Weaving a philosophical thread linking everyday practice and theory when ‘it depends … ’

Step 1: Everyday practice in Freire and activity theory: methodological implications

Step 2: Applying the method of abstraction to the concept of mobility in Finnish home care

Adopting a dialectical theoretical standpoint in social pedagogy implies a more coherent discipline that could avoid the trappings of ideology. The method of abstraction – whether Freire’s decoding methodology or the germ cell formulated by Marx – can only take its full meaning when relating to the complexity of human practice. I now attempt to apply this thinking to everyday practice relevant to social pedagogy.

There are two ways at our disposal when attempting to recognise a germ cell: one is to examine the limits of the meaning of a concept, where it applies and where its explanatory power is lost; the other way is to understand how it develops over time (Engeström et al., 2014; Ilyenkov, 1982).

In order to do this, let me introduce the first vignette. It is an extract from a study carried out by Engeström and others at the University of Helsinski (Engeström et al., 2012; Engeström, Kajamaa and Nummijoki, 2015). This was a long-term study looking at the use of ‘mobility agreements’ between elderly people and their nurses over the course of several years. What is relevant for our purpose is the dilemma that Anne and her nurses are experiencing.

Anne’s nurse Tina recollects that in 2008, after Anne returned home from the hospital, the nurses who participated in Anne’s home care were afraid that she would permanently remain in bed. [In the interview] Anne points out that all she wanted was indeed to stay in bed, to not even have to go to the toilet. Little by little Anne got better, but in September 2010 she got worse again. She spent two weeks in the hospital. In the third segment, Anne recollects an incident in which a physician suggested that Anne might start applying for a permanent place in a hospice or a similar institution due to her severe health problems. This suggestion made Anne angry, and she declares, ‘And I will live at home as long as I can.’ In other words, Anne was practically bedridden and unwilling to get up, that is, increasingly dependent on help from professional caregivers, again in September 2010. A person who is unable to get up from the bed does not anymore belong to home care. Yet very shortly after that, in October 2010, Anne was appalled by the suggestion that she should live in a hospice; she wanted to continue living autonomously at home. This conflict of motives was emotionally quite strongly experienced by both Anne and the nurses. Anne talks about anger (1463: ‘I got angry’), and the nurse talks about fear (972: ‘ ... we had small fear, all of us, that you will remain there ... ’).

(Engeström et al., 2012, p. 296)

The project’s overall aim was to understand how the agreement (in the form of a booklet) influenced the participants’ ideas around sustainable mobility for elderly people as opposed to ideas of mobility in the general population, where competition, efficiency and sporting prowess are its defining elements (Engeström et al., 2012, p. 290). Engeström and his team analysed the situation twice using the method of abstraction, so as to arrive at a germ cell, an essential dilemma that contains the main tension manifested in everyday practice.

They did this first empirically, by looking at video recordings of nurses’ visits and trying to track the activity of both the nurse and their patient. They identified ‘boundary problems’, something Freire would probably have called limit-situations, where a conflict or a contradiction appears in the activity of both the nurses and their clients. The data showed that among different types of mobility exercises, the repeated action of ‘standing up from the chair’ led to unexpected and fruitful developments (Engeström et al., 2015, pp. 59–61). In particular, it highlighted a contradiction present in all situations: that of the need for autonomy, as observation and practice emphasised the importance of standing up without the help of a chair or a table, while at the same time being subjected to the very real danger of fall and injury together with the health complications of remaining chair-bound.

The second type of analysis Engeström and his team carried out is more historical, not on a grand scale, but within Anne’s local context. Within activity theory this is called historical-genetic, or finding the genesis of a given concept (Virkkunen and Ahonen, 2011). Indeed, the article in Engeström et al. (2012) is based on an interview with Anne and her nurse where they recall a period of three years, between 2008 and 2011. In that time, Anne and her nurse used the mobility agreement, and like other participants, found that ‘standing up from the chair’ is a contradictory and powerful exercise that allowed Anne to ultimately remain living at home well beyond the hopes of her nurses and doctors as described in the vignette. Indeed, when Anne stands up from the chair, it leads to further actions that support her mobility sustainably and that have enabled her to act in new and unexpected ways. For example, the act of ‘standing up from the chair’ can be used as a diagnosis tool, but also led to walks as well as prompting more activity, such as setting up the table.

Those ‘generative themes’ – to recall Freire’s expression – are summarised by Engeström in a diagram reproduced in Figure 1.

It is now time to link back this example – more specifically the method used – with the first step of this article. In the vignette, the method helped Engeström identify how Anne’s anger when confronted to the possibility of living in a hospice was actually necessary for her to become aware of all the aspects of her situation, and how this balance between autonomy and safety is something that colours all aspects of her everyday life. Examining how different concepts and ideas interact in a given situation, as well as how those concepts came to mean what they currently mean, may allow a social pedagogue to identify other germ cells containing contradictory aspects of a dilemma. For Anne and her nurses, in everyday practice, ‘it depends’ on whether it is appropriate to take a risk and stand up unaided, thus building core strength necessary for home life, or to err on the side of caution and use support from the table, as it may be that the nurse is absent and the risk of falling too great.

We can follow Engeström’s argument because he presents it from the end point of his research process; we as readers are introduced to the basic tension identified for movement in the elderly home-care population in Finland. Once the most basic relationship between safety and unsupported movement has been established, the generative powers of this germ cell are clear to us. Practitioners can easily establish why ‘it depends’, and the possibility for change that stems from such a simple relationship is explored practically.

Step 3: Finding the germ cell in everyday practice

As social pedagogues we aim to take transformative actions in our work, yet we do not have the luxury of working with the understanding of the basic germ cell that Engeström et al. (2012) had identified. The method of ascending from the abstract to the concrete is sometimes described as a double helix (Blunden, 2017, p. 139) because it starts from the fragmented perception of reality to reach an abstract understanding – that is, the germ cell – which then needs to be tested through applying it to a specific context. Marx insisted on the difference between the way in which his argument was presented and the method to construct the argument:

Of course, the method of presentation must differ in form from that of inquiry. The latter has to appropriate the material in detail, to analyse its different forms of development, to trace out their inner connexion. Only after this work is done, can the actual movement be adequately described. If this is done successfully, if the life of the subject-matter is ideally reflected as in a mirror, then it may appear as if we had before us a mere a priori construction.

(Marx, 2015, p. 14)

This same process applies to everyday practice, and we as practitioners need to start from fragmented and disconnected experiences. In the final step of the argument, I therefore attempt to start the reflection by bringing fragmented elements of my practice to point towards a basic, explanatory and generative relationship of conflicting aspects of the universes of themes I am part of.

I have written the vignette from my point of view as a participation coordinator within a children’s home, where Qoree, a 16-year-old young man, had moved into the home in an emergency. A meeting was to be held to discuss his long-term living situation. As with the first vignette, the salient point in our discussion is with the dilemma I experience.

The social worker seems stressed, she talks a lot about all the things she has had to do since Qoree contacted social services because he couldn’t live at home anymore. I am mindful of the obvious pressure she is experiencing; as well as the discrepancies between her plans for Qoree to move into foster care and his own wishes. Indeed, he talked about his preference to stay in residential care, as he imagines he would feel a stranger in somebody else’s home if he were to move in with foster parents. My role in this meeting is to advocate for Qoree.

The discussion moves to identifying a foster carer where Qoree could move in permanently, and I ask the social worker to explain why it is unlikely he will be able to remain in his current residential placement. Her exasperation towards me increases even more when I continue to press for what he is entitled to: ‘Would it be possible to visit a prospective foster carer before moving in?’ At another moment during the meeting, Qoree is offered counselling as both his family and the professionals around him are worried that his recent transition to becoming ‘looked after’ must cause stress on him. They want to give him the possibility to work through the complex situation he is in at the moment. Qoree explains that he isn’t much of a talker.

After the meeting, his social worker, Qoree and myself are having a chat, and we come to talk about different ways to express anger. Qoree says he usually uses the punch bag that we happen to stand close to, or that he cycles to get his anger out. I reflect upon the fact that physical activity is a good way to process anger, but his social worker interjects: ‘Oh, I don’t want to you to cycle when you’re angry, it’s not safe!’

My professional intention, as shown in this vignette, is to ensure Qoree’s rights are respected and he is consulted in the decisions that are made about him as per the Universal Declaration of Children’s Rights (United Nations, 1990, articles 3, 5 and 12).

The relationship between different aspects of the situation wasn’t clear to me at the time. What I experienced as a dilemma was the social worker invoking safety in a manner that assumed Qoree was unable to make decisions around his physical safety when cycling. It did not fit with what I knew of him, a young 16-year-old who went to school, had a regular job and was socially adept with other young people in the home.

Much of the relationship between safety, children’s rights and the position of the social worker was highlighted several months later, when preparing a presentation on ‘the image of the child in residential care’. Indeed, the method of abstraction that is gradually revealed through this article indicates that seemingly unrelated episodes can gradually expose the fundamental relationship of the germ cell, thus encapsulating practice. At the time of the vignette, however, I was fully subjected to Freire’s contradictory universes of themes mentioned in the introduction.

In this presentation, I wanted to illustrate how the actions and narratives we tell ourselves about children are influenced by social norms. This is an idea that Murris (2016) summarised in what she calls figurations of childhood. In order to help the group of about 30 people think about this, I chose to focus on a controversial item sometimes used with children: a safety harness (Pawlowski, 2014). This is a kind of leash harnessed on the child and held by the parent or carer in order to stop the child from running into danger.

I asked group members whether or not, as a child, they had been made to use such a harness, and whether they knew of children currently using them. They recorded this on a timeline running from 1950 to the present. What several participants noticed was the fact that the harnesses were in use much earlier than expected. Indeed, many of us assumed that the use of harnesses was a relatively new practice, but in fact we had five examples of people using them in the late 1950s and 1960s. This points to the fact that this is more than a trend or a symptom of health and safety’s impact on everyday life. In the lively discussion that ensued, people justified their parents’ choice through its practicality, and the fact that parenting means compromising between the child’s safety and other demands made on the adult.

A final, and also fragmented theme that helped me understand a possible underlying tension between children’s rights, safeguarding and the position of adults consisted in reflecting with the same group on the justifications for using such a harness in schools. We used the material provided by a company marketing such a harness to schools (Walkodile®, 2012). What this highlighted was that safety for children was used in a manner that deformed and twisted the group’s understanding of other concepts associated with childhood, such as learning, becoming responsible or socialisation. The website listed benefits of using the harness for school outings. In that document, children benefit because harnesses:

• Create more & better learning opportunities as the walk is more effectively managed

• Make children more independent, taking responsibility for walking on their own without needing to hold anyone’s hand. (Walkodile®, 2012)

Together with the awareness that child harnesses were in use before health and safety was at the forefront of decision making, this highlighted how adults’ practical constraints are an important factor in what happens to children, and that adults’ decisions (whether as social worker, parent or teacher) in everyday practice are justified with, rather than dictated by, safety. Just as the website described promoting the use of harness, the social worker’s remark about her fear for Qoree’s safety when cycling felt like an add-on, a bit like an excuse to gain control of the many demands that were made on her. She quite rightly needed us to be aware of her constraints, yet some social or professional taboo made it difficult to express this. Calling on safety had the desired effect, however, and the many different aspects of the situation were maintained in balance.

To go back to the methodological point I am trying to make, the information gathered with the help of the group strengthened awareness of the mutually opposing elements of safety, or children’s rights for that matter, in contradistinction with the capacity for action of the adult responsible for the child. Cutting through the ideological universes of themes around the safety of children, the fundamental relationship at play here is the compromise between the adult’s capacity for action, the child’s right and safety. If this was observed in other instances of everyday practice, one might represent this germ cell as outlined in Figure 2.

This is a difficult contradiction to examine because it highlights the guilt that adults experience due to their own limitations, and because of the high level of taboo that childhood is subject to in many societies (Romo, 2011; Smith, 2009, pp. 35–58). I am in no way suggesting that the care children received in those instances was not good enough, simply that in order to truly understand the situation and transform it, adults’ capacity to take action needs to be consciously brought to awareness. All three separate instances, at home with parents, in residential care with a social worker and at school with a teacher, highlighted how safeguarding procedures or tokenistic participation can justify a decision despite the fact that other considerations are also at play, and may sometimes be even a stronger influence on the course of action. Yet in all three instances the adult’s capacity for action was disguised. Children are undeniably bound to adults because they are dependent on adults for many aspects of their lives (Corsaro, 1997; Mayall, 2000; Moran-Ellis, 2010) but other tropes may be at play there.

To go back to the argument of this article, and in order to uphold children’s rights, the ‘it depends’ may be to consider including the adults’ capacity for action as an important contributing factor to decisions about children’s safety and their right to be consulted in decisions made about them. Those three instances of a possible dialectical relationship form only one part of the process of ascending from the abstract to the concrete, and the generative nature of this germ cell relationship still remains to be tested.

Concluding remarks

In this article I describe how Freire’s investigative method follows the same principles as Marx’s method of ‘ascending from the abstract to the concrete’.

Observation and experience of everyday practice highlights fundamental relationships that can gradually be formulated in a ‘germ cell’. A germ cell is a contradiction that can then, in turn, be applied to particular concrete situations. If accurate enough, the germ cell has transformative powers in that it allows individuals to bear in mind all aspects present in the situation and therefore resolve the contradiction they initially experienced, thus acting at a level that is both agentic and less prone to ideology.

My contention is that using this method may enable social pedagogues to communicate the contextual thinking they do in a more scientific, objective manner. This may match the apparent linearity and accountability that have become the norm in the sector since it favoured New Public Management, the neoliberal methods that have been adapted to public services across the Western world in the 1980s and 1990s (Frost and Parton, 2009).

In the example of Anne’s situation, the formulation of the germ cell as the balance between autonomous movement and safety generated unexpected and welcome results in her life. With regard to the relationship between Qoree’s rights to be involved in decisions about his life, differing notions of what is safe for him seem to hold in tension with the adults’ capacity for action. So, the question remains what other possibilities would have been thought of should I have acknowledged that ‘it depends’ on the social worker’s capacity for action.

Often there is a sense that here in the UK being a practitioner within children’s services means to be pragmatic and to hold everybody’s interests in mind. This makes change difficult and slow. What writing this article has taught me, however, is that the possibility of change is present in every contradiction of everyday practice. To conclude let’s go back to Freire (1996) as quoted in the introduction where he observes that our reality, our everyday practice as social pedagogues and professionals within welfare services has a tendency ‘to be mythicized, establishing a climate of irrationality and sectarianism’ (p. 83).

Freire goes on to remind us that each of those myths and differing realities arise because of the specific interest of a person of a group of people. It is healthy and important to keep those oppositions in tension; however, the power imbalances that arise if the tension is not maintained have dehumanising effects.