Do unto others: on the appropriation of citizen empowerment

I posted some musings last month about the way empowerment has become an industry: its recognition as an issue in policy is welcome but its neutralising assimilation distasteful.

Meanwhile I've been watching as that well-known authority on local activism, the RSA, plans to follow up on its idea for a 'new community development qualification' by toying with notions of 'citizen power' as if it were a conceptual plaything. I was invited to the launch of this project recently, but I still haven't understood why a local project required a London 'launch' with Triffickly Important People speaking.

The invitation noted:

'With political disengagement on the rise and public services feeling the squeeze, it has never been more important to realise the potential of people to affect change at a local level by shaping the identity and direction of the places and public services they use.'

OK, I'm with you so far, how you gonna do that? 'The potential of people': any particular people?

'This pioneering project led by the RSA in partnership with Peterborough City Council and Arts Council England East, will experiment with different ‘models of social change’ across a range of spheres including civic behaviour, education, local enterprise, rehabilitation and treatment services.'

Ah I see, not led by local people then. But experimenting with their lives and their place, how thoughtful. Well you wouldn't want to risk increasing political disengagement, would you?

The text went on to explain the RSA's belief that 'the goals of individual fulfilment and social progress require an ambitious model of citizenship'... It has to be a model, because the wealthy elite like to play with things and then go off and do something else, leaving ordinary people to, er, well tidy up and make do afterwards I suppose.

David Wilcox has been trying to inject some sense of responsibility and offered a couple of comments here, with a gentle irony that seems either too subtle, or too late, or both:

'I know that there's a strong theoretical commitment to citizen engagement, empowerment etc. But isn't there a slight danger that without some evidence of citzens at the heart of the project this will look like social architecture designed in John Adam Street?'

The rhetoric ('We do want to involve people in all aspects of the project') isn't hard to find but sounds as hollow as always. When I started to wonder about the '.co.uk' url, it struck me that not only is this an audacious attempt by wonkdom to appropriate, govern and direct citizen empowerment from the top-down; it also implies it can be turned into a project of social entrepreneurship.

It may seem trivial to be pricking the RSA's pomposity (although they seem to work hard at it). But I'm more concerned with a growing suspicion that one of the legacies of new Labour will be the erosion of the validity of radicalism by treating it as intellectually fashionable and appropriating its language. If you do unto others and call it empowerment, what will residents call real empowerment when the time comes to get you off their territory?

 

Comments

[David Wilcox]

Thanks for the name check Kevin ... I think you have confirmed my observation of "slight danger":-)
I see two strands in tension within RSA and similar organisations - first a real enthusiasm among staff and Fellows for exploring and supporting local civic action, and second the historical heritage of think-tankery, wonkdom that will turn anything fashionably radical into a project, pamphlet, lecture ... and funding bid.
Therein lies the problem, perhaps, in these institutionally-led initiatives. In order to get the funds to do Good Things for/to Citizens the institution has to pitch to other partners and sponsors who of course have their own agendas. Papers are written, meetings held, and actions elevated to a policy plane difficult for "ordinary" citizens to understand. They can't be let in to the the discussions, because nothing is yet Agreed.
There then has to be a Launch so that the partners and sponsors have their moment of glory ... and where better than in the fine rooms of the RSA?
There's my less subtle version:-)
BUT I hope that this institutional flummery doesn't smother the ambitions of those involved in the project on the front line.
The real test will come with the next stage of the project, when RSA staff engage more fully with local interests.
Of course, there is another way, which is to co-design the process with local people from the start. Or maybe find better ways to channel the resources directly to local groups.

[Ben Lee]

Absolutely agree. And I have been at a number of discussions recently where the appropriation by the State of any vaguely community-focused activity was bemoaned. In many other countries this does not happen - civic action remains as independent and seperate form the State as private business. In the UK even the professionals (of which I am one!) come from the same pool with a carousel of folk sashaying between public agencies and paid roles in community organisation.

And this is now becoming a very political issue - just see Michael Merrick's article for Respublica (the Philp Blond thinktank) "Raging against the machine":

"...Having assiduously cultivated highly politicised locales based on specific group identities, Labour believe themselves to have in some sense sewn up the vote of these identities - 'community leaders' become the loose equivalent of precinct captains, their pockets stuffed with taxpayer pounds for this initiative, or that project, or this outreach work."
http://www.respublica.org.uk/blog/2010/03/raging-against-machine

[Sam McLean]

Hi Kevin

I run the Citizen Power project you are talking about. Why don't you come and see me and I can take you through the programme? Or perhaps come along to one of the local activities in Peterborough.

At least then you would have an accurate perspective, though I have sympathy for what you say about the 'launch'. And I am very keen to tap into your obvious passion and commitment. I respect the drivers of your post even if I radically disagree with much of what you are actually saying!

I feel very strongly about what you write. Partly because what you write is very far from the truth but also because I am personally committed to and passionate about empowerment. It's not a job to me, its a passion. If it were empty rhetoric - and yes there is a lot around - I wouldn't have anything to do with it and neither would my team.

I would argue with anyone who says co-producing a recovery community with drug users to tackle long-term drug dependency is not empowering particularly when drug-related crime in the city is twice the national average.

All the projects are built on the premise of networks shaped, directed and delivered by local people. In each project people will be the drivers. The recovery community and drug services will be co-designed by users almost from scratch; the environmental action project will be run by local communities - they decide what issues to tackle and how; the place of learning work will be designed by schools and local institutions and community groups; the civic health and well-being evaluation framework will involve local people generating their own self-identified communities.

These strands are not pre-set in the sense that either RSA or PCC have said this is what we are doing because we think it is good for you. The strands were selected for a number of reasons, one being that they all reflect local need as determined by local people themselves through significant engagement research and data.

Alongside this will be a significant programme of arts and culture to strengthen social capital and participation in the city.

In all a very challenging and exciting programme of work that would benefit from the involvement of people like you and David.

If you're interested in taking up my offer, please get in touch.

All the best

Sam

P.S. What you say about the RSA certainly doesn't reflect the people I know and work with here. But that is another conversation.

[Kevin Harris]

Hi Sam, thanks for taking the trouble to comment. It's good to hear a passionate defence of project work. It's also reassuring to hear your claim that it's not a top-down project. Thanks also fro the invitation, I try to visit local projects whenevr I can so when it looks like I can be in the region with some time I will be in touch.

I'm sorry you think that what I wrote is 'very far from the truth'. This suggests that there could be quite a lot wrong with the way the RSA presents what it is trying to do. A London club with the word 'Royal' in its title will struggle to avoid claims of elitism anyway, and when its activities are described in the way I quoted then I think there is every justification for people like me to take aim (just as there is every justification for you to take the opportunity to defend the project). My main concern was to highlight an example of how radicalism gets assimilated and its language gets appropriated.

[David Wilcox]

As an RSA Fellow** I can confirm there are people there passionate about these issues. But the style and language does get in the way. Look, for example, at chief executive Matthew Taylor's blog, where he is exploring the idea of 21st century enlightenment and sustainable citizenship. Really interesting ideas, but difficult to see how this would play in Peterborough or anywhere else outside the think tanks:
"The original enlightenment was in essence about freeing human potential, releasing it from the bounds of religious superstition, tradition and kingly hierarchy so that through science, commerce and individual freedom man could be master of all he surveyed.
"The 21st century enlightenment recognises that human fulfilment must be pursued on the foundations set by human nature and within the finite limits of the natural world. Human efficacy is about understanding and adapting to those limits, not accepting less than we are capable of, but neither believing that we can ignore or defy who we are as a species and the world we occupy.
"This is not pessimism it is wisdom. For example, the amazing power of our conscious mind can only be fully realised when we recognise that rational choice is only a part of what makes up our nature and drives our behaviour.
"At the heart of 21st century enlightenment lies the ideal of sustainable citizenship; the way we must to live to create the future we want. Combining the values of civic republicanism, the fast developing science of social behaviour and an enthusiasm for innovation in the public realm, the central quest of the 21st century enlightenment is for the ways of thinking, the forms of action and the types of institutions that will foster sustainable citizenship."
Matthew writes a brilliant blog, and leads what is perhaps the best public lecture programme in the UK. But the style is think tank, abstract, broadcast, with the aim (as far as I can see) of appealing mainly to those in that frame of mind.
One result, I believe, is that RSA projects feel obliged to put on their best think tanky style in public ... however passionate and accessible they may be in private.
It's good to hear outline plans for bottom-up initiatives from the Peterborough Project, but so far most information about the project is in the RSA journal and Progressonline coached in policy terms. There's not much on the project blog http://citizenpower.co.uk/ that people in Peterborough can relate to.
The intentions may be good, but the audience is still elite. And it is "audience" not participant, contributor.
One idea - how about a few vox pops with Peterborough citizens saying what they are interested in, using their language, with RSA responding? I'm happy to volunteer a bit of Flip camera training (actually I can do it here - point camera, press red button, ask question, listen, press red button, plug into computer, transfer to Youtube. Any problem, ask passing young person to do it on their phone. Repeat in RSA. Then lend people cameras)
Not being facetious ... just move to the vernacular to avoid further misunderstanding. Simple bit of communications empowerment.
** Fellow is another bit of archiac language. Just means member ... anyone can be one unless they are really naughty.

[twitter.com/gentlemandad]

Mmm. still doesn't explain why the launch was in London or why the RSA in particular was considered an appropriate organisation to run the project.

[Leo Romero]

Thanks Kevin. I added http://citizenpower.co.uk to our list of neighborhood-based social networks http://ourblocks.net/resources

It launched on 3/8 and as of 3/27 has 17 members. That's a decent start. I hope the organizers document their progress. Neighborhood groups are slowly moving from listservs to more versatile platforms such as ning (which citizenpower uses). Most are just muddling through. RSA would provide a priceless service to place-based groups all over the world if they'd just document their progress - good, bad, and bumpy.

For a start, it would be really useful to see the "significant engagement research and data" to which Sam Mclean (its director) refers above. What were the findings, what's the resulting plan, and what's the network got to do with it? The website itself does not say.

[Leo Romero]

I just heard today from Ben Dellot at Citizen Power that they'll be posting their research findings there soon: http://citizenpower.co.uk/profiles/blogs/a-request-and-some-unsolicited