Dilemma management is first and foremost a ubiquitous part of social work, entailing assessing and establishing the identity of the client and the nature of the relationship between social workers and clients. Once this has been more or less settled, it becomes easier for staff to make the ‘right’ decisions. The processes of discretion and decision-making should not be seen as isolated entities, but as imbued with cultural assumptions of worthiness, responsibil- ity and normality.
Processes of dealing with dilemmas can be placed in a model developed by Sahlins about three different forms of reciprocity. First, there is generalised reciprocity, in which the client is considered to be a friend in the metaphorical sense of the word. A family-like, paternalistic relationship is typical of this form. Dilemmas become easier to handle thanks to the clear role distribution: staff are generous service providers who do not expect much in return from clients, who are, correspondingly, not regarded as being responsible for their own actions. In some situations the client’s behaviour is given a professional explanation, which has a dilemma-solving force because it points to solutions in a fairly unambiguous manner.
The second form of exchange, according to Sahlins, is balanced reciproc- ity, which means that social workers strive to treat clients as equal partners. Clients are regarded as responsible and able to make changes in their lives. From such clients staff expect honesty, cooperation and other forms of com- pliance in return for their help and support. Such a role distribution provides, according to the rationale of staff, a suitable framework for the creation of the confidence they wish to establish with clients.
In the third type of relationship, staff and client are engaged in negative reciprocity. This means that the client is regarded as a person who cannot and will not change, or who has a bad character. Staff cannot or will not
expect much from such clients because they are looking for a legitimate way to make them move out of the service agency.
Only a few client-staff relationships can be placed unambiguously in one of these exchange categories. In most cases the categories are flexible, and people move in and out of them. The point here is that the categories of exchange can be seen as tools that staff utilise to find out if the needs and problems expressed by a client can be met within the framework of a specific institution, or if the client should move to another place.
Whatever particular form a dilemma takes, it is characterised by being the outcome of pressures from conflicting rationalities and overall policies which cannot be translated into just one ‘right’ way of acting. In this sense, social work can be recognised and understood as a state of in-betweenness, i.e.: a state that entails unpredictability and uncertainty. As a consequence, decisions are often tentative and open-ended so as to leave room for any alternatives which may arise if things are postponed a little. However, progress cannot be too slow because social workers are expected to make quick decisions and take immediate action.
Staff may also prevent a dilemma from arising at all by refraining from asking for the kind of knowledge that could bring a dilemma out into the open, or by pretending they do not know about a rule violation (even though they do). These pragmatic methods are observed in the form of discreet sug- gestions and sympathetic understanding among staff rather than as clearly articulated issues. I suggest that not only does this kind of manoeuvring take place at human processing agencies to a larger extent than recognised formally, but that such manoeuvring may also be of crucial importance in ensuring the continuation of organisational life.
Bibliography:
Asmussen, V. & Dahl, H.V. (2002): Skadesreduktion som forebyggelse på stofmisbrugsområdet [Harm reduction as prevention in the drug field]. Helsingfors: Nordisk alkohol‑ & narko‑
tikatidsskrift. 19(4), pp. 249-261.
Coomber, R. (2006). Pusher Myths: Re‑situating the Drug Dealer. London: Free Association Books.
Ege, P. (1997). Stofmisbrug. Baggrund, konsekvenser, behandling [Drug misuse. Background, conse- quences, treatment]. København: Hans Reitzels Forlag.
Foucault, M. (2006) [1976]. Viljen til viden. Seksualitetens historie 1 [The will to knowledge. The history of sexuality 1]. København: Det lille Forlag.
Foucault, M. (1983a). Afterword. The Subject and Power. In: Dreyfus, L. & Rabinow, P. (eds.),
Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
pp. 208-226.
Foucault, M. (1983b). Nietzsche – Genealogien, Historien [Nietzsche – Genealogy, History] In: Olesen, S.G. (ed.). Epistemologi [Epistemology]. København: Rhodos, pp. 85-103.
Houborg, E. (2006). Stofmisbrug, metadon, subjektivering. Historiske og aktuelle fremstillinger af stof‑
misbrug [Drug use, methadone and subjectification. Historical and current perceptions of
drug misuse]. København: Sociologisk Institut.
Jepsen, J. (1993). Hvor kommer narkotikapolitikken fra? Om international spredning af kon- trolmodeller [Where does drug policy come from? On international spreading of control models]. In: Skretting, A., Rosenquist, P. & Jepsen, J. (eds.). Narkotikapolitik i internationellt
perspsektiv [Drug policy in an international perspective]. Helsinki: NAD, pp. 111 – 120. Law on Social Services. www.retsinfo.dk Lovbekendtgørelse 2005-02-17 om social service, nr. 97,
jf. § 94 stk. 1, jf. vejledning 1998, 45 kap. 13.
Lipsky, M. (1980): Street‑Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Narkotikarådet (1999). Skadesreduktion [Harm Reduction]. København: Narkotikarådet. National Social Appeals Board (2006). Brugere af botilbud efter servicelovens § 94 [Users of hostels
according to Law on Social Service § 94]. København: Ankestyrelsen.
Sahlins, M. (1972). Stone Age Economics. London: Tavistock Publications Limited, pp. 185-219. Steffen, V. (2005). Challenging control: Antabuse medication in Denmark. In: Jenkins, R.,
Jessen, H. & Steffen, V. (eds.). Managing uncertainity. Ethnografic Studies of Illness, Risk and the
Struggle for Control. København: Museum Tusculanums Forlag, pp. 173-196.
Villadsen, K. (2003). Det sociale arbejdes genealogi. Om kampen for at gøre fattige og udstødte til frie
mennesker [Genealogy of social work. On empowerment of poor and marginalised people].
København: Sociologisk Institut.
Notes
1 It is worth noticing that even if hostels pursue an acceptance rule, they still distinguish be- tween use and dealing, and warn that if they suspect dealing with illicit drugs is taking place on the premises they will report the matter to the police.
2 Antabuse is also known by the name disulfiram. It is a prescription drug for people considered to have a misuse of alcohol and it produces sensitivity to alcohol which results in a highly unpleasant reaction involving flushing, heart beating and difficulty in breathing if someone drinks alcohol after taking the drug. The idea is that people who take Antabuse restrain from drinking to avoid this unpleasantness. Thus, the treatment is supposed to work as a deterrent whereas it does not remove the urge to drink. Antabuse is widely used in Danish alcohol-treatment (Steffen 2005).
3 The quotations in this article are translated and edited from Danish by me. In the editing process, I have adjusted the quotations in order to make them more readable, while at the same time remaining loyal to the actual words spoken. Most of the quotations stem from field notes made during meetings. Although they were written in great detail, they are not to be taken as literal as if they were recorded.
Vibeke Asmussen Frank & Torsten Kolind