Part 2 of the analysis of the tyranny of resilience in Social Work practice: SW’s are drowning in an ideological ‘sea of me’

The Tyranny of Resilience in Social Work Practice (part 2)

Our previous writings on the place and meaning of resilience in social work practice highlighted findings from our research which exposed practitioners experience of the application of resilience in practice as a punitive mechanism of coercion and control.

Our analysis of respondents comments suggests social workers are drowning in an ideological and theoretical ‘sea of me’ where reslience is pathologised, and intervention to address issues of non resilience are focused at an individual level rather than addressing issues of structural and organisational oppression.

A striking feature of participants responses , which further supported the ‘individualisation’ of resilience in practice, was their need to control/manage their emotions as part of demonstrating resilience. The inter-relationship between emotion and resilience is encapsulated in the notion of ‘emotional intelligence’.

Research suggests

“supporting the development of emotional intelligence and self determining behaviour may go some way to addressing the experiences of stress and burnout among social workers, and the retention of social workers in this profession” (Bunce et al, 2019: p20).

Whilst Biggart et al (2016) state

“emotional intelligence covers the ability to identify emotions in oneself and others and to manage emotions in oneself and others …… Research shows that Trait Emotional Intelligence helps reduce physiological responses to stress and is strongly associated with mental health” (p3-4)

However, it could be suggested uncritical acceptance of this strategy may exacerbate the current situation further. Again, as with resilience, this approach locates the ‘problem’ within the individual, and suggests emotional intelligence is something the individual must learn to improve their resilience, and ultimately their professionalism and wellbeing.

From an ideological perspective Binkley (2018) suggests in a neoliberal context ‘emotions are not diminished per se, but are re-conceived as resources and instruments for advancement’ (pp.581). In this context practitioners emotions are not crushed or suppressed they are re-made, produced and modified for the wider purposes of their organisation. If one lacks these 

‘qualities, one should set about the work of generating them through the use of a set of generally available lifestyle techniques (self-help, physical exercise, popular psychologies, etc. To neglect the development of one’s emotional life is a failure for which no one else is responsible. In other words, emotions are no longer simply experiences or static states, much less traces of deeper subjective characters and truths: they are dynamic, plastic resources’ (Binkley, 2018: p582).

It is this notion of ‘plasticity’ that was most apparent within respondents responses, a belief that they need to be ‘flexible’, able to ‘bounce,’ able to ‘bend‘ to meet their professional requirements, to meet their organisational needs, to meet service users needs.

The neoliberal inter-sections between resilience, emotional intelligence, psychological theory and professionalism could be conceived as putting in place a set of internal restrictions on the professional that diminishes their power to challenge those that govern or the context in which they practice. From this perspective the individualisation of resilience provides a distraction to looking beyond the individual to deeper aspects of the political and structural. This was frequently apparent within respondents comments as the ideological, political and structural realms remained at a surface level confined to comments in respect of ‘limited resources’.

Previous research by Joseph (2013) firmly locates resilience as a form of ‘neoliberal governmentality’ arguing that it has become a normative force , deflecting attention from formal structural analysis and emphasising individual responsibility for solutions to collective problems. Evans and Reid (2013) present this as a paradox inherent within the concept of resilience and expose how resilient individuals are destined to remain constantly vigilant to adapting and therefore have less capacity to envision how to change their circumstances.

In this context resilience can be conceptualised as a tool of control retaining subjects in a permanent state of anxiety and denying them agency to address the source of their woes.

————————————————————————————————————————-

To continue to read our analysis click here Tyranny of Resilience in Social Work Practice

To read the research overview click here  Resilience Report 2020

(The Tyranny of Resilience, Part 1, can be found here)

---

Our starting point for this research was the voice of social workers who told us their stories, and our aim has been  to honour their voices. We would like to thank all those who took part in our survey and apologise for the delay in publishing the results.  We experienced a long period of delay as our analysis was lost in a social work journal peer review system for over a year. Having been advised the work required minor revisions our subsequent submission was rejected as ‘not adding anything new’ to understanding  social workers experience of resilience,  however, this work has always been about enabling the voice of frontline social workers who took part in our survey to have their voices heard.

We therefore respectfully ask you the reader to share this work if you feel able please as an act of solidarity and commitment to one another as a community of social workers, and activists,  in the advancement of the social work profession.

Thank you. 

Dear Reviewer 2: Go F’ Yourself’: Who holds the keys to the kingdom of knowledge?

This post is inspired by a research paper whose title many within academia may well have voiced themselves, ‘Dear Reviewer 2: Go F’ Yourself‘. 

The author states ‘The objective of this study was to empirically test the wide belief that Reviewer #2 is a uniquely poor reviewer’.  Concluding ‘Reviewer #2 is not the problem. Reviewer #3 is. In fact, he is such a bad actor that he even gets the unwitting Reviewer #2 blamed for his bad behavior.'(Peterson,2020)

Peer review is the accepted academic foundation to the development, gatekeeping and dissemination of research, while underpinning professional hierarchies within academia. However, research has called this process into question, identifying different outcomes based on gender and nationality. Research by Murray et al (2018) on submissions to a biosciences journal found

‘…… a homophilic interaction between the demographics of the gatekeepers and authors in determining the outcome of peer review; that is, gatekeepers favor manuscripts from authors of the same gender and from the same country. The acceptance rate for manuscripts with male last authors was significantly higher than for female last authors, and this gender inequity was greatest when the team of reviewers was all male; mixed-gender gatekeeper teams lead to more equitable peer review outcomes.’

Now it could be suggested peer reviewed Social Work  journals operate from a different ideological and philosophical  perspective to biosciences, however, my subjective experience over the past 14 years as an academic suggests to me social work might not be quite so different. On reviewing my publications I have been astonished to find that the majority of my successful submissions have been to  journals edited by females, whilst the majority of unsuccessful submissions have been to journals edited by males. In addition I have also realised the female edited journals have a lower metric rating, compared to the male edited journals. 

Why I wonder? The answer is likely to be multiple and complex, although hierarchies in power at both an individual and subject/content level would have a key role I believe. (Maybe that’s the subject of another blog or even a symposium?)

A recent experience of a ‘reviewer 3’s’ generally negative comments on a submission prompted me to think more deeply about  the role of peer reviewed journals as ‘gatekeepers’ of knowledge distribution, and how this might  inform the evidence base of social work. Commonly framed within the profession as ‘evidence based practice ‘ or ‘evidence informed practice’.

From a philosophical perspective Evidence Based/Informed Practice (EBIP) appears to operate on modernist foundations. For example seeking to adhere to methodological and analytic standards of rigour, which demonstrate the objectivity and reliability of a scientific approach, because this will provide clarity in establishing the ‘right’ evidence is combined to create systematic and cohesive frameworks of knowledge. The belief that by adopting this approach the ‘right’ research and knowledge is published is alluring,  and indeed may lead practitioners into a false sense of security when making decisions based on EBIP.

However, Postmodernist frameworks are of benefit here to thinking about the multiple discourses at play in social work practices, and understandings the dynamics between them,  particularly concerning power.

Academia is an interesting example of this if we consider the suggested positional power of some academics. Reid and Curry (2019) suggest such power is insidious, and  produces barriers for some scholars throughout their entire careers, disproportionately affecting women and people from black and minority ethnic groups. This template dictates certain research agendas, epistemologies, and methods as legitimate while discarding or marginalizing those that do not fit neatly within this framework. Reid and Curry argue In essence there is an acceptance of 

‘white male subjectivity as the norm (thus ‘objective’), rendering racialized (nonwhite) and genderized (nonmale) subjectivity as the ‘other,’ as lacking credibility.” Scholars who focus on critical theory, race, gender, ethnicity, sexuality and identities, qualitative methods and the like are marginalized because their work is supposedly not “objective” science.’

Add to this a cloak of anonymity, and a lack of transparency and accountability, there is very little discriminated groups can do to challenge such academic orthodoxy.

Peshkin (1988) provides an interesting perspective which extends, and troubles, the notion of objectivity by suggesting the ‘taboo’ of subjectivity stems from a misunderstanding of its potential role in EBIP. It is our own subjective involvement in practice—not the precise replication of the event—which can provide strong theoretical insight. However, we are somewhat conditioned as practitioners and academics to see subjectivity as a ‘contaminant’. Yet, that contaminant is always present, one can never get away from one self.  As Alan Peshkin eloquently reminds us

“Whatever the substance of one’s persuasions at a given point, one’s subjectivity is like a garment that cannot be removed. It is insistently present in both the research and non-research aspects of our life. … our subjectivity lies inert, unexamined when it counts ….. ” (Peshkin 1988, p.17)

The key point here is that subjectivity cannot be removed. It shapes and mediates our thinking and action in a whole range of ways. Therefore, it needs to be valued understood and utilised . Instead of trying to remove the garment and declare ourselves clean of subjectivity, it is important to acknowledge it, and draw upon it to deepen our analysis. However, this is unlikely to happen if the ‘gatekeepers’ decide not to open the gates to their kingdom of knowledge, unless of course we can find another way in.

There is also an issue, I believe, in respect of practitioners opportunities to engage in research, and attain publication of their work, especially given the workforce is predominantly female (approx 85%). If there is gender bias in favour of males, specifically white males, this has major implication in who creates the evidence base for social work practice, and what does his mean for practitioners and service provision?

What do you think?

 

 

 

 

Social Work, values and ethics: Covid19, Adam Smith and the invisible hand of accountability

Faith in the free market is unshakeable in this government, as has been demonstrated by Covid19 and the huge number of tenders given to private companies to provide key services required to save thousands of lives, such as test, trace and track. However, the re-branding of any aspect of public health care as a commodity over the last 40 years has all but ignored some simple truths pointed out by the economist Adam Smith several hundred years ago;  the purpose of the free market is to generate wealth for those who own the means of production, or the ‘masters of mankind’ as Smith christened them, it is not a charitable endeavour but a single minded system driven by cash not compassion, who Smith suggested had a ‘vile maxim‘  of  “all for ourselves”.  The ‘masters of mankind’  in Smiths time were the merchants and manufacturers who supported policy that enabled them to make more profit, they were not concerned with how such policy and their actions might impact on others.  Today the ‘masters of mankind’ appear to be financial institutions; banks, insurance companies, private healthcare providers and  international management consultants, such as  McKinsey and Company who wrote many of the proposals contained within the Heath and Social Care Act and made several millions from there implementation.


The provision of care related products and services by the private sector clearly leaves individuals vulnerable in a variety of ways, from the treatment of vulnerable adults in Winterbourne View see review, to Serco and their disastrous handling of test, trace and track provision.

Successive governments have been keen to point to the failure of ‘state’ provision as an argument for the introduction of more private sector provision. True there have been problems, however, rather than addressing these issues government seeks to displace them into the private sector, an under regulated private sector, where problems can conveniently disappear from view and politicians spout an empty rhetoric of disgust when an issue is exposed, whilst pointing their finger at faceless corporations exclaiming “its not my fault…s/he did it”.

Government appears to believe not only is the private sector to big to fail, but more worryingly, to big to jail.

In essence some major private providers seem to operate with impunity to wrong doing.  If they are not held accountable and government is not held accountable, who is?  Oh of course, the ‘consumer/taxpayer’ who paid for the product will have to bare the brunt of failure.

The truth is the ‘free market’ is anything but ‘free’.  A favourite of Mrs Thatcher, economist Friedrich Hayek compared the free market to a ‘game’ where there are winners and losers suggesting trying to regulate the market in the name of social justice was a waste of time, there are winners and losers and it is not governments place to even the odds because we are all free to make choices, and should live with the consequences of those choices and not try to displace them onto others, such as government or other taxpayers.  Which in many ways I support, however, the market is not free and is comparable to a casino where the ‘house’ always wins.

Lets reflect on the global economic crisis brought about by the same old economic neoliberal ‘masters of mankind’ and the displacement of said crisis  on the public sector, and consequently those who use the public sector, to see how a system premised on  the free market is neither free nor fair, and the biggest losers are those most vulnerable.

The current government appear to believe there is only one game in town when it comes to the future of our health and social care sector, they are wrong.  Call me old fashioned but for me an active State should be about taking a lead, collective action and solidarity, setting a high bench mark for all in society, not running away and hiding behind the financial sector and an outdated mantra of ‘private sector good, public sector bad’ where ‘money is the anthem of success’ like some National Anthem (Lana Del Rey).

 

The ambiguity of ‘evidence based practice’

It has also become apparent how the contested nature of ‘subjectivity’ in EBP serves those in power well. By excluding the ‘subjective’ voice of those in society who are marginalised, their stories, their experiences and their knowledge is discarded, branded as unscientific, not rigorous, not valid …… whose interests does this serve?

Uncertainty is an inevitable aspect of social work practice, yet, the creation of certainty is a fundamental tendency of the human mind, and it is not just our perceptual system which automatically seeks to transform uncertainty into certainty. Government and wider society demand a high level of certainty from social workers, especially following high profile tragedies, and subsequent reports identifying ‘failings’ in practice. As a response to such ‘failings’ the concept of ‘evidence based practice’ (EBP) has proliferated in social work.

EBP is presented as a model of critical appraisal, designed to inform practice, where the practitioner has a relatively autonomous role in searching for, and critically analysing, research evidence to inform their decision making. The latest guidance on the refreshed PCF articulates this commitment once again, and adds an additional expectation that social workers also generate ‘evidence’ to inform practice.

‘More reference throughout to importance of evidence and evidence-informed practice and the inclusion of more reference to ‘evaluation’ alongside ‘research as key source of evidence and engagement of practitioners in evidence/knowledge generation.‘ (BASW,2018)

Whilst practitioners and educators strive to adhere to this principle it could be argued as a ‘professional capability’ this ignores the complexity associated with notions of EBP at both a practical and philosophical level.

Is EBP at odds with real work social work?

Practitioners across allied professional groups are constantly called upon to manage uncertainty, ambiguity and complexity where there often seems to be a plurality of ways to understand what is happening in practice contexts.

From a philosophical perspective EBP appears to operate on modernist foundations.  For example seeking to adhere to methodological and analytic standards of rigour, which demonstrate the reliability of a scientific approach, because this will provide clarity in establishing the ‘right’ evidence is combined to create systematic and cohesive frameworks of knowledge. The belief that by adopting this approach one can achieve a level of certainty is alluring, yet, arguably, unrealistic in social work practice, and indeed may lead practitioners into a false sense of security when making decisions based on EBP.

Postmodernist frameworks are of benefit here to thinking about the multiple discourses at play in social work practices, and understandings the dynamics between them – particularly concerning power. This includes shifting from singular forms of objective understanding, to consider the diversity of subjective knowledges at play in practice contexts. This requires practitioner and academics to appreciate how objective knowledge is a contested concept which can lead to a fruitless search in complex situations for certainties that may not exist.

Peshkin (1988) provides an interesting perspective which extends, and troubles, the notion of objectivity by suggesting the ‘taboo’ of subjectivity stems from a misunderstanding of its potential role in EBP. It is our own subjective involvement in practice—not the precise replication of the event—which can provide strong theoretical insight. However, we are somewhat conditioned as practitioners and academics to see subjectivity as a ‘contaminant’. Yet, that contaminant is always present, one can never get away from one self. As Alan Peshkin eloquently reminds us

“Whatever the substance of one’s persuasions at a given point, one’s subjectivity is like a garment that cannot be removed. It is insistently present in both the research and non-research aspects of our life. … our subjectivity lies inert, unexamined when it counts ….. ” (Peshkin 1988, p.17)

The key point here is that subjectivity cannot be removed. It shapes and mediates our thinking and action in a whole range of ways. Therefore, it needs to be valued understood and utilised . Instead of trying to remove the garment and declare ourselves clean of subjectivity, it is important to acknowledge it, and draw upon it in deep analysis to inform decision making.

(for an alternative critique of post modernism in social work click here)

The practical application of EBP

Research from Scandinavia suggests whilst practitioners support the notion of EBP it is rarely applied in a way that is conducive to improved decision making. Their findings highlighted a number of fundamental flaws, which may be relevant to practice in the UK. Firstly, the research found professional autonomy is not a given , suggesting the greatest barrier to practitioners engaging in EBP is the organisational context.

The research identified five significant organisational issues which impeded practitioners from adopting a more focused EBP approach to inform practice;

1. No access to databases where they can search for, and evaluate research
2. Time constraints
3. ‘Organisational logic’ (predictability) prioritised over a ‘logic of care’ (unpredictability)
4. A focus on following organisational guidelines which aligns EBP with organisational logic to guide decision making
5. Financial considerations taking priority over research findings to inform practice

The research concludes whilst social workers were not content with the current conception of  EBP they felt incapable of challenging it. The issues highlighted in this research provide little that is new, previous research seems to support these recent findings and arguably leaves practitioners in an untenable position, from both a philosophical and a ‘professional capability’ perspective.

Creating an alternative approach in my practice

Just as practitioners may find themselves out of kilter with EBP, I too have experienced the oppressive effects of  the polarity that exists in understanding EBP when combined with organisational logic in a Higher Education setting.

As a lecturer I am more used to drawing on the objective research knowledge of ‘expert’ academic others to inform my practice, where objectivity and evidence based practice is privileged as an expression of professionalism. However, the eloquent exploration  by Staller (2007) of the interaction between a social worker and sexually abused child resonates with my experience of the polarity which exists in presenting objectivity as synominous with professionalism as she writes

‘He speaks about his responsibility to retrieve objective stories from sexually abused children, knowing He holds their heart in His hands‘ (p.766). Going onto to suggest ‘His need to get an “objective” story is because the alternative is subjective or fictitious’ (Staller,2007;p.776).

Staller’s experience of encountering this exchange provided a ‘trigger’ moment. Her experience has become the ‘data’ which she will explore from every angle possible to locate that moment within the social, cultural and political realms. This process then has the potential to extract new learning from her experience, to create and share knowledge which will enhance practice.

Reading Stallers work provided a ‘trigger’ moment for me, where I filtered its meaning using the theoretical lenses of modernism and post modernism,   to try and be aware of, and make sense of, how I decide what ‘counts’ as knowledge and how I create and transform data into knowledge, and then ‘evidence’ to support my professional self.  I also had to locate my thoughts in the wider context of the organisation I work in, and the current  structural frameworks which directly influence current practice within higher education (i.e. the use of metrics to ‘rate’ the quality me and my institution, and so inform prospective students how ‘good’ I am, we are – I will leave this for another blog!)

It has also become apparent how the contested nature of ‘subjectivity’ in EBP serves those in power well. By excluding the ‘subjective’ voice of those in society who are marginalised, their stories, their experiences and their knowledge is discarded, branded as unscientific, not rigorous, not valid …… whose interests does this serve? 

(WARNING – Shameless plug here: From this, and subsequent experiences,  my colleagues Annastasia Maksymluk  , who has used auto-ethnography in curriculum development & Andy Whiteford , who focuses on sustainability, and I have collaborated to create a ‘no smoke and mirrors’ research and writing partnership, from which we developed  an open access on-line peer reviewed journal the Journal of auto-ethnography for health and social care). We encourage submissions to the journal from anyone who wants to be part of producing evidence to inform practice;  students, professionals, service users, patients – all are welcome!

Conclusion

Regardless of whatever EBP might, or might not be, it appears practitioners are currently expected to work within a model of EBP which might be more accurately conceptualised as OBP, Operational Based Practice , where professional decision making is centred in processes designed to meeting organisational demands. This is problematic because

“ …it is argued that whatever group controls the way things are seen in some ways also has the power to control the ways things are. Whoever’s interpretation gets accepted will doubtless control how the idea is enacted.” Fook (2002:37).

From this perspective the production, and application, of ‘evidence’ is the product of deliberate, conscious human design, which is amenable to a whole host of organisational, ethical and political requirements. Evidence is not value-free and we need to ask what values and processes currently underpin the discourse that surrounds and shapes EBP in education, research and practice and whether these align to the professions values and ethics?

From a logic perspective EBP provides a neat linear model of deliberated decision making. However, real world social work is rarely a logical, or a linear activity, dealing as it does with often complex and chaotic human lives. Lives where meaning is constructed by a variety of individuals, and subjected to a plethora of structural and organisational filters that heavily influence the practice of decision makers and the lives of those they work with.

Whilst the notion of EBP has provided the profession, regulators, educators and government, with a seemingly straightforward response to improving decision making in complex cases, the structural realities of practice continue to be ignored, as do the structural inequalities that exist in many of the lives practitioners work with.

Social Work education; is there a future under neoliberalism?

As an ideology, neoliberalism perpetuates the belief that the market cannot only solve all problems but also serves as a model for structuring all social relations. It is steeped in the language of self-help, choice and individual responsibility,   purposely ignoring the effects of  inequalities in power, wealth and income and how these shape individuals and families lives. As such, it supports a society which cruelly others those who require support, and is scornful of a critical and politicised social work profession founded on compassion and notions of social justice, equality and respect.

Back in 2013 Michael Gove, then education secretary, claimed too many social workers had been filled with idealistic dogma and theories of society that viewed people as victims of social injustice. Gove vowed to “strip this sort of thinking out of the profession”.

More recently Ray Jones argues politicians are stealthily trying to take control of social work, possibly because social workers expose the failings of their ideologically driven policies?

Maybe this is why Government would like to diminish the role of Universities in social work education, to depoliticise the profession and create a beige curriculum.  A painting by numbers programme of training, rather than a vibrant colourful education that prepares social workers to support, and challenge those in power. The extension of neoliberal ideology and discourse into higher education already provides a framework to socialise academia into working in a manner akin to managerialism i.e targets/NSS, where knowledge is viewed as a commodity for customers (students) to purchase and consume.  Packaged as one dimensional capabilities rather than multifaceted knowledge and skills .

(see Grant and Radcliffe, 2015, whose paper on higher education in mental health nursing has many synergies with social work).

Arguably an effective social work profession is a political profession as well, able to critique and analyse, to challenge, rather than accept the status quo.  As Henry Giroux eloquently states

“At a time of increased repression, it is all the more crucial for educators to reject the notion that public and higher education are simply sites for training students for the workforce, and that the culture of education is synonymous with the culture of business. At issue here is the need for educators to recognize the power of education in creating the formative cultures necessary to challenge the various threats being mobilized against the ideas of justice and democracy, while also fighting for those public spheres, ideals, values, and policies that offer alternative modes of identity, thinking, social relations, and politics.

Pedagogy is always about power, because it cannot be separated from how subjectivities are formed or desires mobilized, how some experiences are legitimated and others are not, or how some knowledge is considered acceptable while other forms are excluded from the curriculum.”

Whilst we have a plethora of educational routes into social work, Frontline;Think Ahead;Step-up;Apprencticeships and HEI’s no one appears to be asking any political leader of any persuasion one very important question as far as I can see.

Given our politicians feel their governments policies and leadership over the last 3 decades has led to continuous improvements, why is society in such need for ever increasing numbers of social workers?

If we can move beyond the divisive  narratives of  ‘broken families’, ‘recruitment and retention’, ‘the demographic time bomb’, ‘austerity’ and ‘we can’t afford X’,  and consider addressing the structural issues that impact on individuals lives, such as housing, benefit reforms, energy prices, the environment, job insecurity, food insecurity, low wages, affordable higher education etc, we might then be able to formulate a different ideology, a different discourse, one that unites us for the good of all.

 

‘Old age,more feared than death’…… have we ever cared about older people?

Has there ever been a ‘golden age’ where older people were consistently valued, respected cared for and protected by family and the institutions that make up wider society?

The World Health Organisation suggests the abuse of older people occurs in many parts of the world with little recognition or response. This serious social problem is often downplayed or hidden from the public view, and considered mostly a private matter. Even today, the abuse of older people continues to be a taboo, mostly underestimated and ignored by societies across the world. However, evidence is accumulating to indicate that the abuse of older people in the UK is an important public health and societal problem.

The full extent of abuse is unknown, however, its social and moral significance is obvious. As such, it demands an active response, one which focuses on protecting the rights of older persons, and a change in our perspective on whom, and what, we value in society.

Although representations of old age and societal responses to older people have differed over time it could be argued old age has always been viewed as negative.

In ancient Greece old age was portrayed as sad, with the Greeks love of beauty marginalising the old. Although some commentators suggest the reality was more complex with the portrayal of older people in the classics as ‘both pejorative and complimentary’ (Thane, p.32). For Plato reverence toward old people was a guarantee of social and political stability, whereas Aristotle disagreed with such positive images. Cicero’s work De Senectute, written in 44 BC, points to the variety in individual experiences of ageing, acknowledging that for those who are poor and without mental capacity ageing is miserable, however, suggesting older people need to strive throughout their life to remain intellectually and physically able.

Arguably this belief still underpins social care legislation and policy today in respect of older people.

It has been suggested older people’s status in society is linked to their ability to participate in society from an economic perspective, especially in terms of activity in paid employment. Historically where older people have been unable to participate in paid employment, help and support has been provided through a mixture of family and state support, with an emphasis by government on the former rather than the latter. However, commentators suggest, post industrial revolution, another victim of change were older people. The old did not merely lose power, they also lost respect. The rise of the alms-houses, and institutionalised poor-relief, may indicate their children were increasingly shedding responsibility for their support and transferring it to the community.

Although Thane  argued, this may have been due to families own depths of poverty, rather than lack of care or a shedding of responsibility.

The abuse of older people was not something government identified as a problem throughout this period, although, self-neglect was identified as an issue which government sought to address in the 1948 National Assistance Act.

This is not to say it did not occur, for example, the 1942 Exceptional Needs Enquiry found most older people living with families were there under sufferance. They were often less well off than those who lived with strangers, and lacked essential items of clothing, bedding or household equipment as families used any provision, such as clothing coupons, for personal use. Whether this constituted abuse is not clear as many families who cared for older relatives were often living in poverty themselves and older people often willingly gave their families any support they could, even if this meant going without themselves. Of course, records do not exist to either confirm or deny whether such relationships were abusive or mutually supportive, however, it might suggest in terms of individual worth and personal identity, a cultural norm existed where the welfare of the younger generation was prioritised over that of the old by both young and old.

However, Peter Townsend’s landmark study  of long-stay institutional care for older people in 1950’s Britain, provides a little more insight into the experiences of older people receiving care. One of the interviews he recorded was with a matron of a small private residential home in Greater London, which Townsend suggested was by far the worst home he had visited, was clearly describing abuse, as defined in legislation today.

This suggests the abuse of older people has been going on for a long time. It is increasingly clear the abuse of older people exists, and as a society we cannot ignore it any longer.