July 2, 2012 
By Rosie R. Meade:
[Extract]
This hedgehog with a daisy in her hair wishes you would spend a bit more time volunteering
The hegemonisation of partnership obscured fundamental contradictions in Irish society. It implied that structurally created polarities and hierarchies could be ignored in the interests of consensus; that political concerns could be treated as technical hitches; that competing sectors were equals in the processes of policy making. As it facilitated and evangelised partnership processes, the state reconstituted its own role to that of enabler; supporting active citizenship, allowing communities to do what they do best. But interactions with the state held a parallel disciplinary aspect. Community development organisations were reminded—sometimes subtly, at other times more crudely—of the appropriate rules of engagement: that there were insiders and outsiders in the policy field; that participation was a privilege not a right; that government departments control the purse strings; and that the effectiveness of projects and programmes was always up for review. The breakdown of national partnership in the face of economic recession and the recent reorientation of the CDP towards a service provision agenda have gone some way towards defusing these myths of collegiality and consensus.
(…)
President Higgins attends call for volunteering
Ireland Financial Crisis Protests
I am concerned, nonetheless, that further professionalisation is a risky strategy, not least because the neoliberal dogmas of managerialism and market relevance actively undermine professional authority and independence. Professionalism also requires a kind of autonomous expertise that community development does not have. Instead, the responsibility to empower citizens or democratise communication, means workers cannot lay claim to an a priori professsional status. The participatory values and discourses to which community work appeals legitimise and invite constant renegotiations, and even outright rejection, of the worker’s power. Even when their roles demand that they navigate and manage relationships with the state, workers must demonstrate responsiveness to community expectations. These countervailing responsibilities create scope for resistance, negotiation or flexibility in the face of state disciplinary power. If professionalism means submitting to accreditation processes that have been licensed by government departments or their proxies, it would ultimately expose community development to new and more profound forms of state discipline. I fear that, given the disquiet and uncertainty that has been provoked by recent review processes and revised state strategies, this would constitute a potentially counter-productive gamble.
Read full article at Antipode Volume 44, Number 3, 1 June 2012.
Baierle & Co. 
Comments are closed.