Consultation ‘Diaconia against Poverty and Exclusion: Future Challenges and Contexts in Europe’ – Impressions and Expectations

Final Plenary Reflections and Perspectives for Future Work

Tony Addy

Head of International Education, Diak, Finland

Introduction

It is important at the outset to recognise that the 2010 conference for Diaconia Research in Europe was, in many aspects, of a high quality. There were a number of significant plenary contributions which linked the theory, theology and practice of diaconia to pressing current issues. The seminars were impressive for the breadth of their contributions related to the conference theme. The diversity of participation was also remarkable in that there were delegates from many countries not previously represented as well as a small number from other world regions. In addition to promoting the conference, the network of protestant universities teaching and researching diaconia have launched a Master Degree programme and since the last research conference in Oslo, a scientific journal for diaconia research. A web portal for diaconia research, which is open to wide participation, has also been launched by Finnish colleagues (www.diaconiadoor.eu).

I was asked to make the final presentation which would comment on the process and content of the conference. I would like to do this in a friendly-critical way which is meant to help ‘us’ to develop our work together in future. I have been discussing and listening to many participants and I will draw on some of these conversations in what follows. I would like to start with some comments about the conference itself and then go on to some ‘substantive issues’.

The Heidelberg gathering raised some questions about the nature of a research conference. The first is about the difference between ‘research’ and ‘reporting on interesting projects’ or between ‘research’ and ‘political comment’. Or at least the link between research and reporting and commenting! In the consultation we heard some interesting reports of projects and campaigns and sharing is definitely needed, but more work has to be done to link this reporting and the related projects and experiences to diaconal research agendas and vice versa.

Secondly, the conference structure militated against the kind of process which would produce collaboration on research agendas and lead to new programmes. The space for building the dialogue necessary for this was lost in the fragmentation of the programme and the lack of any ‘threads’ which would lead to this. Nevertheless some links were made and no doubt in some cases, they will be followed up. In a similar vein, there was no real ‘open space’ for new research by young scholars, even though some were represented in the individual workshops. Overall there is a need to strengthen interdisciplinary work in the field in order to develop a more integrated approach to urgent issues. So, in future our conferences should aim to provide a stronger sense of process, to allow new agendas and coalitions to emerge

In this short paper I want to present four challenges to mainstream thinking, from the event, which I hope will help to shape the life of the network and reflect issues which need further work. These comments were shared with the final plenary of the conference and provoked many responses. I hope that this debate will contribute to the network development and the planning for future activities.

Hidden Europe

There is no doubt that the wider participation from central and eastern Europe was a big step forward. But for a comprehensive picture to emerge, different countries, confessions and interests have to be made more visible in the programme. There are three important elements (at least) which I would like to highlight:

- European regional and confessional diversity: There were more representatives from diaconia in central and Eastern Europe, Russia and the former Soviet Republics. This is a big step forward, but the voice of these participants and their issues was more or less ‘invisible’ in the programme itself, aside from one workshop on the development of diaconia in that region. In future conferences, it will be important to broaden the diversity represented in the plenary presentations and widen the scope of issues in order to take into account the diversity of European reality. This would also include diaconal challenges arising from:

- democratisation and the need to support the development of civil society

- war and civil conflict as well as work in the aftermath of conflict (for example with internally displaced persons)

- complex ethnic and political situations for example in the Balkan region and the Caucuses

- the lack in some cases of an effective structure of state support for social welfare and the consequent dependence of diaconal work on continuing international support

- confessional plurality in the region, particularly the development of Orthodox Church perspectives on diaconia

- ‘Minorities’ in Europe: There were hardly any participants and no specific presentation by representatives of ‘minorities’ in Europe, whether these minorities be regional minorities, immigrants or citizens and residents who are from racial or ethnic minorities in the European context. The only workshop dealing with issues of migration did not have a presenter ‘representative’ of the issues. Issues with which diaconia has to grapple and which were hardly visible include:

- racism and xenophobia

- tightening policies towards immigrants and immigration and complex issues of human rights (although this was a key aspect of one plenary presentation)

- increasing limitations on freedom of movement for those who are not EU citizens

- Persons with Disabilities: The active participation of persons with disabilities and representations of theologies of a new and innovative kind which are based on their experience. There is a growing theological literature directly produced by people with disabilities. Surprisingly, for a conference on diaconia and social exclusion, none of the venues were accessible to people with disabilities.

Theological Challenges

Trying to reflect an overview of such a large scale event is a risky business, but the impression I gained was that the theological contributions to the workshops largely repeated well known traditions and justifications for diaconia. Of course these inputs where quite sophisticated in their approach. But is this enough for a research conference? In a couple of spots we could see the fruits of new research in areas where new challenges are emerging, notably:

- research into the origins and development of diaconia is changing the way in which we think about the field. This new research challenges some of the    received theological and ecclesiological justifications for diaconia and it was    represented in the consultation workshop on paradigms of diaconia.

- the impact of newer forms of interactive and emergent theology, which are more ‘situated’ and more reflective in their methodology. Here we can see a move from theologies which reflect the interests and experiences of         professionals in the field to theologies which emerge from those with whom diaconia works.

In spite of the fact that there was a specific workshop on gender and Christian social practice, much of the theological work in the field of diaconia (as far as could be ascertained from one person’s involvement), remains ‘blind’ to difference not only of gender but also of race and dis-ability, not to mention class. This leads to forms of theological reflection which:

- give too little recognition to the fact that human beings have ‘bodies’ as well as ‘minds’

- uncritically pick up concepts from secular discourse without examining the concrete cultural and political meaning for others. An example might be the use of ‘hospitality’ as a frame of reference for dealing with so-called immigrant or ethnic minority populations. This is an inappropriate model certainly for second and third generation ‘immigrant communities’ (sic) and may actually impede    integration, which implies change for all parties involved.

- give too little space to the involvement of ‘users’ or ‘participants’ in research, development and teaching activities. The whole area of user or participatory research was almost invisible in the theological work of the conference. This is   not to say that ‘users’ and even ‘activists’ were not the focus of research but they were not active in it, nor did they ‘represent’ it themselves.

Political – Structural Challenges

The opening lecture of the conference boldly asserted that ‘neo-liberalism has failed’ – a sentiment with which I am in broad agreement – if by that is meant that this political-economic doctrine has failed to promote the common good of all. Yet, if this is so, the consequences are not yet being adequately integrated either into the critique or the consequent action of diaconia in relation to the development of the overall (E.U. or national) socio-economic model. As the Bratislava Declaration produced earlier this year put it, ‘how do we aim for an economy and society which do not produce exclusion’? (see: www.interdiac.eu) The political presentations on this point were disappointingly general or intellectually lacking.

Such a critique of neo-liberalism needs also to extend to deeper reflection on the impact of market values on social services and to exploring how far ‘new public management’ (and even ‘project cycle management’ in some variants) implements neo-liberal values and approaches, which through privatisation and competitive tendering, may lead to the ‘social dumping’ of care workers (especially migrant workers) and to a reduction in service access for marginalised groups. It is also important to critique the ways in which civil society and third sector concepts are used to promote neo-liberal ideas of welfare reform. This is especially important with the massive cuts in welfare being demanded in many countries as a result of the ongoing financial crises. The plenary lecture on civil society by Helmut Anheier was, in contradiction to the opening lecture of Heinrich Bedford-Strohm, rather promoting the neo-liberal agenda than developing action plans for work with civil society based on its critique. The paper of Hans van der Ven on diaconia and social human rights was more to the point, in focussing on the need for diaconia to address its identity in a context where social human rights are threatened (for example when care is denied for reasons of lack of citizenship).

This debate links to a wider issue of the renewed interest in the specific role of faith communities in welfare – what are the specific contributions of church related organisations and furthermore, what does diaconia ‘mean’ in a multi-faith European and global context? What theological, political and practical challenges are emerging to and for faith communities (and civil society) from the present socio-economic paradigm? This debate was present in ‘Heidelberg’ and was reflected in some of the discussions of city or urban mission and congregational diaconia as well as in the opening plenary lecture. However, the integration of a critique of the mainstream economic model into diaconal action and reflection remains incomplete.

Challenges to and from Practice

The question of the nature of diaconal or Christian social practice in the present context was addressed in several workshops. However, the link between the discussions in Heidelberg and the general discussion about the nature of social work was only weakly represented. It has to be recognised that social work as a profession is under attack from various quarters. In some contexts it is being reduced to resource management -   to the allocation of care resources according to need, or to the delivery of care services  or it is being reduced to (important) functions related to legal processes surrounding care responsibilities. The broader social function of the profession is being rapidly eroded. The definition of social work promoted by the International Federation of Social workers since 2000 is closely linked, in my view, to diaconal values and yet it is under threat. That definition asserts that:

‘The social work profession promotes social change, problem solving in human relationships and the empowerment and liberation of people to enhance well-being. Utilising theories of human behaviour and social systems, social work intervenes at the points where people interact with their environments. Principles of human rights and social justice are fundamental to social work.’ (See: http://www.ifsw.org/f38000138.html)

The question of the preservation and development of diaconal values in a market driven service economy needs further elaboration. Diaconal workers and those involved in Christian social work organisations are driven by a personal service model which should find its expression in professional work. There is evidence that the gap between the personal service model(s) of diaconal and social service workers and a market social service culture is widening rapidly in the face of an increasingly instrumental model of social service, driven by deadlines and targets.

There was not enough discussion of this urgent issue in Heidelberg, in relation not only to the changes in political economy but also in relation to the need to address societies and communities which are increasingly fragmented and diversifying. As one plenary speaker noted, it is important for diaconal work to become bi-lingual, expressing commitments in terms familiar to the churches and on the other hand accepted by ‘secular’ institutions and agencies. But is this an adequate answer, when the worker also confronts in day to day work, the complexity of a diverse local context? In a Europe of growing inequalities it will be important to work out service models which are outgoing (community or locality based, close to the life-world) and to position diaconal work differently than when there was a stronger consensus in society at large. The profile, position and skill set for diaconal work need to be reviewed and renewed in this light.

The connection between diaconal work, local engagement, community organisation and wider political action, between self organising and advocacy are further aspects of this problematic which were explored by Heather Roy in the last plenary lecture in Heidelberg. Community organising was put forward as a helpful model, but there is a need to deepen the discussion of community organising because it may also simply reinforce dominant and much criticised values. This is also true of theories and practices of empowerment – there are competing models, which broadly speaking may be supporting the development of market or even neo-liberal models or which are more reflective and collective/transformative. In the field of community organising the current revival of interest in the work of American, Saul Alinsky may in the end be value endorsing in the current context and on the other hand work influenced by the Brazilian, Paulo Freire may point in a more value critical direction. I have sometimes speculated that a model of practice which draws on both might have something to commend it! What is more certain is that when developing a model of Christian social practice it is very important to have a clear critical and constructive understanding of the (theological) anthropology behind it.

Drawing this together, it is clear that there is a need to develop model(s) of practice which integrate theological reflection and which are built into local, national and international action and research. The development of such a practice model could be the basis of a specific research programme.

Conclusion

For my part, I hope that work on research and development in the field, linking theology, practice and responding to political challenges will support new and innovative service models which address the urgent needs in the wider European and global context. Personally, looking forward to working with colleagues in the network and beyond on the development of diaconia and Christian social practice and thank you for your attention.