THE DISCIPLINE OF SOCIAL POLICY AND BICULTURALISM(1).

• Author: Lunt, Neil

An attempt to reform the university without attending to the system of which it is an integral part is like trying to do urban renewal in New York city from the twentieth storey up. (Illich 1973:44)

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this paper is to explore aspects of the academic discipline of social policy, asking critical questions about its assumptions and origins. In particular, it explores the extent to which social policy reflects dominant belief systems and the implications of this for ethnicity and culture. Social policy is not alone; a number of academic disciplines have recently undergone their own "cultural audit". Anthropology has revisited its anthropological "gaze", while the revisionist challenge in history has unmasked the subject as something always written by the victor to the detriment of the vanquished. Similarly, the discipline of economics has been critiqued for building on particular assumptions of what constitutes rational economic man (sic), while education according to the "Colonial School", rather than liberating, has been destructive of "native" society and beliefs. The privileged position of such academic disciplines and the knowledge they produce has been considered a form of cultural and intellectual imperialism, helping to cement dominant power relations.

In exploring the foundations of social policy, the paper illustrates how its methods and subject matter "mask" whiteness, and how this may present barriers to exploring biculturalism. The paper discusses five positions or stances that may be taken to social policy analysis within New Zealand: monoculturalism; multiculturalism; focusing on the Treaty; sloganising; and problematising paradigms. It suggests that making these positions transparent is a useful starting point when seeking to understand the relationship between social policy and biculturalism.

Background

This paper arises from the author having relocated to an academic social policy department within New Zealand, having previously undertaken empirical policy research for government departments, international organisations and non-statutory funding bodies within the UK. Once in post, discussions with colleagues encouraged a reconsideration of the fundamental premises of social policy that had been carried as intellectual baggage. Such dialogues clarified the positions that may be taken towards social policy analysis and biculturalism within New Zealand. These positions are tools of analysis to assist in the exploration and unpacking of social policy, rather than reflections on contemporary policy approaches.

THE DISCIPLINE OF SOCIAL POLICY

The roots of social policy and social work lie in the Fabian reformist, social administrative tradition of the early twentieth century. As an area of inquiry or discipline(2) it borrows from a range of disciplines, principally political science, economics, sociology, public administration and anthropology(3) (Marsh 1965, Brown 1969).

This hybrid of social administration is influenced by a range of ideas about the nature of knowledge, the process of social change, and ideas about policy making and democracy. At an epistemological level, social administrative approaches to policy studies hold that institutions could be reformed to good effect if we knew the "facts" and could present evidence about current ways of doing things. Incremental change will result once policy makers are aware of empirical evidence, and institutions will gradually evolve.

Social administration adopts a rational approach to problem solving, with social problems typically viewed as having an objective existence. Thus, problems exist, are identifiable, and are open to amelioration and alleviation (Marsh 1965, Brown 1969). As Brown writes: "social administration is concerned with social problems and [second] it is concerned with the ways in which society responds to those problems" (p.13). Absent from the social administration perspective are later critiques that suggest problems are social constructions which are created and exacerbated by societal influences and pressures (Holstein and Miller 1993, Sarbin and Kitsuse 1994).

The social administrative approach frequently blurs the distinction between descriptive and normative approaches to policy making, and there is a corresponding belief (or even faith) that change will, and should, occur once evidence is assembled. Intervention is perceived to be both desirable and achievable, and social democratic ideas are influential. Social administration had its heyday in the 1950s and 1960s and this optimism was indicative of the post-war period of increasing public expenditure, welfare state expansion, economic growth and full employment. These were halcyon days indeed, and progress appeared so significant in the Western world that some commentators hailed the "end of ideology" (Bell 1962).

Accompanying these changes was the post-war revolution in social science research methods, particularly the development of the social survey, statistical methods and improvements in computer capacity. Social science research and investigation took place within a positivistic tradition of objective scientific investigation, with the emphasis on identifying and measuring the extent of "problems".

Areas of Inquiry

Social administration inquiry centred on discreet institutions of the post-war welfare state: the health services, education, income security, social services and housing. Welfare state institutions were seen as synonymous with social administration, and the achievement of well-being was equated with access to a range of services. Hence, institutions and pieces of legislation were described and documented, their implementation difficulties and deficiencies noted, and changes suggested.

Social administration is paternalistic in its view of policy and citizens; power is seen as formal, institutional, and top-down, with decisions taken by a benign government attempting to rectify the socio-economically disadvantaged circumstances of individuals and groups. Social administration may be considered a-theoretical or even anti-theoretical in its perspective, lacking analytical rigour and attempting to merely reduce symptoms of problems while ignoring causes.

This is an overly pessimistic picture that ignores much that is of value within social administration; for example, its problem-solving approach and concern with real world issues. However, as a construction none of the assumptions of social administration should escape critical scrutiny.

From Social Administration to Social Policy

During the later 1960s and early 1970s social administration became influenced by a range of alternative approaches (cf. Atkin 1996), particularly the structural influences of Marxist and feminist writers. Policy intervention was deemed to have failed, for despite the rhetoric of the welfare state, poverty and inequality remained high.

Theoretical writings sought to give social administration a more explanatory focus and move away from pathologising the failure of individuals and groups. These theoretical approaches eschewed piecemeal reform as merely alleviating symptoms without eliminating root causes. Instead, systems-level analysis explored structural and institutional sources of disadvantage. This occurred in a range of spheres: class (Ginsburg 1979, Gough 1979), gender (Finch and Groves 1983, Pascall 1986), race (Rex 1973, Cohen et al. 1982), and later, age (Walker 1980, Phillipson 1982 and 1986), and disability (Oliver 1990, Morris 1991). These structural analyses (i.e. class, race, gender) had major impacts on social administration, with it making the change in name (if not completely in perspective) to social policy. Social policy analysis developed various mixes of theoretical and empirical analysis, which still encouraged accusations that approaches were either atheoretical and lacking explanatory power, or absolving responsibility for dealing with real issues and improving conditions. This (perhaps healthy) tension is maintained in contemporary social policy debates.

...