re- quire quite sophisticated advance planning and preparation. What is com- mon to these activities is that we do not reflect on them very much, they are taken for granted. Like Bernler & Johnsson, we can call this level the base tevet. It is founded on the wett known, the activities of everyday tife. often on repetition, albeit within a certain spectrum of possibilities. Some exam- ptes from working tife can ittustrate this. If a meeting cannot be held as planned, we decide on a new time. If a job takes more time than calcutated, we can take a tater train home from work. The addict whose daily existence is filled with hunting for drugs is another example. Physically disabled peo- ple who have to take their disability into consideration when planning visits to the authority are another. It is characteristic of the base level that it in- cludes both actions and cognitive processes.

We may aiso for some reason stop and think about various elements of the everyday, the taken-for-granted. We distance ourselves from, clarify and reflect on our everyday practice. For example, we may take a look at our- selves and our working lives - att these meetings that are not always very productive, a lot of overtime that takes a great deal out of you and en- croaches on your free time. Addicts may suddenty see their destructive lives in a flash - as a descending spirat of repetition and, at the same time, a continuous worsening of their mental and physicat conditions. Physically disabled people may suddenly realize that their lives are to a great extent dictated by others and by limitations in their physical environment. In these examples we have left the base levet and are instead on the meta-tevel (meta-tevel in relation to the base tevel). This also means that we make ourselves aware of the base level's processes. The meta-level - like all the following togicat tevels - is an entirety cognitive tevel. It involves reflection on what is going on. All concrete action, however, is on the base levet.

34

The meta-level thus entails a first step of awareness in relation to the base level, which is the concrete level. But cognitive processes on the meta-level do not realty mean that anything is changed or even that we introduce a possibility of change. However, the meta-levet entails a first and necessary step towards change. It is not untit the next togical tevel, which we can call the meta-meta-level, however, that the awareness makes basically changed action possible. The meta-meta-level entails a reflection on the reflection, thinking about our way of thinking about our everyday practice. This also means that we distance ourselves in relation to the meta-levet and thus introduce the possibitity of alternatives - other ways of thinking and living. In system theory terms it can be expressed as making ourselves aware of the possibility of restructuring the system.Or, in Watzlawicket atia's terminology, we open the door to the possibility of a change of the second order. To return to the examples above: we question our whole re- lationship with working tife and are suddenty abte to see atternatives. Per- haps we should change to a more meaningful and less stressful job, per- haps with some further education as a first step. Addicts suddenly question their lives and their identities as addicts. They can thus begin to imagine other futures than that of an increasingly down-at-heel and outcast addict. Physicatly disabled people can relate their disability to factors in their envi- ronment and in society's institutions that mean at least as much for their quality of life as the disability itself.

Watzlawick et al. say that changes of the second order often express themselves as sudden, paradoxical and unexpected ideas, seemingly in conflict with common sense, as something of an ahat-experience, a bolt out of the blue. It seems reasonable to assume that in that case they are the result of protonged unconscious or half-conscious reflections prompted by dissatisfaction with the present circumstances or a need to find new solu- tions. Bernler & Johnsson, on the other hand, try to fit their model into a thought scheme that makes it possible to go from the base level to the more etaborated togical levets in a structured and conscious way. Another difference is that while Watzlawick et at. talk about change processes and the nature of change, Bernler & Johnsson refer to making it possible to be aware of changes of the second order. An awareness that can be utitized for an actual change - or ignored.

We can now illustrate the application of the model for awareness in social systems by means of a coupte of imagined courses of events. We will then go back to the model to see how it can be fitted into sociat wetfare work. Some additionat theoretical points witt then be presented.

35

Our first example is from the field of the care of old people. In many Euro- pean countries the demographic structure is changing and pensioners are becoming an increasingly targe part of the poputation. Life expectancy is increasing and thus also the need of care. This is noticeable in many places in special residential facitities for old people where an unchanged staff force is expected to do both more and more qualified work than be- fore.

Such is the case in our example, an old people's home where there is an increase in complaints from the people living there and from their relatives. The quality of care falls, the mass media and superior authorities call atten- tion to the unsatisfactory conditions. The dissatisfaction increases, both among the old people and their relatives, and among the staff; it becomes more and more difficult to cope with daily life (the base tevel). Everybody reatizes that something has to be done. An informat group of relatives and staff call a meeting to discuss the problem. Some of the old people atso come to this wett-attended meeting. In the discussion atl the parties are able to see the situation dearly, without one group putting the blame on the other (consciousness on the meta-levet). which they had done to a great extent before. But what can they do? The problems seem insotuble. A working group is formed and an outside gerontologist and researcher is at- tached to it. The proposat that the group finatty presents is quite the oppo- site of att the previous ideas and introduces completely new solution mod- els: the organizational isolation is broken down, the otd peopte, the staff, the retatives, voluntary organizations and volunteers form their own unit with the joint aim of creating together a situation that gives everyone - not only the otd people - as good a quatity of life as possible (restructuring of the system, or change of the second order). They no longer think in stereo- typies - like that the otd peopte must be "tooked after", or in party retation- ships like "us" and "them". The unit is given complete responsibility for qual- ity, legal aspects and finances. The change is based on an awareness that even the "impossible" may be possible. The system (which is here inter- preted in a broad sense) broadens its action repertoire and acts on the ba- sis of a new awareness, on the meta-meta-level.

The second example is from the fietd of family therapy, where the system theory in connection with social change work has had its most significant expression. The story begins in school, however, with a teacher becoming increasingly worried about one of his pupils, a 13-year-old boy, who seems to be getting more and more passive and detached. When, finalty, the pupil does not want to go home at the end of the school day, the teacher asks him what the matter is. The boy answers evasively but after this conversa- tion he starts playing truant from school. A social counsellor visits the family

36

and starts a series of conversations. Graduatty there appears the picture of a dysfunctionat family system, closed round the "family secret" - the fa- ther's atcohol addiction. For several years the members of the family have with united efforts desperately tried to keep the addiction secret in order to avoid the social shame it would mean if it became known. The social coun- sellor - whose originat task was totalk about the son's schooling - be- comes an accepted conversation partner and is abte to give advice on dif- ferent forms of treatment for addicts (the base levet). As the contact goes on, the picture becomes dearer to the famity - they see more clearty how the addiction has made the other members of the family anxiously "keep guard" round it, but how this may in its turn have facilitated and speeded up the course of development, how the whole family and all its members have been affected, even though this has manifested itself in different ways, and so on (the meta-level).

The original problem remains, however - how can the vicious circle be bro- ken? It is onty when, with the guidance of the social counsellor, they can begin to see real atternatives and new (hitherto unseen) action possibitities that a reat change is made possible, tn this case the atternative may be new education or training to make it possible for the man to work in a com- pletely different part of the labour market. This, in combination with suppor- tive and cognitive treatment for his addiction, means that the man is able to admit his problem to himself and others. With that the cause of the closed family system disappears and the family can begin to function normatty again. What was previousty a negative development thus becomes a posi- tive spiral movement. When the family became aware that real action atter- natives existed (on the meta-meta-tevet), the possibitity of reat change was atso opened up. A possibitity that the famity in our example utilized.

The above examples are maybe commonptace but they show how basic system-theory concepts and Bernter &Johnsson's model for awareness in sociat systems can together be apptied in widely differing contexts in social welfare work. They can also serve as starting points for some reflections on the "welfare worker's" roles in this work. The (three) togicat levets we have discussed also impty three different types of relationship between the wel- fare worker and the client. On the base tevet - in concrete discussions about the hardships of everyday life - they relate to each other more as friends. Social, human support and to a certain degree shared circum- stances are the basis here. On the meta-level the social worker relates to the client principalty as a counsellor, or discussion partner, based on a shared understanding of what the situation is actually like. On the meta- meta-level the social worker assumes more the relationship of a therapist.

37

with the ambition of making the client system aware of the possibilities of restructuring or making a change of the second order.

It is a mistake, however, to think that the welfare worker's ambition is to "climb up" as quickly as possible from one levet to another, in order to reach the meta-meta-level. On the contrary, professional social wetfare work is a question of being able to alternate between the levels, of being a friend as welt as a counsellor and a therapist. The need of human support and counselting discussions remains during the whole working process. In fact, this is a vital part of the whole way of working, since the legitimacy of the professional worker is based on sharing the client's circumstances to a certain extent. Bernler & Johnsson refer to this as a capacity to oscillate on the part of the sociat worker. At the same time it is obvious that what makes it possible for the social worker to give real hetp is the capacity to lead the system on to togical tevels that it has not managed to reach by itself. The welfare worker must therefore always be "one step ahead" and be abte to survey the situation from a logicat tevel above the one where the client sys- tem is. This can atso be expressed as that the wetfare worker should have access to one more logicat tevet. A discussion of real possibilities of re- structuring, a discussion on the meta-meta-level, thus requires the wetfare worker having access to the meta-meta-meta-tevet.

We think this modet for awareness in social systems developed on system- theory principles can be applied in social change work in widely differing contexts. In traditional social work and sociat counselting work with indi- viduals and smalt social systems like families and youth gangs, but also in work founded on representation, mobitization and setf-organization. The model can also be used in social pedagogics and work with old and dis- abted people. The social systems where the modet is used can contain onty one or a few peopte. but can also be larger groups.

3.1.11. Summing up about social change

Change is a fundamental category that characterizes att human life. The changes this chapter deals with can therefore be seen as special cases - produced or desired in order to "limit, overcome, counteract and prevent the social evils and probtems that have arisen during the last two or three hundred years in connection with industrialization and urbanization ..." (Swedner, 1996, p. 38). The term change, which can be used in everyday language as welt as in professional and scientific contexts, can refer both to a process and its result. For something to be able to be referred to as a change in a stricter sense, three tentative requirements can be put forward:

38

it should be conscious for the parties involved, it should have a clear con- tent and a certain extent, and it should have a reasonably long duration. General system theory can offer an adequate conceptuat framework for understanding change. Systems consist of parts, elements, that bear cer- tain relationships to each other and influence each other reciprocally. The system as a whole is more than the sum of its parts and this is the very point of the system theory discussion. Well-functioning systems try to main- tain a functional balance, which includes a balance between openness and setting up boundaries. Systems are also characterized by continuous orga- nizing, as a vital part of survivat and devetopment.

The idea of goat rationality that characterizes modern society can only par- tialty be applied in a discussion of social change but social wetfare work is based on a rationat idea - that changes can be brought about through carefut ptanning and the use of previous research and experience. In line with the idea of rationality are the concepts of goals and means. The goals indicate desirable future states while the means denote the roads, the ways of reaching these states.

Change can on the one hand mean adaptation and aim basically to main- tain the prevailing situation and on the other that new action alternatives are introduced. In the former cases it can be called pseudo-change, or change of the first order, in the latter restructuring or real change, change of the second order. Both these strategies are required for a functioning community.

Social problems can arise when pseudo-change is used to solve problems that require radical change. Bernter & Johnsson have devetoped a model for awareness in social systems. Increased awareness and a meta- perspective on the dysfunctionally functioning system can make it possible to introduce completety new action alternatives.

3.2. About intervention

3.2.1. Introduction

So far this chapter has deatt with the change concept in a more general sense, on the basis of several different starting points. But a change is not something that takes place in isolation, separated from the rest of life and without reference to time and place. Change within the framework of social politics takes place in an interpersonal context, peopled by actors and filled

39

with interaction, cognitive and emotive processes, personal intentions and formal requirements.

By intervention we mean thoughts that are thought and actions that are performed to facilitate or achieve the changes in the situations of vulner- able people that societat ambition aims for. As we have mentioned earlier, this societal ambition can also involve preserving the present situation or preventing a development that might otherwise occur. We use the concept of intervention in this broad sense and not as synonymous with action. In- tervention in social change work occurs primarily together with the people concerned. However, the relationships between the parties can vary over a wide spectrum.

Intervention is thus the practical side of societal change work. This also means that the forms of intervention can and should vary. Some examptes of this are the individual client's meeting with the social counsellor, the ad- dict's stay at the treatment home, the work of the inhabitants of an urban district to improve their living environment, the supportive and educational work in the care of otd peopte, or the empowerment-inspired work of the disabled for a society better adapted to their needs. Various practices for intervention work are described and discussed more closely in Chapters 4 and 5.

In this section we take up some more general aspects of the intervention concept. The fact that intervention consists of human actions and is closely connected with the context in which these occur is evident, and we there- fore take up some action theory concepts and models. It is likewise evident that time plays an important role in intervention work. The time factor can have an inhlbitive effect but can also be used as an effective component in intervention. One way of structuring factors in time and place is to follow a general model, and we present such a model, a phase model for societal change work. This section ends with a few words about forms of interven- tion. We start, however, by attempting to define somewhat more closely the meaning of the concept of intervention and elucidating the different levets on which interventions within societal welfare work generally take place.

3.2.2. The concept of intervention

Intervening means becoming involved in a course of events and trying to change it. The developments that occur in connection with and after an in- tervention are expected to be different from if the intervention had not taken place. Behind the intervention there is an intention, a wish to steer a course

40

of events. When we talk about societal intervention in the welfare field, the intention also expresses a political will, established on an authoritative so- cietat level. This also means as a rule that the intervention is given re- sources, in the form of staff with suitable competence for the work and physical products in the form of premises, material, etc.

Intervention always entails action but also always goes beyond the action level. Ideally an intervention consists of planning, action and reflec- tion/evaluation. The order of these stages is not rectilinear. They are often woven into each other and recur alternately. Interventions, in the broad sense we mean here, are governed by formal rutes to a varying degree. Certain parts can be strictly regulated, while in others the legistation is more a framework within which authorities, organizations and the individu- als or groups concerned have great freedom to shape their work them- selves. Intervention is a combination of knowtedge, experience, legat as- pects, action and societal authority. The roles of the people concerned can also vary widely. Certain forms of intervention, e.g. those motivated by safety aspects, can take place entirety on the initiative and terms of society, white others - and here most forms of intervention are to be found - occur in consuttation with and together with the client.

3.2.3. The levets and contexts of intervention

Intervention work can occur on several different levels and in a variety of different contexts. While the levels are more general, the contexts are to a great degree determined by historical and cultural factors. It is therefore impossible to give a comprehensive account of these different contexts here. We can, however, give some general points of view, taken from or- ganization theory. First, though, something about the different levels.

An important part of societal welfare work occurs on the level of the individ- ual, in interaction between individuals. The typical case is the client who meets "his" or "her" social worker, for example in connection with counsel- ling or investigation of a concrete need of help. A great deat of the welfare work directed to old or disabted people also occurs on this level, in private meetings between the otd or disabled person and the care staff. Meetings between individuals open up special possibilities. A personal relationship can be built up, characterized by closeness and trust. In a one-to-one meeting adaptation to individual needs and development possibilities can take place. However, there are also risks and limitations. As a rute no one else sees what is going on and this may open up opportunities for neglect or even unfair treatment. A limitation of the meeting between two people is

41

that the social vatue of a communicative exchange with several peopte is lost.

The societat welfare work that takes place in contacts between social workers and individual families constitutes a "middle levet". It can be a question of, for example, a coupte taking part in family therapy or counsel- ling, or a family getting concrete sodal and practical help in their home. In such consteltations certain aspects of the one-to-one contact are retained, such as the close and intimate relationship, while at the same time a wider social system is included.

Work with groups is a large part of societal welfare work. Often, but not necessarily, in connection with residential care or stays at institutions, for example for treatment or rehabilitation. At a smatt-group home for mentatty retarded people, for example, an activity for increased social community can be based on the group as a whole. At a treatment institution for addicts the treatment can be based on both individual conversations and work with the whole client group. Sociat group-work can also take place outside homes or institutions, for example when a social worker works with a youth gang, a group of etderly addicts or criminals.

Intervention can also occur in the form of work with larger social aggre- gates, such as the inhabitants of a neighbourhood, a district or a village. The aim is not then primarily to bring about individual changes but to work for generatty improved living conditions - which also naturally means that individuals get an improvement. Welfare work in the form of community work can have widety differing bases and focuses, but is always rooted in the tocat community, its shortcomings and its potentialities.

Finalty, welfare work can be aimed at the society level through participation in community planning, tt is then more a form of preventive work and not principally intervention in the sense we have given the concept here.

In the same way that interventions in societal welfare work can occur on different levels - from the level of the individual to that of society - their general context or function can also vary. The theory of human service or- ganisations (HSO), the branch of organization theory that has taken a par- ticular interest In organizations whose purpose it is to intervene in people's lives, discerns a sorting ("peopte-processing") context, a supporting ("peo- ple-sustaining") context and a changing ("people-changing") context (Ha- senfeld, 1983, 1992, Lipsky, 1980).

42

The HSO theory embraces a broad category of organizations, for example in the fields of medical care, schools, the police and prisons, as well as or- ganizations for sodal welfare. The sorting function is particularly evident in the judiciat system, for exampte, where the main task of the courts is to de- cide the question of guitt and mete out the penalty. But in social welfare or- ganizations there is also a sorting function, which is evident in two re- spects. One is in aspects of law apptication - following the formal rules in force - for exampte, judging when a child's living conditions are so unsatis- factory that it must be taken into care. The other aspect concerns priorities within a given framework of resources. Many social interventions are based on the individual's application to have access to a social utility. This appli- cation often competes with those of many others; a selection must be made. This can be the case with applications for home heip for old or dis- abled people, for exampte. Society also indicates in this way a boundary between its and the individual's responsibility, a boundary that can vary be- tween different countries and times.

While the sorting function is comparatively subordinate in societal welfare work, the supporting function is ali the more prominent. It means that soci- ety gives the individual or the group support - for a long or short time - in order to be able to cope with their lives and have a reasonably good quality of tife. This can be done in the form of temporary material reinforcement, for example of a financial kind, or by giving support for a functioning every- day life in a family with great relationship difficulties. Even more extensive is the support given to frail otd peopte or peopte with physical or mental disabilities. For an old person with extensive weakening changes due to old age to be able to go on tiving in their home, frequent visits by the home- hetp service are often required. A disabled person may need daily help all their life. Supportive work takes place in a context where the person's tife situation has atready deteriorated, regardless of whether this has happened suddenly or whether it is the result of a long process. The support is in- tended to neutralize or mitigate the result of this negative change or the consequences it may have. For example, leisure activities for people with mentat retardation can invotve intellectual stimulation and also contribute to a better social network. The change aspect in this case thus entails pre- venting the continuation of a negative change or mitigating its conse- quences.

The changing function or context in HSO means that the work aims to make direct changes in the situations of individuals or groups. Treatment work for and with addicts is an example. This is strictly a question of going from situation A (addiction) to situation B (non-addiction). Other examples are social pedagogical work with a youth group to break a development to-

43

wards crime and passivity, or social counselting given to a family with se- vere relationship problems. The changing context in HSO is thus about im- proving or restoring a function or an ability.

In reality these three main functions are often woven together in the con- crete work in HSO. After an introductory phase that entails sorting, there follows the actual intervention, which in turn contains both supporting and changing work. The strength and order of these etements can vary over time. The supporting work and the changing work are not infrequently com- bined into one unit. An example of this is care work for old people, where the daily work is required to support the old person but where this is com- bined with educational work to devetop alternative and compensatory abili- ties.

Preventive work, particularty in the primary and secondary preventive fields (Berglund et al., 2000), does not in the same way find a naturat place in the HSO theory. Tertiary preventive work, however, can often be regarded as coinciding with changing work, for example in the fields of famity treatment or addiction.

3.2.4. Action theory and action scope

An intervention intended to influence a situation or development for an indi- vidual, group or organization consists of a number of actions, "ideally" ar- ranged in the form of planning and preparations, measures directly in- tended to influence and subsequent actions in the form of reflection, the collection of information or evaluation. (We use the concept of action here in a broad sense, which also includes cognitive and emotive processes and not only external and visible actions.) Actions have an intentional aspect - they are done with definite (even though not always conscious) aims. "To act is to change the world, in certain cases ( ... ) to prevent it from being changed. By intervening in the course of events, the agent makes the world look different from what it otherwise would have done." (Berglind, 1995, p. 19)

In an intervention to bring about a desired or prevent an undesired change, two parties act in principle - the party that is the object of the intervention and the party (the agent of change) that is trying to tiring the change about or prevent the change from occurring. The focus can be directed both to- wards their respective actions and towards the scope for action that they have, or think they have.

44

Psychology with a behaviouristic bias (Ronnby, 1983) regards people as basically governed by factors outside themselves. They (the organisms) chiefly react to stimuli coming from outside, even though these are influ- enced by the individuals' previous experiences. The response that follows need not necessarily be completely mechanical but is primarily an immedi- ate reaction to stimuli. Thus behaviourists talk about behaviours rather than actions. Humanistic psychology (Johnsson & Ohisson, 1977) instead stresses the intentionat nature of human beings, their ability to plan and carry out complicated changes of the conditions of the world around them. Human beings are transcendent - are able to go beyond their own powers, are constantly able to develop and change. The wilt to bring about changes and the abitity to plan and realize one's ambitions is what is speciflcatty human. Symbolic interactionism (Berg et al., 1977), with prominent figures tike G.H.Mead and J.Dewey, combine behaviourism's focus on man's de- pendence on the surrounding world with human psychology's emphasis on man's freedom and transcendence - ability to go beyond boundaries. Ac- cording to symbolic interactionism, man's personality or ego has two sides that exist side by side. One is in the form of " I " , which corresponds to be- haviourism's stimulus - response scheme. The other is "me"', which gives the possibility of reflection and distancing with regard to one's own actions. "Me" can beneflt from previous experiences and compare the present situa- tion with other situations that it is reminiscent of.

The view of human actions thus varies between different branches of psy- chology and so do the ideas about how these actions shoutd or can be ex- ptained. In a context based on cause explanation - causatity - you go backwards in the chain of events. A later action depends on, is caused by, earlier actions, just as the final result is also a result of the earlier actions. A result can also have several concurrent causes - in such cases you can talk about mutticausatity (Bergtind, ibid). Finat explanation modets, on the other hand, are based on the idea that it is the final resutt of the action that gives it its meaning. The understanding aspect is prominent - an action is meaningful to the extent that the intentions behind it are understood.

The sociologist Jurgen Habermas talks about four forms of action with dif- ferent pretensions (Gustavsson in Aronsson & Berglind, 1990). The teleo- logical or goal-fulfilting action is based on a rational ambition to achieve a certain predetermined result. This type if action is connected with a situa- tion with several options and objective circumstances. The norm- and value-oriented action is based on common norms and vatues towards which the members of the group orientate their actions. Dramaturgic action - the third form of action - portrays life as stage scenery against the back- ground of which actions are performed with the aim of conveying a certain

45

picture of the individual, as in a "theatrical performance of life". The com- municative action, flnalty, is a kind of synthesis or lowest common denomi- nator of all the types of action. The communicative action is concretized In three validity requirements: it must be true in relation to the objective world; it must fulfil the sodal wortd's requirements for what is right and normatively correct; and it must express honesty and sincerity in a subjective sense, i.e. the acting individuals must be honest to themselves. The communicative action that meets the given validity requirements is thus an ideal model for understanding and authentic communication (Kihistrom, 1990). Not least in contexts where interventions are intended to bring about social change should the communicative action be an ideal worth aiming for, as it explic- ifly strives for an equal ("Herrschaftensfrei") relationship (Kihistrom, ibid).

Actions within the framework of intervention are naturalty not free from their contexts. Every action occurs within an actual or perceived space, which gives possibilities but also entails timitations. On the structural levet there are above alt two types of factors that indicate the scope for action: avail- able resources (in the form of money, physical products, available working hours) and regulations (in the form of laws and directives). While a greater amount of the former factor (resources) usualty also means a greater scope for action, a great amount of regutation may contribute to an increased scope of action but can naturalty atso limit the possibilities for action. In a corresponding way, the absence of regulation in some fleld can mean free- dom and increased scope for action, but may also mean that the field is not prioritized as regards resources and thus that scope for intervention cannot be created.

The scope for action is also governed to a great extent by factors on the organizatory level. A strong organization (in the public sector or, for exam- ple, in the voluntary sector) can demand greater resources and in that way increase the scope for action, while the opposite is true of a more invisible organization. The actual form of the organization is also important. An or- ganization with a strict hierarchy can prioritize certain types of action (such as efficiency and equal treatment), at the expense of others (in the form of professionalism, putting the client in the centre and individualization. The decentral organization in the opposite way gives scope for individual deci- sions, individuatized, creative actions and professional intuition, possibly at the expense of forma! controt and equatity before the law.

On the individual levet, flnally, there are yet other factors that promote or timit the scope for action. Training, professional experience and personal temperament are such factors.

46

The factors described above refer to the sociat worker's scope for action. In a corresponding way there are naturally factors in the client's situation that increase or reduce their possibilities to act. Berglind (1995) suggests that the sodal workers ask their clients, but also themselves, the fottowing questions:

What is your situation like? How are you yourself (in retation to the situation)? Do you want to change your present situation? Can you change your present situation? Can you not change it? What prevents a possible change? What are you going to do?

These questions can help the social worker and the client to chart the scope and preparedness for action, as a basis for their continued joint work.

3.2.5. Time and intervention

Every intervention - big or small - means that a sequence of events takes place. Together they form a process. In order to make a process clear and structure it, it can be arranged in space, but also in time. The time perspec- tive forms a general understanding framework around the intervention, but in many cases it can also be used as a component to drive it forward. This section wilt deat with both these aspects of the time perspective. First, however, a few words about our general understanding of time.

Our society is permeated by a conception of time that is sometimes called linear. We think of time as a constant flow, an abstraction, which runs from one point to another, in the perspective of the individual from birth to death. The metaphor of time as a line, a " time line", illustrates this abstract time concept. Time is omnipresent, but contains nothing in itself. It must be filled with content. Time is therefore an individual asset, a utility that can be used well or badly by the individual. The clock Is the aid that keeps count of time for us and makes it possible for us to co-ordinate our lives with those of other people. So the concepts of time (by the dock) and individuality are also closely ttnked to each other (Asplund, 1983). According to Asptund, a time concept that is related to the individual is a prerequisite of the concep- tion of people as separate individuals.

47

Our conception of time is closely connected with phenomena like industri- alization and urbanization, changes that are central to the change in society that is usually called the modernization process. In the society that industri- alism succeeded - the feudal society/the peasant society - time had a dif- ferent function. There it was characterized by predictable events that were repeated, often structured by nature and seasonal changes, in a predict- able but nevertheless fairly approximate way (Frykman & Lofgren, 1979). Seasons and work tasks recurred regularly and were woven into each other both backwards and forwards in time, both as a past and as a future. The time concept in this society could be described as circular rather than lin- ear.

A way of giving a clear picture of an individual person's whole life is illus- trated in Swedner's (1996) diagram of "the life arch". It can be seen as a graphic iltustration of the course of life, with time as a structuring base. Swedner thinks that every person endeavours to shape as good a life arch as possible - to have a good journey through life. However, individual and structurat (societal) factors - failings, mismanagement of resources, injus- tices, inequality - lead to there being a marked difference between the lives of individuals and groups, and to their quality of life being worse than it might have been. It is the task of wetfare work to help make every person's life arch as good as possible - welfare is for every individual person to have a good journey through life.

20 40 60 80 Age

Figure 1: An example of a life arch, with three different conceivable future courses iltustrated. The flgure is inspired by Swedner, 1996.

48

A similar way of regarding time as a structuring base can be said to be be- hind the life-run perspective that has been used increasingty in gerontologi- cat research in recent years (Thorsen, 1992, Oberg, 1997). The basic idea is that the old person's situation is best understood against the background of his or her life. The person's whole life is the object of anatysis and documentation, tn an analogous way it can be claimed that an individual intervention is best planned and carried out on the basis of knowledge about the whole of the person's life up tilt the present - not just the situation that exists immediately before the intervention,

tn our context, ptanning, carrying out and evaluating an intervention thus also means arranging it on the basis of a time perspective, a time line. With time as a structuring principle we can also describe and document the in- tervention. At any rate in the sense that we give an account of the most im- portant of the events it embraces, arranged in chronological order.

Bernler (in Bernler et at., 2001) points out different aspects of the time con- cept in a treatment context. His description is primarily based on interven- tions with the aim of changing an undesired situation for individuals or small groups (psychosocial treatment work, see section 4.3.2.). An intervention should be delimited In time for several reasons. It gives the ctient security. tt also hetps to speed up treatment processes, a so-catted anticipation ef- fect, "The very appointing of a final time gives the process an anticipatory effect in much the same way as when a limit to the conversation time is set." (ibid, p. 119). Bernler also thinks that att too long contacts in a treat- ment tend to reduce the changing potential and instead risk having a pre- serving effect.

In the same way that Swedner graphically portrays life in its entirety in his "life arch", graphic models are often used to itiustrate delimited courses of events, e.g. a course of treatment, in so-calted process models. In these modets, time is structured on the horizontal axis, while the vertical axis shows the category to be changed or documented, e.g. the degree of inter- action in a family or - as in the figure below - the intensity of treatment.

49

Intensity

Session no 1 9 10 11 12 13 14

I Time-axis

Figure 2: An example of a treatment process. The graph shows how treat- ment time and the intensity of the treatment relate to each other. From Bernler, in Bernler et al., 2001.

Bloom and Fischer (1982) also use time as a fundamental structuring base, in this case in evaluations of change-directed welfare work. Their evalua- tion model - Single System Designs - is based on graphs where the hori- zontal axis shows time. The results of the treatment are illustrated in a curve whose position, direction and appearance give information about changes over time. A base-line phase is compared with the subsequent intervention phase. Both the phases are portrayed in graphic form and the comparison between the two curves gives information about what has hap- pened in the work.

However, there are a great many interventions in the welfare fletd that can- not be detimited as dearly in time as psychosocial treatment for individuals and groups. For example, people with disabilities may need long-term - quite often life-tong - hetp and etderly people may need daily support. In such situations the time perspective naturalty cannot be used in the same way as an active component in the intervention, for example to speed up desired changes.

On the other hand, a longer time perspective like this gives opportunities to develop other qualities. A personal and trustful relationship, for example between a disabled person and his or her assistant, takes time to develop, but can contribute to an improved quality of life, at best for both parties. An intervention whose primary aim is to prevent changes in a negative direc- tion, for example a day activity for old peopte with symptoms of incipient

50

dementia, often actualty requires a tonger time perspective and more open forms. Long collaborative contacts of this kind that have no time limits are comparabte to retationships in working and private life in general. Davies (in Eliasson, 1990) introduces the concept of process time to stress the close link between care work and sodal retationships. 'The concept of process time accentuates the fact that time is embedded in social retation- ships. Several processes can be woven into each other and life's structure is patterned by this multiplicity of processes that intersect each other." (p. 45). In this connection it is thus the tasks or the needs the care-receiver has that must steer the work, rather than a linear conception of time. Jo- hansson (In Andersson, 2002) points out the power aspect in a discussion of time In social care. The care-receiver is dependent on getting time from the care-giver, who, in turn, controls the time and its use. When time is in short supply, control over it is a power factor.

However, even in these situations there can often be reason to document and illustrate the joint work. Graphic figures and process models, such as in the evaluation modet Single System Designs, can then be used as a pedagogical instrument and for evaluating.

Time is thus an important factor in all forms of intervention in welfare work. The quality and effectiveness of the intervention can increase if the welfare worker is aware of the time perspective and uses it in the best possible way in the individual case. In many situations the time concept can be used as a pedagogical instrument, for example to structure an intervention and illus- trate its course.

3.2.6. A model for societat change work

tnterventions in the societal welfare field can be of the most varying kinds and take place within a wide spectrum of contexts. They can be for sepa- rate individuals, small groups or bigger units, for example in a neighbour- hood. They can be directed towards, for example, old people, people with disabilities of various kinds, addicts and families with relationship problems as wetl as to individuals or families with financial difficulties or groups that are discriminated against on ethnic grounds. Deficiencies in welfare take different forms in different countries and regions, but also vary over time within the same geographical area. In the same way interventions that aim to prevent, solve or mitigate social problems and contribute to better wel- fare must vary across a wide spectrum and over time. The form of the in- tervention wilt in a sense be a reflection of the problem it is trying to solve.

51

It can therefore be difficutt to point to any single model for social welfare work. The literature in the field describes an abundance of different meth- ods, models and approaches, often dosely tinked to the fields where they are intended to be used. They also vary across a wide spectrum of specific- ity, from techniques to use in a concrete context (e.g. in investigatory con- versations with children), to methods for certain types of problems (e.g. fo- cussed brief therapy), to more comprehensive working methods (e.g. casework or community work).

On a more basic level you can talk about the main etements of sodal wel- fare work (Swedner, 1996). Swedner describes a generat model that con- sists of a number of such main components: the work of formulating goals, the production of knowtedge. the production of instruments, the implemen- tation and evaluation. Main elements like these - even though with partly different names and in different combinations - can be found in many other general descriptions of social welfare work. We therefore choose to de- scribe Swedner's model in somewhat more detail, well aware that it has both predecessors and successors in other parts of the academic world and in the practices of welfare.

No intervention should be started without thorough preparation, a task for every welfare worker. Preparation is a question both of acquiring knowl- edge and wett thought-out attitudes and of reaching personat maturity and stability. It is insight-creating work that concerns widely differing areas. Swedner s ays t hat p reparation should i nctude a n o ntological a nd a n a n- thropological aspect, a well thought-out view of history, society and knowl- edge, and an ethical basic view. Questions of the possibility of objective, "pure" knowledge, whether individuals act of their own free will or as the result of outside influence, if society is developed strictty according to law or if its processes are open to influence, of egoism or altruism as funda- mentat human driving forces, are alt examples of epistemological and ethi- cal questions that are part of preparation work.

The formulation of goals is the fundamental phase in societal change work. Goals express desirable future conditions or desirabte future courses of events - something that does not exist but coutd happen. Man's abitity to visuatize a situation or a development that does not exist but that could be reatized expresses in a concentrated form what is specificatty human, Swedner thinks, and cites Bauman (1973): "The human race is the only known project that has raised itself above the tevet of mere existence, that has raised itsetf above the domination of determinism and that has given 'ought' power over 'be'." (Quoted in Swedner, ibid, p. 103)

52

Swedner stresses the importance of founding alt sociat change work, all forms of intervention, on a solid base of knowledge. When the goats have been formutated, in such a way that they act as signposts and sources of inspiration, the production of knowiedge begins. This means that the base of knowledge that is needed for the intervention is produced or com- piled. Existing knowledge can naturally be used, reported in research re- ports and scientific journals or in the form of material from the welfare sec- tor'sown work, such as investigations and memos. Often, however, you find yourself in the position that existing knowledge does not cover the needs you have. New studies - new production of knowledge - is required. The production of knowledge that is then necessary should be of a high quatity and therefore be governed by scientific method requirements.

Knowledge can assume different forms and play severat different rotes in an intervention context. Knowledge of thepresentposition describes the situation as it is today, while knowledge of the past gives a historical per- spective. Causal knowtedge tries to link occurrences on different tevets with the causal factors that are behind them and is thus an expression of ex- planatory knowledge. These three types of knowtedge can att be used in their turn to build up reliabte knowledge about future developments, predic- tion knowtedge. Prediction knowledge gives predictions about the future, based on the history and the present. However, as we know, devetopment does not consist of a determinist, fixed continuation of the present; new and other factors are present and affect the course of the story. Predicting such factors and their effect - In combination with known factors in the present and from the history - forms the basis of the future knowiedge that is par- ticularly important in the goal-formulating phase of societal change work. In the intervention itself knowtedge about steering is of particularly great use. tt means that different forms of knowtedge are adapted to a specific appli- cation context. Swedner adopts an epistemological perspective, which, fol- lowing Paulo Freire and American pragmatism, advocates an active atti- tude with regard to the production of knowledge. The knowledge is to be used in the service of societal change work, the intervention. "Actor- thinking" is put before "spectator-thinking".

Welt thought-out goat formulations and a solid base of knowledge are im- portant but not sufficient prerequisites for societal change work. The pro- duction of instruments, the third phase in the model, means that the nec- essary prerequisites for the intervention are created. These "tools" can be quite tangible and physical; for day activities for old people good premises and pedagogical aids are required, transportation or meals services require appropriate vehicles and resources for management and co-ordination. Even more important, however, are often the specific instruments in the

53

form of knowledge about methods and ways of working that support change work. This should be guided by general norms or principles of ac- tion. Swedner, with reference to prominent researchers and practising pro- fessionals, formutates a number of such principles of action, which are re- produced here in a concentrated form. The names in brackets indicate the people who were the main sources of inspiration for the respective action rules.

- The Empathy Principle (Atfred Schutz), which means that the intervention should be based on a basic attitude of empathy (Einfuhlung) with the peo- ple to whom it is directed. - The Anchoring Prindple (Kurt Wolf), when, through contacts with those whose lives are to be affected, the intervention is made a matter for these peopte and groups to as great a degree as for those from whom the initia- tive comes. - The Awareness Principle (Pauto Freire), through which the people con- cerned are made aware of the societal mechanisms that are ultimately be- hind societal evils and oppression. - The Field Prindple (Etton Mayo), which means that the intervention should be located in the environments where the peopte concerned tive, as is particularty emphasized in intervention forms like Community Work or scientiflc approaches like Participatory Action Research (PAR). - The Feedback Principle (Kurt Lewin), stresses the unconditional duty of those who work with social intervention to make information and results ac- cessible "in the field" to everybody involved. - The Mobilization Prindple (Orlando Fals Borda), means that every inter- vention should aim to utilize the resources of those to whom it is directed. Latent resources can thus be activated to become a dominating force in the intervention. - The Participation Principle (T.R.Batten), adopts the basic ideas behind traditions like community development and community work, i.e. that sode- tal change work also involves making those concerned participatory and thus equipped to carry on developing their community even after the direct intervention has flnished. - The Fight Principle (Saul Atinsky), which makes it dear that intervention work takes place in a power field of social interests, where those who gain by preserving the status quo are also represented. Getting involved in so- cial intervention means standing up for vulnerable and wronged groups and individuals. - The Emancipation Principle (Jurgen Habermas), which could also be catted the tiberation principle, wants to point out that there are always pos- sible alternatives to the present. The conditions of individuals, groups and

54

whole communities can be changed and human beings possess a unique ability for transcendence.

The applicability of these nine action rules naturally varies between differ- ent intervention situations. Together, however, they can function as an im- portant instrument and as a normative checklist in intervention work.

implementation is the phase that follows logically after the formulation of goals, the production of knowledge and the production of instruments. In most intervention contexts it is the most comprehensive part. It is also then that various difficulties become apparent. In addition to the inertia that is very often made evident when sodal systems are changed, the implemen- tation can arouse active resistance from individuals and groups. Identifying and responding to these resistance strategies can sometimes be an impor- tant but often unforeseen part of the actual intervention work.

Evaluation is often the concluding, summing-up phase of a social interven- tion. Evaluating means acquiring or deepening one's knowledge about the intervention, but also assessing it - measuring it against some form of yardstick. An evaluation that gives a summarizing, final judgment is some- times calted summative. However, the evatuation can also take the form of a process, which fotlows and "shadows" the intervention during the time it is going on. Such a working method makes possible an inflow from the evaluation to the intervention. Such a - formative - evaluation can there- fore give a basis for adjustments and changes of course during the course of the work, as well as a description, analysis and assessment of alt the processes of the intervention. Both the forms can contribute to a thorough and exhaustive evaluation.

Swedner's model for societat change work is based on the five phases be- ing repeated in a cyclicat process. With every such repetition, knowledge and experience are deepened. The different phases do not in fact always come in the logical order that has been described here. In reality they often run paraltet or in a different order. The work model thus describes interven- tions as repeated processes, but basically also adopts the goal-means ra- tionalistic thinking described in section 3.1.7.

3.2.7. Summing up about intervention

Intervention entails conscious action to change an undesired situation - defined as a sodal problem - or to prevent a development in an undesired direction. Intervening is taking measures in order to influence. The interven-

55

tion can be aimed at the micro-level (single individuals), the group or or- ganization level, and also the macro-levet (large sociat aggregates). The overall function or context can be sorting, supporting, changing or - as is often the case - various combinations of these three.

The conditions for human action are a central starting-point in every inter- vention. For those who regard human action as being governed from out- side the scope of action is limited by the situation and its external factors. If you instead emphasize man as transcendent and governed by internal fac- tors (such as knowtedge, witI and energy), the timitations can consist of people's conception of their own scope for action. The concept "communi- cative action" (Habermas) unites the characteristics of an emancipatory and developing practice between people.

Not only space but also time structure intervention. The modernization process was accompanied by a conception of time that is usually calted lin- ear. On the basis of this conception of time, various courses of events can be iltustrated as graphs, everything from delimited sections of sodal interventions to the whole lives of individuals. The time perspective deserves attention and can also sometimes be used as a positive component, for example in treatment work. Many social interventions, however, are of a kind that goes on for a long time and is often unlimitable in time, where the time perspective has a different import.

The section concludes with a general model for societal/social change work. It consists of five main phases: the work of formulating goats, the production of knowledge, the production of instruments, the implementation and evaluation. In the vast majority of concrete intervention, these parts can be found, atbeit to a varying extent and in a different order. Swedner, who developed the model, also points out that it must be applied flexibly and on the basis of a time perspective.

3.3. Conclusion

Chapter 3 revolves round two basic concepts in connection with societal welfare work - the concepts of change and intervention. In one sense these can be seen as two sides of the same coin. In order to produce change - or prevent an undesired change - for individuals, groups or in (local) communities, conscious, planned and explicit action is required, i.e. intervention. The intervention, on the other hand, is intended to produce change. Neither can therefore be conceived without the other. Another metaphor to illustrate the relationship between change and intervention is

56

to talk about change as a content category and intervention as a form cate- gory. This can be retevant against the background of this chapter's discus- sion of equifinality - that a certain resutt/change can be produced in many different ways. There are severat roads to the goat. In a more subtte sense, intervention naturally also has its content - closely tinked to its forms.

It is worth pointing out that this chapter only describes one way of reason- ing about the concepts of change and intervention. Its starting-points in general system theory and an explanatory model founded on togical levels constitute one of many conceivable approaches. We do not claim to have investigated the question of "the innermost nature of change". Neither have we analysed the relationship between quantitative and qualitative changes. It seems reasonable to assume an interptay between quantitative and qualitative changes and that societal change work contains "changing points" or "qualitative jumps" where the quantitative change becomes a qualitative change.

One purpose of this chapter is to lay a foundation for the following parts, which describe and discuss different forms of intervention work more con- cretely, with more or less explicit reference to some of the concepts that have been introduced here. The foltowing chapter deals with the theory and practice of different forms of intervention, i.e. their idea history, theoretical and conceptual foundation and forms of concrete intervention work.

57