Revisiting hegemony: A Gramscian analysis for contemporary social work

Introduction

There has been renewed interest in the ideas of Antonio Gramsci (Carey and Foster, 2011). This has included the application of these ideas to the social work profession (Garrett, 2008, 2009). Within this, authors such as Garrett (2008, 2009) identify the value in a resurgence of Gramscian analyses for social work in the present era. In this paper, one aspect of Gramsci’s work is taken up, namely, the concept of hegemony.

The core argument of this paper is that postmodern forces produce indeterminate, fluid and fragmented social work critical pedagogies and practice milieu (Fook and Pease, 2016; Garrett, 2018). Here a division between postmodern critical approaches, and more conservative, managerial–technicist approaches also present in social work, is apparent (see Fenton, 2014; Garrett, 2010; Hanesworth, 2017; Harlow, 2003; Morley et al., 2014). In this context, it is argued that better ideological and theoretical integration of these competing themes would be beneficial in social work to support counterhegemonic practice. Moreover, in seeking to contribute something new to existing debates around this, the paper furnishes novel illustrations of how hegemony relates to, and may be used in, contemporary social work practice. This advances current understanding, where otherwise such examples are markedly absent.

Bearing this in mind, theoretically informed critical commentary in this paper is required on several counts. Firstly, closer acquaintance with the implications of hegemony for contemporary social work clientele is necessary. In this sense, existing literature explains how various hegemonic projects have come into existence. Within this, it is argued that hegemonic forces have damaging effects on social work clientele. Garrett (2018), for instance, provides the example of efforts to hegemonise prospective voters within the British political arena. Here Garrett uncovers symptoms of the consensus oppression that characterises classic hegemony, within the workings of Thatcherisim. Askeland and Payne (2006) furnish another example. They outline the damaging effects of cultural hegemony in social work education facilitated by processes of globalisation and pedagogical standardisation. As a final illustration, Fenton (2018) makes the case that neoliberal hegemony is problematic for social work clientele. More particularly, discourses of neoliberal hegemony provide overly simplistic views of those experiencing poverty. These views legitimise blame which is focused upon individual agentic causes, rather than structural–societal alternatives. Within the latter analysis, Fenton (2018) presents the argument that hegemonic discourses ‘can only be challenged by sophisticated critical thinking’ (Fenton, 2018: 941). The proposition here is that a Gramscian analysis may leverage this sophistication through drawing upon the complex and lengthy theorisation of hegemony’s original thinker, Antonio Gramsci (Garrett, 2009).

Secondly, there is a resurgence of interest in Gramscian analyses for social work in the present era (Carey and Foster, 2011; Garrett, 2008, 2009). Notwithstanding some headway (Garrett, 2008), arguably what remains outstanding is further analyses that offer an accessible introduction to Gramsci for an international readership. Within the present analysis, response to this line of reasoning will be pursued. Thirdly and finally, changes in the contemporary social work milieu are underway through forces such as globalisation and neoliberalisation (Christie et al., 2015; Christie and Walsh, 2015; Garrett, 2010). Critical commentary that locates Gramscian social work in this context may aid social workers in developing effective ‘counterhegemonic’ practice.

The paper proceeds in the following order. As a starting point, Gramsci’s conceptualisation of hegemony is explained and clarified. In doing so, a foundation for understanding counterhegemonic practice is established. Here, some recourse to history is also helpful. In particular, the origin of the common, but often historically un-contextualised, application of this term in social work literature is traced (see Askeland and Payne, 2006; Fenton, 2018). Following this, an attempt to begin to draw Gramscian hegemony into contemporary social work is presented. This is aided by reference to the work of other seminal social theorists such as Habermas (1984, 1987) and Foucault (1997). After this, pathways to learning from the application of the concept of hegemony to contemporary social work are explored. Finally, concluding discussion grounds the core argument of this paper. Namely, better ideological and theoretical integration of competing themes (postmodern critical pedagogies and managerial–technical approaches) is beneficial in social work for counterhegemonic practice.

Hegemony

Gramsci (1971) was the first to develop the concept ‘hegemony’ as it is commonly used in social theory literature. A long history of the concept of hegemony exists outside Gramsci’s work, for example, uptake of the term by Lenin and the Bolsheviks prior to the 1917 Revolution (Green, 2011). For the purposes of the present analysis, however, hegemony in Gramsci’s conceptualisation will be the focus. Here hegemony referred to the manner through which the ruling class retains power over subordinates with their consent (Fenton, 2018). Hegemonised classes therefore participate in their subordination by virtue of their consent (Fenton, 2018; Forgacs, 1988; Robinson, 2005). This insight was novel as it departed from orthodox and Marxist conceptualisations of capitalist oppression (Garrett, 2018). In such classic Marxist critiques, the Bourgeoise or ruling class exploit and oppress a passive proletariat. This proletariat contribute nothing but their presence to this process of subordination (Marx and Engels, 2016). However, for Gramsci, the subordinated are complicit, and even active, in their own subordination. It is this caveat that perhaps constitutes the hallmark or unique contribution of the Gramscian analysis of social class (Crehan, 2002). Gramscian perspectives therefore do not disregard the core theoretical vantage point of classic Marxism. More specifically, this vantage point is about the nature of the economy. It perceives that a political and legal ‘superstructure’ arises from the ‘base’ of the economy that creates and sustains it (Marx, 1970). Such a perspective is also intertwined with the notion of economic determinism. Here, the economy is viewed as the engine and product of social class differentials (Marx and Engels, 2016). Alternatively, from a Gramscian perspective, this viewpoint incorporates a stronger focus on the role of politics, ideology and culture that perpetuate unequal class relations (Crehan, 2002; Garrett, 2009).

The relevance of the Gramscian conceptualisation of hegemony, for everyday social work practice in the present time, can be illustrated in several ways. Existing literature, for example, shows that it can be the working class in modern societies that are most critical of the welfare system (Thane, 1984). This persists despite people of lower socio-economic status being more likely to require social welfare assistance (Watson et al., 2016). In this way, the subaltern group support a perspective that maintains their own subordination. Moreover, the concept of ‘internalised racism’ is well established in psychological and sociological literature. As originally defined by Johnson (2008), this is the conscious and subconscious acceptance of a hierarchy of race in contemporary society where white people are ranked in highest position. This includes people of minority race adapting their lifestyles and values to fit with the dominant race, whilst supporting the cultural norms of white people in everyday life (Johnson, 2008). This is also illustrative, as by embracing the values of the dominant culture, the subordinate group can undermine their own interests. Finally, as a third illustration, existing literature evidences that disabled people in modern society are more likely to be poor and experience exclusion from society (Cullinan et al., 2015). Campbell’s (2009) work has developed the notions of ableism and internalised ableism to describe the ways society often operates in favour of able-bodied people. This can include supporting able-bodied ways of thinking (such as that physically capable bodies are the most attractive) without ever intending to oppress or exclude disabled people, but nonetheless doing so. As disabled people are often more likely to be part of excluded and lower socio-economic groups in society (Cullinan et al., 2015), acceding to values and viewpoints that favour able-bodiedness is illustrative of another aspect of the consensus oppression that Gramsci alludes to. Overall, the relevance of these illustrations to everyday social work in the present time is evident, as social workers specifically seek to liberate individuals and communities who are marginalised and oppressed (IFSW, 2014). More specifically, this includes those experiencing economic disadvantage, minority racial groups and disabled people (IFSW, 2014).

In this context, Marx offered a practical focus on the economy, from ownership of the means of production, to capital accumulation (Marx, 1970; Marx and Engels, 2016). Within a Gramscian analysis, however, the perspective moves away from a devoted focus on the economy. Rather, focus shifts to a political and cultural sphere relatively autonomous but not completely separate from the economy (Bellamy, 1994; Crehan, 2002; Garrett, 2018). Here, through such approaches as conscientisation, social workers today still seek to empower their clientele by raising their awareness of surrounding political and cultural oppression (Lee, 2001). This is relevant as conscientisation work about social injustice is recognised to be a counterhegemonic strategy (Chisholm, 2015). Notwithstanding this, Gramsci did remain a revolutionary Marxist and, as the work of Thomas (2009) attests, he remained convinced about the centrality of the economy. In this sense, Gramsci is clear that ‘true hegemony could only be exercised by a class that was dominant economically’ (Bellamy, 1994: xxxviii).

Hegemony as a word, if etymology is to be considered, is similar to the term hegemon, which describes leadership. This reference to language is fitting due to the importance of attention to language in accessing and understanding Gramsci’s work. In particular, this is because his work was translated from Italian. Furthermore, Gramsci’s literature was potentially obscured as a result of his later incarceration and deteriorating physical and mental health condition (Garrett, 2018; Gramsci, 1992, 1996; Ives, 2004). Perhaps related to this, it is also difficult to decipher meaning from Gramsci’s complicated prose and vocabulary (Bellamy, 1994; Garrett, 2009). Bearing this in mind, Gramsci was born a Sardinian. Later, he was immersed in the conflict surrounding Fascism in Italy and associated political upheaval. Gramsci’s Prison Notebooks were compiled during 10 years of incarceration following his arrest in 1926. These notebooks now constitute the bedrock of unique theorisation espoused by Gramscian analyses (Garrett, 2008; Jones, 2006). As Garrett (2009) would argue, there are clear limitations to writing whilst in prison. A potential benefit, however, to constructing unique ideas, was Gramsci’s physical and mental dislocation from the outside world and its epistemological influences.

In the broader literature, Robinson (2005: 559–560) distinguishes four kinds of hegemony. Only one of these is referred to as ideological hegemony or consensus domination. Whilst this version follows a Gramscian conceptualisation, the three other modes of hegemony do not. For Robinson, alternative forms include ‘state hegemony’ allied to the formal power of a nation-state and hegemony as ‘international domination’. Finally, Robinson also refers to hegemony as the exercise of leadership within a particular world-order. Whilst the latter conceptualisations depend on overt domination, the role of culture is central in Gramscian hegemony. More specifically, Gramscian hegemony refers to a consensus domination of the working class and the subaltern (Askeland and Payne, 2006; Crehan, 2002). The focus on culture within this is to such an extent that the term ‘cultural hegemony’ is taken up in related literature and broad social science terminology. More specifically, this term is used as an interchangeable counterpart to ‘ideological hegemony’ or even instead of the term ‘hegemony’ alone (see Askeland and Payne, 2006). Overall, culture was important to Gramsci, as it attributes value and status to bourgeois practices. This value and status legitimise their ruling class power. Meanwhile, ways of thinking and living as well as processes of shame and marginalisation reinforce the lower status of the proletarian (Jones, 2006). Here direct military force, judicial orders, police enforcement of the law or modern-day social work are not the defining instruments of social control. Rather, ideology, politics and culture legitimise proletarian status (Garrett, 2009; Jones, 2006).

Power is also central to Gramscian hegemony. This power, however, is subtler and more embedded in its operation. Rather than something to be simply coveted and retained, a Gramscian conceptualisation perceives power as a process that never arrives at its conclusion (Jones, 2006). To explain this further, the work of Pierre Bourdieu (2003) is helpful. Bourdieu has contributed much to the social sciences in terms of the theorisation of power. Specifically, Bourdieu conceded that ‘the intellectual world must engage in a permanent critique of all the abuses of power or authority committed in the name of intellectual authority’ (p.19). In doing this, the role of culture and ideology becomes particularly important from a Gramscian perspective. This is because, in today’s modern society, culture and ideology may ascribe power to ruling classes, for instance, by accrediting their wealth accumulation to educational attainment. An over-simplistic model of meritocracy that is associated with capitalist ideology may be embraced. From this perspective, the wealthy deserve their wealth and power above those who do not have it, because they have legitimately earned this through achieving qualifications and education. Within such an example, social stratification could be understood as arising from the structural logic of capitalism based on merit and competition (Panayotakis, 2014). In this line of reasoning, the social worker, as a qualified ‘expert’, is legitimised in intervening into family’s lives. Similarly, in the present time of neoliberalism, a hegomonised civic society is one that concedes to government ideology by accepting hegemonic discourses. More specifically, this is where such ideology and discourses are rooted in neoliberal rationality (Fenton, 2018; Flynn, 2017a). As Fenton (2018: 2) argues, within the current context, a neoliberal and self-sufficiency discourse is preserved. More troublingly, ‘as a player in civic life, social work increasingly reflects that agenda’.

Adapting Gramscian hegemony for contemporary social work

Having gathered an introduction to the notion of hegemony, yet to be explored is the utility of this concept for contemporary social work. In the following this will be the focus, and thereafter, the capacity of hegemony to generate new understanding of contemporary social work will be the consideration. With this in mind, a specific geographic and cultural location is implicitly referenced throughout the following. More specifically, the context of Ireland and the United Kingdom is used as a reference point for cited literature, for the purpose of consistency and accuracy.

In this context, Garrett (2008, 2009, 2018) has made notable contributions towards advocating for the use of Antonio Gramsci’s work within social work literature. Garrett (2009) contends that social work is operating within an epoch of neoliberal hegemony. More specifically, social work would benefit from Gramscian analyses to better comprehend such a position. Similar to Crehan (2002) and others (see Francese, 2009), Garrett (2008) calls for renewed interest in Gramsci’s work. In particular, a number of developed rationale are presented. Here, the fundamental argument resounds that social professions will require Gramscian insight to construct counterhegemonic strategies (Garrett, 2008).

There are several practical ways that social workers can gain this insight. Whilst Gramsci provided far less detail about what counterhegemonic practice entails than he did about hegemony (Hunt, 1990), social work specific literature has begun to fill the gaps. Within renewed interest in Gramsci’s work (Carey and Foster, 2011), publications aimed at social professionals with accessible descriptions of Gramsci’s scholarship are increasing (see Garrett, 2008, 2009). ‘Counterhegemonic pedagogy’ is also developing in higher education (Chisholm, 2015). This means that social workers are not just taught the meaning of hegemony on an intellectual level, but education itself is counterhegemonic in nature. Specifically, according to Chisholm (2015, 2), counterhegemonic pedagogies are visible where education is ‘liberatory’ or ‘emancipatory’ and where ‘democracy, transformation, liberation and social justice are objectives’. Finally, as part of a postmodern influence on contemporary social work (Fook and Pease, 2016), practical approaches for uncovering power and hegemonic discourses are increasingly taken up in social work. This includes instructional models of critical reflection (see Fook, 2012) that social workers can practically apply to experiences in their work and use to inform discussion in supervision (Fook, 2012; Fook and Pease, 2016). By applying these models, social workers uncover embedded hegemonic discourses. This includes discourses associated with patriarchal values that marginalise female clientele. Steps can then be taken to work counterhegemonically. An example of this would be running a peer support group for working mothers in a society where the ‘male breadwinner’ patriarchal discourse still presents as a problem. In this context, common hegemonistic discourses identified in the literature include those related to ‘ideations about race, gender, sexual orientation, economic arrangements’ (Chisholm, 2015, 2). This includes discourses that are ‘colonialist, patriarchal or neoliberal’ in nature (Morley et al., 2014: 219).

Whilst some literature can equate counterhegemonic strategies with certain types of large-scale social movements (for instance, socialism) (Laclau and Mouffe, 2014), smaller scale counterhegemony in social work practice takes many forms. Practical acts of advocacy, for instance, and socio-political activism (such as awareness-raising and campaigning), which resist hegemonic discourses and represent marginalised ones, are counterhegemonic (Gray and Webb, 2013). This is because ‘to be counterhegemonic is to resist the definitions and understandings of reality and truth that the dominant groups in society proffer to further their own interest’ (Crisholm, 2015: 2). One example of what this might look like in practice, therefore, is strategic community work toward promoting inclusion and connectedness in the face of neoliberal hegemony, such as setting up community-based social inclusion programs. The counterhegemonic agenda is evident within this, as the dominant discourse of neoliberalism in modern society values competitive individualism, rather than the community solidarity, that the programs aim to promote (Garrett, 2018).

Allied to this, Gramsci’s work aids practitioners in preventing perpetuation of socially oppressive hegemonic discourses through social work practice. This is important as the professional discipline of social work potentially constitutes a ‘repressive body’ of the State (alongside police, the judiciary and others) (Forgacs, 1988: 420; Jones, 2006). The intention in this section is not to restate the case already made elsewhere, namely that Gramsci’s insight harbours the potential to progress the social work knowledge base (Carey and Foster, 2011; Garrett, 2008, 2009, 2018). Rather, it would seem that distinct and critical focus on hegemony is warranted in the context of what appears to be broad uptake of the term in social work associated literature. More specifically, this uptake often lacks depth of analysis or clarity around intended meaning, or indeed explanatory relegation to the origin of the term. Without retaining some critical connections to Gramsci’s original work, hegemony as a theoretical concept in social work may be limited (Garrett, 2018). In particular, the risk here pertains to the possibility of being diluted, distorted or, at worst, located in the realm of rhetoric and sentimentality.

Remaining attuned to this possibility, useful applications of hegemony emerge. One proposal is that other established social theorists may assist with the translation of Gramsci’s work to the contemporary neoliberal social work environment. First, contemporary social theory might ordinarily be described as rife with suspicion towards modernist theory and claims about objective truth. Social theory has, however, been able to transcend some of its fixations through the work of Jurgen Habermas’ (Garrett, 2018). Habermasian perspectives build upon the German Philosopher and Sociologist’s premise that there is much to learn from one’s contemporaries. In his own work Habermas gainfully has drawn upon the former scholarship of Durkheim, Mead, Marx and others (Habermas, 1984, 1987). Similarly, Michel Foucault has been a prominent resource in social theory, albeit broadly criticised for his inexact and at times negligent renditions of history (McNay, 2013). Foucault was an advocate of retrospection or reflection on the events of the past. He did this through excavating and applying historical knowledge to critique one’s present condition (Skehill, 2007). Overall, Foucault’s theorisation perhaps constitutes a second potential bridging mechanism for the application of Gramscian theorisation to the present time. As with most Foucauldian things, complexity inevitably introduces itself. In this tradition, Foucault’s historical work might be more accurately conceptualised as achieving a non-linear history ‘of the past in terms of the present’ (Foucault, 1977: 31). Skehill (2007) then applies Foucauldian insights within what is now referred to as Foucault’s history of the present approach, to contemporary social work scholarship. In this way, Foucault’s authority on the subject matter of history in social work is established (Skehill, 2007).

What both Habermasian and Foucauldian social theory have in common is the capacity to attest to the validity of applying scholarship from the past as a means to understand contemporary circumstances. As Garrett (2008) acknowledges, a potential criticism raised by some authors is that Gramscian perspectives are out of date. In this way, they cannot meaningfully translate to present-day social work concerns. Indeed, Carey and Foster (2011) discuss the proposition of a theory of post-hegemony. This vantage point ‘suggests that ideology no longer retains its once pivotal role regarding the control and subtle disciplining of modern populations’. Such a post-hegemonic thesis is ultimately, however, rejected by Carey and Foster. Rather, they favour the viewpoint that ideological hegemony is just as, if not more, relevant today than it has ever been before (Carey and Foster, 2011: 249). It would seem that whilst the merit of Gramscian theorisation remains, it is perhaps the nature and form of hegemony that has evolved. This evolution occurs in tandem with contemporary shifts within the social work environment (Christie et al., 2015).

With this in mind, in terms of retrospective learning, the caveat for Foucault is critique (McNay, 2013). Furthermore, it would seem according to Butler (2001) that this is where Habermas and Foucault conceptually part ways. Foucauldian critique, according to Foucault’s seminal lecture on its definition (1997), as recounted by Butler (2001), cannot be readily defined. Rather, only a set of approximations may be achieved. Here Foucault’s (and indeed Butler’s) poststructuralist leanings undermine any constructive classification of the concept (Garrett, 2018). In the wider social work literature, definition is easier to come by. It would appear that critique, within this, might be commonly applied through a practice of critical questioning and scepticism that seeks to disrupt assumptions and norms (Garrett, 2018). For Habermas, critique can be readily formulated along these lines. As Butler (2001: no page) articulates, ‘the perspective of critique, in his view, is able to call foundations into question, denaturalize social and political hierarchy, and even establish perspectives by which a certain distance on the naturalized world can be had’.

Bringing this conceptualisation forward, in the section to come ‘a certain questioning practice’ will be used (Butler, 2001: no page). The intention is for this to implicitly assist with application of Gramsci’s concept of hegemony to contemporary social work practice.

Using hegemony to learn about contemporary social work

The concept of hegemony can be usefully deployed to achieve insight into modern social work. One basis for this is that, arguably, for social work the broad nature of economic injustice and social stratification remains of pressing importance (Christie et al., 2015). Amongst social work’s broader constants and discontinuities, for instance, concern for poverty and wealth distribution prevails (Flynn, 2017b). Current Eurostat figures (Eurostat, 2017), for instance, continue to demonstrate an increased risk of poverty for women (23.3%) above men (21.6%). Children also experience enhanced poverty. More specifically, this is the case in households with children (23%) above those without (23%) (Atkinson et al., 2017). There is also a developed base of European statistical data on the equality impacts of global economic crisis in 2008. These statistics suggest that children, above all social groups, may have been most materially deprived and socio-economically disadvantaged by austerity (Flynn, 2017a). Within this, some households (such as those with disabled or chronically ill children) remain at elevated socio-economic risk (Flynn, 2017a). Overall the premise supported is that the broad nature of poverty as an indicator of social status inequality continues to be problematic in much the same way as within Gramsci’s lifetime (Christie et al., 2015). This assertion is made to demonstrate that Gramsci’s work is still of relevance in the present time. In this way, the utility of Gramsci’s original work, despite its genesis many years previously, persists (Garrett, 2008, 2009).

For Gramsci’s theorisation to demonstrate the most utility, however, it must be focussed appropriately. For Gramsci, as a Marxist philosopher, it was not such ‘crude, economic facts’ that unveiled true hegemony. Rather, it is ‘men themselves and the societies they create, as they learn to live with one another, and understand one another’ (Bellamy, 1994: 40). Here, a tactical divergence away from classic Marxism and blunt economic determinism is apparent. In making this move, arguably, Gramsci begins to exceed simple explanations of hegemonic injustice (Garrett, 2008). Yet, the Gramscian viewpoint on social stratification must necessarily account for hegemonic discourses embedded with consensus in civic society (Jones, 2006). As Garrett (2008: 244) remarks, Gramsci saw no short cut for the bourgeois to engineer hegemony. Rather, class domination required subtle embedding of ideas in the subaltern psyche, not all at once, but over time. This would be achieved by facilitating those ideas and culture that can move beyond class boundaries. In doing so, hegemony needs to be structured around, and to be responsive to, people’s lived experience of the world (Garrett, 2008: 244). Therefore, hegemony may not simply be conceived of as a notion pertaining to economic injustice, the mal-distribution of resources or indeed culture. It exceeds this through preoccupation with the lived experience of ideology (Garrett, 2008; Jones, 2006). In this respect, the indication remains that in order to work best, Gramsci’s theorisation must be focussed appropriately.

Considering this focus, among modern areas of social change for social workers in today’s society, are globalisation and neoliberalism (Christie et al., 2015). How social workers can use the Gramscian notion of hegemony to learn about these aspects of contemporary practice is, however, thus far unclear. Toward ameliorating this, one illustration perhaps lies in the contemporary trend toward population aging. In this context, a dominant hegemonic discourse in modern society surrounds neoliberal rationality (Morley et al., 2014). Specifically, there is the peddling of the idea that people are most valuable when they are economically productive and autonomous within the capitalist economy, rather than being financially dependent upon others (Garrett, 2018). Moreover, social workers unacquainted with hegemony may inadvertently support discourses such as these within their practice. A social worker might suggest, for instance, that a client with idle time is ethically compelled to seek employment, rather than encouraging the client to volunteer in their community, undertake caring roles in their family or indeed simply remain idle. Conversely, a social worker versed in the merits of hegemony will contemplate the potentially harmful hegemonic discourses that surround changes to contemporary practice (Garrett, 2008). Modern trends in population aging, for example, are leading to increased and unsustainable strain on health and social services. In this context, the merit of increasing retirement age has been proposed (Lymbery, 2005). Yet, a social worker seeking productive counterhegemonic practice will be suspicious of whether dominant neoliberal discourses around economic productivity lie at the heart of such solutions. There are, after all, alternative remedies. Intensifying globalisation in contemporary social work (Christie et al., 2015), for instance, permits the policy solution of increasing working-age migrants employed in western nations, and thereby sustaining the aging population (Muysken, 2008). The overall point being made is that the concept of hegemony can still be used by social workers to understand, and critically consider, problems in modern society.

In drawing to a close, further example of a focussed application of Gramsci’s work may lie in the notion of power in modern society. For Gramsci, the currency of ideas and intellectual reasoning was of great interest (Jones, 2006). Therefore, a Gramscian reading of the wider hegemonic project in modern society would likely account for this. First, it is important to understand that Gramsci worked with a non-traditional understanding of the term ‘intellectual’. In this respect, he explained that ‘all men are intellectuals, but not all men have in society the function of intellectuals’ (Greaves, 2009: 190). In this context, for Gramsci, society maintained a ruling class that held power over subordinates. Within this, social actors or individual people within the ruling class were able to influence those subordinate to them. Through this, they could reclaim and withhold the power that the ruling class had. With reference to this, Gramsci (1971: 210) offers some elaboration;

The traditional ruling class, which has numerous trained cadres, changes men and programmes and, with greater speed than is achieved by the subordinate classes, reabsorbs the control that was slipping from its grasp. Perhaps it may make sacrifices, and expose itself to an uncertain future by demagogic promises; but it retains power, reinforces it for the time being, and uses it to crush its adversary and disperse his leading cadres, who cannot be very numerous or highly trained.

Concluding discussion

Notwithstanding the imperative of self-reflecting, it is proposed that social work is often faced with a paradox. Here it is both necessarily enabled and constrained by its theoretical and practical vantage point. The core thesis of this paper is that postmodern forces produce indeterminate and more fragmented social work critical pedagogies and practice milieu (Fook and Pease, 2016; Garrett, 2018). Here a divide between postmodern critical approaches and more conservative, structured, managerial–technicist approaches also present in social work is apparent (see Fenton, 2014; Garrett, 2010; Hanesworth, 2017; Harlow, 2003; Morley et al., 2014). In this context, it is argued that better ideological and theoretical integration of these competing themes would be beneficial in social work to support counterhegemonic practice. Described in simpler terms, this paper proposes that there is a fundamental tension at the heart of social work. In this way, there is desire for social workers to achieve social change (counterhegemonic practice), and yet at the same time, social workers have a role as potentially repressive agents of the state (Rojek et al., 2012). Arguably this tension is represented by a desire to execute a critical approach to practice, whilst still constrained by the presence of a competing managerialist–technical approach in modern social work.

Before developing this argument further, first, it is important to establish the need for counterhegemony. The International Federation of Social Workers global definition of social work approved at the General Meeting and the IASSW General Assembly in July 2014 clearly embeds ‘principles of social justice’ and ‘collective responsibility’ within the remit of the profession. Gramscian analyses perhaps offer a neo-Marxist theoretical route to thinking through this position (Greaves, 2009). As proposed by Garrett (2008: 245), such analyses harbour the potential to promote social work practice in Europe in the early twenty-first century. Gramsci’s own comments also leverage the case for an active role for social work in challenging and critiquing hegemony, and formulating counterhegemonic trajectories (Garrett, 2008). More specifically, it appears as though an idle response will be inadequate: ‘what comes to pass does not so much because a few people want it to but because the mass of citizens abdicate their responsibility and let things be’ (Pryor, 2002: 235).

In this sense, counterhegemony for social work might be described as an ethical imperative.

With the need for counterhegemonic practice now established, it is helpful to begin to consider the first competing theme present in social work, referred to here as critical postmodern pedagogies (Fook, 2015; Fook and Gardner, 2007). Specifically, it will be argued in the following that these approaches support counterhegemonic social work in the following ways. Firstly, the defining feature of the postmodern condition, articulated by Jean François-Lyotard, is ‘incredulity towards metanarratives’ (Lyotard, 1984). Butler (1992: 3) explains the meaning of this through equating it to a constant questioning of ‘the integrity or coherence of totalising social descriptions’. Such a postmodern practice of questioning and excavating embedded assumptions is sometimes facilitated in social work pedagogy and practice through use of critique (Butler, 2001). In this context, models and approaches to critical reflection and reflective practice based in postmodernist thinking are facilitative by making visible hegemonic discourses and ideology (Fook, 2015; Fook and Gardner, 2007). Secondly, the ‘critical’ aspect, for instance, of critical reflection is aimed at countering and transforming hegemonic practice along more emancipatory and critical lines (Fook and Gardner, 2007). Within this, Jan Fook (2012; Fook and Gardner, 2007) has made a number of authoritative contributions to social work academia in this area. Specifically, Fook takes up Brookfield’s work (2016), as one example of an explicitly critical and counterhegemonic approach. Taken as a whole, social work literature is suffused with critical reflection that has been applied to enhance and create counterhegemonic practice (see Brookfield, 2016; Fook and Gardner, 2007; Fook and Pease, 2016; Fook, 2012, 2015). In this way, postmodernism applied through a critical lens within models of critical reflection aims to be explicitly counterhegemonic (White et al., 2006). Consequently, a theme in social work epistemology and curriculum surrounds processes and approaches aimed at uncovering hidden hegemonic assumptions (Fook, 2015). It is these processes that provide one means for students and practitioners to operationalise counterhegemonic practice. Simply put, the first competing theme in social work refers to critical postmodern pedagogies (Fook, 2015; Fook and Garner, 2007). Practically speaking, this refers to a desire for social workers to execute a critical approach to practice.

The second competing theme in social work refers to managerial–technicist approaches. These will be discussed in the following, and more constructively, some consolidating argument will emerge. The proposition is that managerial–technicist approaches better align to a conceptualisation of social workers, as repressive agents of the state. In this way, whilst it is the case that critical postmodern-orientated pedagogies and practice models exist in social work, they are neither uncontested nor unchallenged. Rather, these approaches must vie for space against other competing forms of knowledge and agendas in social work (Payne, 2014). Often pitched against critical approaches are structured, conservative managerial–technicist strategies in social work practice and pedagogy (Fook and Gardner, 2007; Garrett, 2010; Harlow, 2003). In this way, procedural, bureaucratised and managerial environments not only dominate the welfare sector but also feature significantly in education (see Fenton, 2014; Garrett, 2010; Hanesworth, 2017; Morley et al., 2014). Here a stripping of critical curricula in place of conservative content and technicist pedagogies has been alleged. Within this, some authors suggest that in social work, a tilting toward approaches that promote managerial–technicist and conservative practices is underway (see for example Fenton, 2014; Garrett, 2010; Hanesworth, 2017; Morley et al., 2014). In this context, the assertion that social work epistemology and curriculum offer processes aimed at uncovering hidden hegemonic assumptions needs to be qualified. There is, also, what Garrett (2010) refers to as the ‘conservative revolution’ in social work education. Here, managerial–technicist and conservative practices are peddled, and moreover, these approaches often present as inconsistent and competing with critical postmodern alternatives. Managerial–technicist approaches, therefore, represent the second competing theme in social work.

Overall, better theoretical and ideological integration of these two competing themes in social work may help to support counterhegemonic practice in several ways. Firstly, both themes cannot, in all cases, take precedence in the micro-aspects of social work practice. One practical example of this is gender identity. Here, an everyday illustration of the influence of postmodern indeterminacy just described is the many gender identities now recognised in society, other than traditional male and female designations (Hellum, 2018). Social workers who work in a counterhegemonic way will try to be supportive and inclusive of clients with different gender identities. Yet, as a result of the competing managerial–technicist influence on social work, social workers are increasing required to complete forms, follow procedures and ‘tick boxes’ (Harris, 2003). Within these forms (for example statutory care review forms), the social worker is often still required to ‘tick’ male or female for their client. Whilst this is only a minor example of inconsistency in practice, it is still useful in illustrating the way that themes may practically collide. In this context, theoretical and ideological inconsistency may present for social workers seeking to reconcile postmodern critical approaches with restrictive proceduralised locale that inhibit transformative practice (Harris, 2003). More specifically, it is arguably conclusive that times and spaces in social work endure where both themes simply cannot amicably coexist.

Secondly, whilst critical postmodern approaches facilitate counterhegemony, counterhegemonic practice must still be operationalised in environments that may be, in part, technical, procedurally constrained, and overarched by countervailing ideology (Fook and Pease, 2016; Harris, 2003). Here a second example may be derived from the practice of social work in child protection and welfare. In this context social workers often have caseload demands externally measured using managerial tools (for example, the Ready Reckoner) (Burns, 2012). Through this process, time available for critical reflection and reflective practice is limited. Moreover, this limitation may ironically be based in hegemonic neoliberal drives towards performance and economic productivity that practitioners actually seek to counter for their clients. Here literature suggests that space for creative, community-based and more radical counterhegemonic forms of social work is increasingly shut down (Ferguson and Lavelette, 2007; Mullaly, 2007). Finally, practitioners who do successfully deploy critical pedagogies, and as a result uncover hegemonic discourses, may then be inhibited in carrying out the respective counterhegemonic work. A practitioner, for example, may detect a patronising discourse within an agency, grounded in the notion that disabled people are helpless and require protection. This hegemonic discourse may have practical effects, for example, leading to disabled service users being inadequately supported with adult experiences in line with their views and wishes, such as supported participation in the local nightlife. To address this, the social worker may seek to convene a multi-disciplinary forum for discussion. Yet, procedural restrictions on practice in the agency may prevent non-managerial grades from facilitating this kind of work. In this context, the capacity of the social worker to be meaningfully counterhegemonic is curtailed by the restrictions imposed by their position, as an agent of the state.

The critical literature does account for this. Nonetheless, literature also appears to fall short of reconciling ideological and theoretical differences that may leave social workers having to manage divergent themes within aspects of their practice (Fook and Pease, 2016; Garrett, 2018). Carey (2008: 343), for instance, provides a helpful description of the nature of ideology. More specifically, ideology represents, ‘a system of ideas, signs, meanings and values that inform and reinforce types of social and political action’. From a postmodern perspective, over time, societies within which contemporary social work operates become more fluid, fragmented and differentiated (Fook and Pease, 2016; Garrett, 2018). In this context, the posthegemonic thesis suggests that ideologies can no longer achieve consensus as they would in Gramsci’s time. This is due to a lack of solidarity in civic society and elsewhere (Carey and Foster, 2011; Johnston, 2007). As a particular consequence of this, a postmodern ambience is imbued by the general lack of solidarity. These postmodern forces produce indeterminate, fluid and fragmented social work critical pedagogies and practice milieu (Garrett, 2018). Yet, evident from the literature, a countervailing theme within wider social work is procedural, bureaucratised and managerial environments that purportedly reduce practitioner creativity and discretion (Harris, 2003). These environments support rational–technical forms of knowledge and are often at odds with more radical forms of practice aimed at societal change (Ferguson and Lavalette, 2007; Mullaly, 2007). In fact, paradoxically, radical approaches fell out of favour within the wider social work theoretical base after the 1990s in lieu of the uptake of postmodernist stratagem (Payne, 2014). Therefore, more broadly, for ideologies consistent with counterhegemonic practice to flourish, they must be able integrate within the environments that social work operates in. As it stands, these environments remain complex and by no means pervasively critical, transformative or postmodern in nature.

Overall, according to Gramsci’s conceptualisation, hegemony thrives upon broad consensus within civil society (inclusive of, but not confined to social work) (Fenton, 2018; Forgacs, 1988; Robinson, 2005). Counterhegemonic strategies must arguably therefore also aim for some broader level of societal intervention and change beyond the realm of social work micro-practice itself. That is, where such recourse attends to largescale immaterial and embedded assumptions and not just overt socio-political circumstances that earlier structural theories had sought to address (Payne, 2014). It would seem that if counterhegemonic practice is to be truly effective, a better balance must be struck in social work scholarship and episteme to reconcile one of its present impasses. In this context, the core thesis of this paper is debatably conclusive. Arguably there is tension between a desire to execute a critical approach to practice and the constraint of a competing managerialist–technical approach in modern social work. In this context, it is proposed that better theoretical and ideological integration of these competing themes is beneficial to social work in seeking to support counterhegemonic practice.

As this analysis draws to a close, avenues for further scholarship remain. Better ideological and theoretical integration of themes in social work requires some analysis of factors and processes sustaining the rift. Moreover, once some reconciliation of themes is achieved, space will open for stronger forms of counterhegemonic social work that must be critically considered, replicated and reported upon. In essence, there is much work left to do. In this context, the aspirations of the present analysis have been modest: to stimulate interest in Gramscian hegemony, for social work, and to consider its utility in overcoming some of the present impasses.

Conclusion

Whilst the case has been made elsewhere for a more direct engagement with Gramscian theorisation in contemporary social work practice (Carey and Foster, 2011; Garrett, 2008, 2009), some headway towards realising this proposition was sought in preceding discussion. In particular, the paper concerned itself singularly with hegemony as Gramsci originally conceived of it and possibilities for counterhegemonic strategies in contemporary practice (Garrett, 2009). At least one obstacle for social work presents here. Postmodern epistemologies promote critical reflection and critique to reveal embedded hegemonic assumptions within social work (Fook, 2015). Falling short of dialectically opposed doxa, these approaches seem at odds with thematic drives toward proceduralisation, managerialism and bureauocracy present in social work (Harris, 2003). Here the case has been made that counterhegemonic strategies in contemporary social work are required, yet still undermined, by social work’s present epistemological and ideological nature. In this context, Gramsci’s notion of hegemony retains utility and relevance to social work today.