Social work theory · Volume D: Critical, Structural & Emancipatory

Power, governance and institutions

Theories of power, governance and institutions examine how social order is produced through knowledge, language, classification and organisations.

1. What it is

Theories of power, governance and institutions examine how social order is produced through knowledge, language, classification and organisations. They explain how certain people come to be defined as deviant, risky or in need, and how institutions shape the lives of those within them. They also show how modern states govern populations through expertise as well as force (Chambon et al., 1999). These theories matter for social work because social workers are themselves part of the apparatus of governance. Workers assess, classify, record and intervene, and these theories ask how those activities produce effects of power, sometimes protective and sometimes harmful (Healy, 2014; Parton, 1991).

Foucauldian theories of power and discourse. Michel Foucault argued that power circulates through relationships, institutions and everyday practices, and it is productive as well as repressive: it creates identities, knowledge and forms of conduct (Foucault, 1980). Foucault described discourse as a system of statements and practices that defines what can be said and known about a subject, such as madness, criminality or sexuality. Knowledge and power are therefore linked (power/knowledge). In Discipline and Punish, Foucault (1975/1977) traced the rise of disciplinary power, which works through surveillance, normalisation and examination. The Panopticon, a prison design in which inmates may always be observed, became his image of a society in which people regulate themselves. Case files, assessments and risk tools in social work can be read as techniques of this kind (Chambon et al., 1999).

Governmentality. Governmentality is Foucault’s term for the “conduct of conduct”: the ways in which states and other authorities seek to shape how people govern themselves (Foucault, 1991). Modern government works through populations, statistics and expert knowledge, and through encouraging citizens to become responsible, self-managing subjects. Rose (1999) and Dean (2010) applied the concept to neoliberal welfare, showing how policies promote “active” citizens who manage their own risks through employment, choice and self-improvement. Social work analyses have used governmentality to examine how child protection, welfare conditionality and individualised funding schemes such as the NDIS position clients as consumers and managers of risk (Parton, 1991; Rose, 1999).

Labelling theory (Becker, Lemert). Labelling theory holds that deviance results from others applying rules and sanctions to an act or a person. Lemert (1951) distinguished primary deviance, initial rule-breaking that may be minor or unnoticed, from secondary deviance, which develops when a person responds to societal reaction by adopting a deviant identity. Becker (1963) argued that social groups create deviance by making rules and applying them to particular people, whom they label as “outsiders”. He also showed that “moral entrepreneurs” campaign to create and enforce rules. Labelling theory explains how diagnoses, criminal records and service categories can become self-fulfilling and can intensify the problems they describe. It is closely related to stigma theory (see Social stratification and inequality).

Social constructionism (Berger & Luckmann). Social constructionism holds that much of what people take as objective reality is created and maintained through social interaction. Berger and Luckmann (1966) described three linked processes: externalisation (people produce social order through their actions), objectivation (these products come to seem independent and real) and internalisation (people learn this reality as given through socialisation). Institutions arise when habitual actions become shared and passed on, and they are then legitimated by explanations and theories. In this family, social constructionism directs attention to how social problems, categories such as “at risk” or “dysfunctional”, and professional knowledge are constructed and could be otherwise. Its role as a theory of knowledge is discussed in G3.

Institutional and organisational theories (Goffman, Lipsky). Institutional and organisational theories examine how organisations shape the behaviour of the people within them. Goffman (1961) described “total institutions”, such as psychiatric hospitals, prisons and orphanages, in which all aspects of life take place under one authority. Admission involves a “mortification of the self”, stripping people of identity, privacy and autonomy. Residents adapt in various ways, including withdrawal and conformity. Weber’s (1922/1978) analysis of bureaucracy, with its rules, hierarchy and impersonal procedures, provides a foundation for later work. Lipsky (1980) described “street-level bureaucrats”, such as social workers, teachers and police, who interact directly with citizens and exercise substantial discretion. Facing heavy demand and limited resources, they develop routines, rationing practices and simplified categories that in effect become policy. Neo-institutional theory adds that organisations adopt structures that look legitimate, often imitating one another (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983).

2. Historical development

These theories developed from several sources. Labelling theory and Goffman’s work came from symbolic interactionism and the Chicago School of sociology. Berger and Luckmann drew on phenomenology and the sociology of knowledge. Foucault worked within French philosophy and history, and his ideas later became central to poststructuralism. These theories became independent because they shifted attention from the characteristics of deviant or needy individuals to the processes and institutions that define and manage them.

Social work engaged with these ideas from the 1960s. Goffman’s work supported the deinstitutionalisation of psychiatric and disability services, and labelling theory influenced diversion programs in youth justice. Foucauldian analysis entered social work in the 1990s, informing critiques of child protection and risk management (Parton, 1991) and later narrative and postmodern approaches (Healy, 2014). In Australia, the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (2017) and the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability (2023) have shown the continuing relevance of institutional analysis.

3. Practical guidance

These theories guide workers to examine the effects of their own categories, records and organisations.

• Watch the language of assessment. Consider how labels such as “non-compliant”, “high risk” or “difficult” shape how others will see a client. Write records that describe behaviour and context and avoid fixed identity labels.
• Separate person from problem. Help clients resist identities imposed by diagnoses or records. Narrative approaches, which draw on Foucault, externalise problems so that they are not seen as part of the person (Healy, 2014).
• Recognise discretion. Acknowledge that you exercise discretion as a street-level bureaucrat. Make rationing decisions transparent and check them for bias (Lipsky, 1980).
• Reduce institutional effects. In residential, hospital, custodial and group-home settings, protect privacy, choice and personal identity. Be alert to practices that resemble Goffman’s (1961) mortification of the self.
• Question how problems are defined. Ask who defines a social problem, whose interests the definition serves and what alternatives exist (Berger & Luckmann, 1966).
• Analyse policy as governance. Examine how programs such as income management or individualised funding shape clients’ self-understanding and responsibility (Dean, 2010).

4. Critical evaluation

Strengths. These theories provide powerful tools for reflexive practice. They show how social work knowledge and procedures exercise power and can harm the people they aim to help. Goffman and labelling theory contributed to deinstitutionalisation and diversion programs. Foucault and governmentality studies help explain the rise of risk management and managerialism in welfare (Parton, 1991; Rose, 1999). Lipsky’s work gives a realistic account of frontline practice.

Limitations. Foucauldian theory has been criticised for offering little normative ground for distinguishing better from worse uses of power, and for weakening the basis for collective action (Fraser, 1989; Healy, 2000). Labelling theory may understate the reality of harmful behaviour and the agency of the person labelled. Strong forms of social constructionism can appear to deny material realities such as poverty or impairment. Goffman’s total institution model may not capture the more dispersed control found in community-based services.

Overall importance. This family gives social work a critical understanding of its own institutional position. It underpins postmodern and narrative practice, informs critiques of risk-based child protection and supports advocacy for people in institutions. Read alongside structural theories (D1) and anti-oppressive practice (D4), it helps workers recognise power in everyday professional activities.

5. References

• Becker, H. S. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance. Free Press.
• Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Doubleday.
• Chambon, A. S., Irving, A., & Epstein, L. (Eds.). (1999). Reading Foucault for social work. Columbia University Press.
• Dean, M. (2010). Governmentality: Power and rule in modern society (2nd ed.). Sage.
• DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101
• Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.). Pantheon. (Original work published 1975)
• Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972–1977 (C. Gordon, Ed.). Pantheon.
• Foucault, M. (1991). Governmentality. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon, & P. Miller (Eds.), The Foucault effect: Studies in governmentality (pp. 87–104). University of Chicago Press.
• Fraser, N. (1989). Unruly practices: Power, discourse, and gender in contemporary social theory. University of Minnesota Press.
• Goffman, E. (1961). Asylums: Essays on the social situation of mental patients and other inmates. Anchor Books.
• Healy, K. (2000). Social work practices: Contemporary perspectives on change. Sage.
• Healy, K. (2014). Social work theories in context: Creating frameworks for practice (2nd ed.). Palgrave Macmillan.
• Lemert, E. M. (1951). Social pathology: A systematic approach to the theory of sociopathic behavior. McGraw-Hill.
• Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. Russell Sage Foundation.
• Parton, N. (1991). Governing the family: Child care, child protection and the state. Macmillan.
• Rose, N. (1999). Powers of freedom: Reframing political thought. Cambridge University Press.
• Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. (2017). Final report. Commonwealth of Australia.
• Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. (2023). Final report. Commonwealth of Australia.
• Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology (G. Roth & C. Wittich, Eds.). University of California Press. (Original work published 1922)