Transforming power dynamics through prefigurative public administration

Abstract

This is the introduction to a symposium which addresses the essential task of transforming power dynamics in public administration. The articles in this symposium each consider different sources of inspiration for resisting and disrupting systems of oppression while co-creating and sustaining counter-institutions that foster equity and justice. The authors look to social movements for instances of transformational praxis to inform the field of public administration.

Keywords:

• Power dynamics
• systemic change
• social movements
• counter institutions
• commoning

In order for us as poor and oppressed people to become part of a society that is meaningful, the system under which we now exist has to be radically changed. This means that we are going to have to learn to think in radical terms. I use the term radical in its original meaning—getting down to and understanding the root cause. It means facing a system that does not lend itself to your needs and devising means by which you change that system – (Ella Baker)

As the world continues to grapple with addressing the increasingly “wicked problems” (Rittel & Webber, 1973, p. 155) of sustainability—including social, political, economic, and environmental crises—public administrators have struggled to find ways of acting and relating with those they serve to produce systemic transformative change. There have been growing calls to center equity as a foundation of public administration (Blessett et al., 2019). Moving equity from the role of pillar (Frederickson, 1971) to foundation, however, is not a matter of synonyms. Replacing fundamental assumptions and aims requires strategic dismantling and rebuilding—one cannot simply add a new objective or swap one foundation for another without transforming all that rests upon it (Stout & Love, 2019).

This call foregrounds the reality that systemic oppression and injustice are interwoven into the roots of public administration; systemic transformation will require finding new tools with which to rebuild (Lorde, 2007). This begins by directly acknowledging and tackling the role public administration has played in creating and perpetuating oppressive systems (Berry-James et al., 2021) and looking to public spaces where communities are actively involved in social, political, economic, and environmental justice work (Love & Stout, 2019).

Analyzing power dynamics is central to understanding how these oppressive systems are perpetuated, and correspondingly, to fostering justice (Guy & McCandless, 2012; Love & Fox, 2021; McCandless & Guy, 2020). Such analysis illustrates the structural nature of injustice in which some groups are targeted and oppressed while others receive disproportionate resources, prestige, and power (Young, 2011). To explore how public administration might facilitate this transition from oppressive power dynamics to collaborative dynamics of shared power, it is essential to have language for differentiating between different forms of relational power. Public administration is traditionally grounded in power-over, a zero-sum application of power where those with power are able to wield influence and control over those without (Bachrach & Baratz, 1962; Lasswell, 1950). This has been contrasted by calls for power-with which is emergent and co-created through collaborative group dynamics (Follett, 2003). However, to engage in effective power analysis, this dichotomy must be expanded. In addition to power-over and power-with, various investigations of power dynamics also define power-within, power-to, and power-for (Follett, 2003; Gaventa, 2006; Huxham & Vangen, 2005; Ledwith, 2011; Purdy, 2012; Stout & Keast, 2021).

Although public administration began from a place of domineering power-over (Orthodox Administration), it later expanded into a paternalistic power-for (New Public Administration and New Public Service) in an effort to achieve more equitable processes and outcomes. However, when public administrators operate from a place of beneficent saviorism to ameliorate the worst outcomes of domination, the privileged act on behalf of the less fortunate and fail to address the source causes of injustice (Freire, 2005; Racial Equity Institute, 2021). Indeed, social justice cannot be achieved by doing for others; such attempts maintain a foothold in power-over, reinforcing the status quo of marginalization. Instead, social justice must be achieved through policies and practices that build self-efficacy, solidarity, and agency—often referred to as “empowerment work” (Hardina, 2006; Ledwith, 2011; Toomey, 2011). These outcomes coincide with power-within, power-with, and power-to.

Tchida and Stout (2021) argue that these forms of power function as building blocks for one another when not corrupted by power-over and power-for. Self-efficacy (power-within) relates to both individual capacities and how the various social identities one holds are valued (Bandura, 1994; Gaventa, 1982). In turn, self-efficacy fosters the courage to act on behalf of oneself and one’s social groups. This absence of fear enables one to stand in solidarity with others (power-with) (Follett, 2003), even across difference and when one does not share their specific purpose or issues (Bhattacharyya, 1995; Castells, 2015). It is within these relations that equitable collective action becomes possible. Solidarity supports the exercise of agency (power-to) in a manner informed by community (Gaventa, 1982), which in turn builds self-confidence and a sense of identity (power-within).

Transforming power dynamics in this way demands that public administration not simply name, resist, and disrupt systems of oppression, but that we also actively work dismantling them and co-creating counter-institutions that foster equity and justice (Dixon, 2014). Affirmational visions are necessary for transformational change; so long as public administration remains within the rules of the game as established, we can easily be drawn back into charitable power-for and the power-over dynamics of hierarchical authority and competitive modes of association that drive oppressive systems (Stout, Bartels, & Love, 2018). If we are not careful, we end up “reinforcing the very systems against which we struggle” (Keating, 2013, p. 3). Indeed, without rigorous, honest, ongoing self-reflection, even the most authentic commitment to building solidarity and self-efficacy can founder as individuals and organizations revert to power-for and power-over, often in the name of efficiency, economy, and efficacy. This is why making equity a foundation rather than just another pillar is essential.

The articles in this symposium each consider different sources of inspiration for developing and sustaining “ground-up approach to generative and creative power-with” (Trochmann & Millesen, 2021, p. 4). They explore the tensions between the world we are striving to create—one that fosters power-with, power-within, and power-to—while grappling with the realities of the world we currently live in. In other words, they take on the question of how to be both “against and beyond” oppressive power dynamics (Dixon, 2014), moving past anger and resistance to nurture hope and transformation (Castells, 2015). The articles herein consider a range of counter-institutions (houses within the LGBTQ ballroom culture; encampments of Occupy Wall Street; commoning practices in Italy; relational organizing in radical social movements) that respond to the call to move from resistance to affirmation (Stout & Love, 2019). Collectively, they look outside of public administration proper for inspiration instances of transformational praxis, as well as examining the challenges and successes of nascent efforts within governance.

Popular culture in film has long been recognized as a useful source of inspiration within public administration (Bharath, 2021; Norman & Kelso, 2012). Fiction can provide rich detail and nuance missing from scholarly case studies. In their article “Transforming power with Pose: Centering love in state-sponsored services for LGBTQ youth experiencing homelessness,” Trochmann and Millesen (2021) demonstrate the way fiction provides a space to interact with multiple perspectives and center marginalized voices (Gaynor & Taliaferro, 2016) to engage in theoretical analysis of relational practice (Stout, 2011). They explore the counter-institutions of houses within the LGBTQ ballroom community depicted in Pose, examining the ways some houses nurture power-with (solidarity), power-with (self-efficacy), and power-to (agency) in a manner that affirms love, connection, and joy. Pose then provides an exemplar for co-creating better approaches to addressing the needs of homeless LGBTQ youth by jettisoning “doing-for” approaches in favor of those that lead “with love, together with collaborative, community-based decision-making, and engaging those with lived experience” (p. 6), all the while acknowledging that “the ongoing process of creating beloved community and transforming power requires continual attention to navigating the tensions and oppressive societal norms” (p. 14).

Social movements have also been identified as a rich source from which public administration can learn (Love & Stout, 2019). Of particular note are movements that seek radical transformative change that “dismantles oppressive systems and fundamentally shifts power into the hands of communities” (Carruthers, 2019, p. 23). These movements are often referred to as the New Left (Breines, 1989), prefigurative politics (Boggs, 1977; Maekelbergh, 2011), “anti-globalization” (Evren 2011, 1), “alternative globalization” (Gordon, 2007, p. 30), or simply “another politics” (Dixon, 2014). They include myriad movements associated with economic and social justice, ecology and food sovereignty, land and water rights, feminism, indigenous rights, anti-capitalism, anti-corporate globalization, anti-neoliberalism, anti-war, and pro-grassroots movements. These prefigurative contemporary social movements craft mechanisms of participation within “a rich democratic vision” (Dixon 2014, p. 3) in which community members are “cocreators and producers of democracy” rather than “consumers of democracy” (Boyte, 2005, p. 3). They eschew hierarchy and purposefully redefine power relationships (Attrache, 2014; Dixon, 2014; Sitrin, 2005).

In “When we can’t handle the truth: Occupy, ‘dangerous speech,’ and public administration,” Catlaw and Eagan (2022) look specifically to the missed opportunities for public administration to learn from Occupy Wall Street. They note the way public administration reverted to power-over tactics and rather than engaging with the difficult truths and new ways of being together put forth by the encampments. The occupations thus provided a multitude of experiments in creating community-based counter-institutions that were “enacting a way of life that aspired to be more livable, democratic, and compassionate” (p. 2). Applying Foucauldian analysis, Catlaw and Eagan identify these embodied endeavors in terms of political and ethical parrhēsia, arguing that rather than engaging to listen and learn from hard truths, administrators reverted to technē, thus retrenching into a power-over stance. They envision what might have been possible if administrators had chosen instead to open themselves up to collaboration and possibility: “a progressive, radically democratic public administration [that] could ultimately ensure that the truth-telling of social movements not just be heard but also be enacted beyond the protests, facilitating real social change” (p. 15).

While looking outside the realm of public administration is essential, we must always be learning from the experimentation occurring within more traditional governance settings as well. Within a recent turn of public administration scholarship, studies of collaborative network governance began arguing that mechanisms to coordinate responses to policy challenges across jurisdictional and sectoral borders can yield “collaborative advantage” over traditional governance approaches (Huxham, 2000). However, existing studies of actual governance networks’ abilities to achieve these benefits yield poor results. We argue that this may be due to the fact that these evaluations focus on government-led collaborations that still retain hindering features of hierarchy and competition. If these collaborative networks do not engage in intentional, ongoing assessment of power dynamics, the potential for collaborative advantage will continue to be lost (Stout & Love, 2019). In contrast, practices of public participation (Geall & Hilton, 2014) and grassroots organizing (Bartosiewicz & Miley, 2014; Tugal, 2014) seem to hold particular promise for guiding relational dynamics in seeking to co-produce the common good.

In the third article of this symposium, Kioupkiolis (2021) examines two approaches to co-producing the common good in “Transforming City Government: Italian variants on urban commoning.” Looking at the examples of Bologna and Naples, Kioupkiolis considers the commons within these settings as counter-institutions created and maintained through the collaborative process of commoning. The Bologna Model creates an iterative process that includes the municipality, neighborhoods, and civic associations; however, it maintains a governmental top-down structure that offers more stability and efficiency at the cost of retaining power-over dynamics. The Neapolitan Way, on the other hand, enables a more ground-up approach to commoning in which citizen groups can determine regulation and use of public spaces; this approach builds power-with, power-within, and power-to among residents and results more innovation but less governmental stability. This side-by-side analysis invites readers to consider how to best foster a “politics of empathy, solidarity, joyful creation and interaction, plurality, and openness” (p. 7).

As public administrators draw from these varied sources of inspiration, it is also essential remain self-reflective and reflexive with the people and communities we engage. Regardless of the commitments one may hold to transforming social, economic, political, and environmental structures, this prefigurative administrative work is embedded within a societal dominance culture constructed to reinforce hierarchy and competition (Tchida & Stout, 2021). In their Dialogue article, “Relational culture: Beyond prefigurative politics,” practitioners Demaris and Landsman (2021) offer insight from their work with movement-building communities and the challenges they find sustaining relational dynamics amidst the power struggles fueled by dominance culture. Among the lessons they share is the importance of maintaining focus on collaboration, interdependence, and building collective capacity—rather than individualism, self-sufficiency, and individual skills. By purposefully incorporating practices that center bonding, embodiment, and bridging, they argue that we can practice harm reduction while working toward building a culture grounded in relational equity and mutual care.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Jeannine M. Love

Jeannine M. Love is an Associate Professor of Public Administration and Program Director of Political Science at Roosevelt University. Her research focuses on integrative processes that foster radical democracy—in governance, social movements, organizations, and the classroom. She brings this theoretical lens to examinations of racial, social, and economic justice.

Margaret Stout

Margaret Stout is a Professor of Public Administration at West Virginia University. Her research explores the role of public and nonprofit practitioners in achieving democratic social, economic, and environmental justice. She has a strong interest in exploring philosophical and theoretical underpinnings and the importance of linking theory to practice.