This frustration is often not individual but structural. It stems from the mismatch of certain consistent expectations of the beneficiaries, such as empathy, responsiveness, emotional support and practical help. The qualities essential for building trust and effective relationships, and the
lack of certain resources that an Agent of Change (AOC) expects from the space.
The responsibility of an AOC, then, becomes to navigate through the mismatch of these persistent structural constraints, which causes a hindrance in imparting their skills in an impactful manner and being fully aware of all the consequences of the intervention cautiously. More often than not, the AOC enters the space towards change with the idea of their own understanding. The initial fixation of creating a lasting impact, intertwined with the unexpected contradictions they face in the system, eventually leads to AOC(s) adapting themselves to the system rather than questioning it. Speaking from first-hand experience in Field work settings, When the AOC is sent along with the beneficiary for health-checkups or enrolment in schemes multiple times, instead of expidition in processes and questioning the system that delays the process and understanding the rationality behind it, the AOC succumbs to the rigidity of the system and accepts the situation in order to maintain cordial relations with the stakeholders so that their project can run without any confrontations.
Recent academic literature on how structural social work pans out in the indian context emphasises that despite decades of active practice and education, social work is still not accepted as a (licensed) profession in India and is not regulated by any central agencies or governing bodies.
Below is an excerpt from an experience of a social worker shared with the researchers on the same paper:
“The social work job profile is often not clearly specified, and the social worker may be expected to perform other tasks that are not strictly within their professional repertoire. Social workers’ pay scales are low, and one’s employment tenure often depends on the whims of the employer. The lack of resources often limits the work and the social worker’s autonomy in decision-making: the management of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) tends to make most of the decisions concerning policies and programmes, as well as the administration of agencies. It must be emphasised that while this is not the situation in all agencies, this tends to be the predominant scenario in practice.”
It is in this context, to navigate through situations which are unexpected and surprising, that the idea of radicalisation, circling back to the title, becomes relevant, not in the sense of extremism, but as conscious self-reflection. To radicalise oneself as a social worker is to critically examine one’s own position: the assumptions one carries, the limits of one’s intervention, and the frustration one experiences within the system.
Once the AOC starts consciously reflecting upon their actions or inactions and has addressed their own limitations and feelings of being under control by the system, that is when they become aware.
The absence of this consciousness risks practice slipping into what Paulo Freire described as “false generosity.” Interventions framed as a mere rescue may act as a temporary band-aid to alleviate distress, but they often reinforce dependency and leave the perpetuating structures within the system untouched. The AOC, because of not meeting their own frustration and needs, continues within the system, may unknowingly reproduce the very systems of control they initially sought to challenge.
Consistent, ethical and sustained social work practice, therefore, requires more than good intent. It requires AOC(s) to acknowledge their own humanity, including frustration and limitation. It requires entering communities not as rescuers, but as learners. And it requires the courage to radicalise (consciously reflect) oneself with the same seriousness with which one hopes to transform oppressive systems.
Gayathri Venkatesh
