10.

1177/0886109902239092
Affilia
Spring
CarrARTICLE
2003

Rethinking Empowerment
Theory Using a Feminist Lens:
The Importance of Process
E. Summerson Carr

This article highlights the importance of social, historical, and political context
when theorizing empowerment and maps empowerment as a cyclical, rather than
a linear, process. Synthesizing important perspectives in feminist thought and
empowerment theory, it proposes understandings of positionality, conscientization,
and social transformation that are meant to inform empowerment-oriented, feminist social work practice.
Keywords: empowerment theory; consciousness; consciousness-raising; identity; social transformation
Although scholars have debated the extent to which empowerment can be
considered a process or an outcome (e.g., Bernstein et al., 1994; Parsons,
1991; Rappaport, 1984), and some have declared that it is both (e.g., East,
2000; Staples, 1990), most theorists have described empowerment primarily
as a process (e.g., Gutierrez, 1995; Kaminski, Kaufman, Graubarth, &
Robins, 2000; Nelson, Lord, & Ochocka, 2001). Such descriptions commonly
imply that the personal transformation of the individual who is becoming
empowered is at the foundation of the process (Kieffer, 1984; Pandey, 1996;
Solomon, 1976; Zimmerman, 1995). For example, Simon (1990) proposed
that empowerment is a reflexive process that is initiated and sustained primarily by those who seek power, relegating others to secondary helping
roles. Similarly, Gutierrez (1994, 1995) suggested that fundamental change
in a persons consciousness is a necessary impetus for engaging in empowering social action. These thinkers have built on Freires (1970) foundational
claim that intensive reflection of oneself in relation to society, that is,
Authors Note: I thank the following people for their inspiration to pursue questions of
empowerment, in general, and their feedback on earlier versions of this article: Lorraine
Gutierrez, Edith Lewis, Beth Glover Reed, and Mieko Yoshihama.
AFFILIA, Vol. 18 No. 1, Spring 2003 8-20
DOI: 10.1177/0886109902239092/
2003 Sage Publications

Downloaded from aff.sagepub.com at VITERBO UNIV on February 6, 2015

Carr

conscientization, is a necessary precursor to engaging in social change. Therefore, many theorists of empowerment have focused on the stage of
conscientization during which individuals come to understand the political
dimensions of their personal problems and act accordingly. Therefore,
descriptions of the process of empowerment attend to the psychological, as
well as the sociopolitical, dimensions of change, attempting to track the
soon-to-be empowered individuals as they relate with their peers and their
environment.
Appropriate to this person-in-environment conceptual framework, theories from social work, psychology, and particularly developmental psychology have been used to describe the process of empowerment. A schemata of
personal development often underlies these theories. For example, Kieffer
(1984) used the life span analogy to describe the process of empowerment as
personal development from infancy to adulthood. Zimmerman (1995)
declared that empowerment is a developmental construct (see also
Bernstein et al., 1994) but described a much less linear process than Kieffer
proposed. And Kaminski et al. (2000) worked to confirm Kieffers developmental schema in their study of union activists. They defined empowerment as a developmental process that promotes an active approach to
problem solving, increased political understanding, and an increased ability to exercise control in the environment (p. 1359). They further suggested
that people move through stages of empowerment, developing skills,
understandings, and resources in a more-or-less linear and progressive way.
All these scholars have used developmental psychological theory to clarify
the process of empowerment, believing that such clarification will help
social workers and other practitioners develop an empowerment praxis that
facilitates and nurtures this important process.
Although developmental psychology can contribute to understandings
of empowerment, it is ill-equipped to explain the process of empowerment
as it relates to the dynamic interplay between conscientization and social
change. In this article, I draw on recent feminist thought on positionality,
interpretation, identity building, and mobilization for change to map the
process of empowerment. Specifically, I refer to Alcoffs (1994) theory of
identity as a political point of departure and de Lauretiss (1986) ideas on
positionality and identity to highlight the importance of social, historical,
and political context when theorizing empowerment. I suggest that these
feminist thinkers have elaborated on the more static approaches to consciousness of their predecessors in feminism (e.g., MacKinnon, 1989), as
well as the followers of Freire (1970). By relating recent feminist thought and
empowerment theory, I expand on the understanding of the empowerment
processan expansion that can ultimately inform empowerment-oriented,
feminist social work practice.
This article is organized into four sections. In the first section, I address
the current debate among theorists of empowerment as to whether empowerment should be considered a process or an outcome. In the second section,

Downloaded from aff.sagepub.com at VITERBO UNIV on February 6, 2015

10

Affilia Spring 2003

concluding that empowerment is inherently a process, I briefly review the

work of theorists who proposed developmental stages of empowerment
and pointed to the pitfalls of a strictly developmental approach. The
third section constitutes the crux of my argument, integrating the useful elements of developmental approaches to empowerment with the aforementioned work of feminist scholars. In this section, I present a map of the
empowerment process and define its constituent elements. Finally, in the
fourth section I briefly present the practice implications of this model for
empowerment-oriented, feminist social workers.

EMPOWERMENT: A PROCESS OR AN OUTCOME?

There has been a virtual chorus of discontent regarding the haziness with
which empowerment has been defined in the literature. One of these definitional points of contention is whether to conceptualize empowerment as a
process or an outcome (Bernstein et al., 1994). Rappaport (1984) implied that
empowerment is a process and an outcome:
The content of the [empowerment] process is of infinite variety and as the process plays itself out among different people and settings the end products will
be variable and even inconsistent with one another. The inconsistency is in the
end rather than the process; yet the form of the process will also vary. (p. 3)

Similarly, Zimmerman (1995) presented a seemingly tautological

description of the empowerment process as how people, organizations,
and communities become empowered and empowerment outcomes as
the consequences of those processes (p. 583). However, Zimmermans
argument is more helpful when he described empowerment as a series of
experiences in which individuals learn to see a closer correspondence
between their goals and a sense of how to achieve them, gain greater access
to and control over resources and where people, organizations, and communities gain mastery over their lives (p. 583). Zimmerman (1995) also raised
an interesting methodological consideration, suggesting that because
empowerment is a process, researchers should consider it a continuous
variable that defies ready scientific measurement (see also Bernstein et al.,
1994). Staples (1990) agreed that because empowerment is inherently
processual, it cannot be adequately assessed at any particular point in time.
Clearly, process-oriented definitions have emerged as the more salient
and revealing approach to understanding empowerment. For example,
Gutierrez (1990, 1994, 1995) proposed a definition of empowerment that
clearly categorizes empowerment as a process. Hoping to influence the
development of practice protocols that help guide people through the
empowerment process, she noted that empowerment is a process of
increasing personal, interpersonal, or political power so that individuals,

Downloaded from aff.sagepub.com at VITERBO UNIV on February 6, 2015

Carr

11

families, or communities can take action to improve their circumstances

(1990, p. 149). In her work on welfare rights organizing, East (2000) also
clearly categorized empowerment as a process, and Kieffer (1984) stated
that empowerment is not a commodity to be acquired, but a transforming
process constructed through action (p. 27). Staples (1990) further proposed
that although the process of empowerment can result in the attainment of
particular personal, social, and political goals, empowerment is inherently a
dynamic, dialectal, and ongoing process. He explained that just as there is
no final synthesis, there is no final state of empowerment. Rather the
empowerment process strengthens the ongoing capacity for successful
action under changing circumstances (pp. 31-32).

THE STAGES OF EMPOWERMENT

Conceptualizing empowerment as a process, many theorists have sought to

explicate the concept further by identifying the stages or subprocesses of
empowerment. For example, Gutierrez (1994) described the change process
of empowerment as consisting of at least four subprocesses: increasing selfefficacy, developing a critical consciousness, developing skills of reflection
and action, and becoming involved with similar others. Later, Gutierrez and
Lewis (1999) proposed three stages of empowerment: consciousness, confidence, and connection. Similarly, Rees (1998) delineated the process of
empowerment, suggesting that empowerment goes through different
stages, from the experience of dialogue and solidarity to action and a consequent changed sense of selftoward acquiring a political identity (p. 137).
The presentation of such stages often implies a developmental understanding of empowerment as a kind of linear progression. Although
Gutierrez (1990) warned that the subprocesses of the empowerment process should not be considered stages because they do not necessarily
unfold in a sequential fashion, she seemed to conceive of empowerment as
the progressive development of a state of mind and a state of society (see
also GlenMaye, 1998). Likewise, Zimmerman (1995) stated that the process
of empowerment is developmental, not linear. Finally, Kaminski et al.s
(2000) application of Kieffers (1981, 1984) developmental model affirmed
that stages of empowerment do not unfold in a tidy, linear fashion, because
the unionists they studied followed different trajectories in their common
quest for empowerment.
Although many theorists of empowerment have implicitly drawn on
developmental psychology, Kieffers (1981, 1984) work is unique in its
explicit delineation of developmental, linear stages. Kieffer (1984) described
empowerment as a long term process of adult learning and development,
in which individual participants mature from socio-political infancy to
sociopolitical adulthood (p. 9). Using the life span analogy to describe
four year-long stages of the empowerment process, Kieffer (1984) suggested

Downloaded from aff.sagepub.com at VITERBO UNIV on February 6, 2015

12

Affilia Spring 2003

that the process of empowerment is sparked by a mobilizing episode that is

like a birth. He referred to this initial stage as the era of entry. The next
stage in Kieffers schema is the era of advancement, which parallels later
childhood. During this critical stage, individuals engage in one year of
intensive reflection, bolstered by the support of key mentoring and peer
relationships. The third stage is the era of incorporation, in which individuals self-concept, strategic ability, and critical consciousness mature.
This year-long stage is sometimes characterized by the identity crises typical of late adolescence (Kieffer, 1984, p. 24). Kieffers final state is the era of
commitment, in which individuals construct a sense of mastery and awareness of self in relation to society, presumably signaling the mature development of the empowered individual. Kieffer also warned that the truncation of
these year-long stages will lead to less maturely empowered individuals.
Although Kieffer (1984) referred to the notion of praxis and presumably
recognized the cyclical nature of action and reflection that characterizes the
empowerment process, his description of the process is indicative of some of
the shortcomings that a purely developmental approach entails. First,
Kieffers paradigm decontextualizes the empowerment process by presenting it in terms of individual, intrapsychic development. Kieffer suggested
that the empowerment process takes four years, with each stage lasting
approximately one year, a claim that obscures the intermittent sociopolitical
factors that can hinder, facilitate, or direct the process. Second, by assuming
that empowerment is an intrapsychic phenomenon, Kieffer relied on
essentialized notions of consciousness, identity, and agency that are independent of historical and cultural contingencies. That is, for Kieffer, empowerment seems to exist in a vacuum in that contextual and structural factors
are noted but not integrated into his developmental paradigm. Third,
despite Kieffers recognition of praxis, his model fails to capture the cyclical
nature of the empowerment process and sketches a linear process from metaphorical infancy to adulthood. Finally, Kieffer s association of
sociopolitical disenfranchisement with developmental infancy is unwittingly paternalistic and has dangerous implications as a social work practice
prescriptive. This paternalism is evidenced by Kieffers analogy of the practitioner to a benevolent parent, who helps evoke latent strengths, nurtures independent action, and supports autonomous experimentation in
unpracticed political skills (p. 20). This description seems to counter the
collegial approach to practice long promoted by theorists of empowerment
(Breton, 1989, 1994; Freire, 1970, 1973; Mullender & Ward, 1991; OBrien,
2001), as well as by feminist practitioners.

MAPPING THE EMPOWERMENT PROCESS

By integrating recent feminist conceptualizations of consciousness, identity,

and agency, one can envision a more nuanced model of empowerment

Downloaded from aff.sagepub.com at VITERBO UNIV on February 6, 2015

Carr

13

practice that avoids the aforementioned pitfalls of a strictly developmental

approach. This model incorporates a developmental and process-oriented
perspective but retains the foundational concept of praxis. Thus, stages of
empowerment are seen not as linear but as mutually reinforcing and interconnecting subprocesses. Highlighting the idea of praxis allows one to identify the cycle of identifying problems, deconstructing problems, social
action, and further reflection that lies at the heart of the empowerment process. In his writings, Freire (1970, 1973) drew from his knowledge of
Hegelian and Marxist dialectics to propose that praxis is essential to the process of empowerment because empowering action is bolstered by critical
reflection and reflection necessarily leads to action. Proclaiming that the
personal is political, second-wave feminists have also built on the notion
of praxis to devise empowering methodological approaches that combine
action and reflection (GlenMaye, 1998; MacKinnon, 1989; Maguire, 1987;
Mies, 1983). Freires and feminists ideas on praxis have clearly influenced
some contemporary theorists of empowerment, who have relied on the
notion of praxis to describe how stages of empowerment are circular and
mutually reinforcing (see, e.g., Rees, 1998). Drawing on this work, I next
map the cyclical nature of the empowerment process (see Figure 1) and
describe its various constituent elements.
Position

Although cyclical, for analytical purposes, the process of empowerment can

be thought to have an origin: a position (see a in Figure 1). It is widely
assumed that the point of departure in the empowerment process is a position of human misery, whether it is termed powerlessness, oppression, or deprivation. Both theorists of empowerment and feminists have sought to explicate this starting position by considering socioeconomic factors, on one
hand, and psychological factors, on the other hand. However, although they
have both emphasized the importance of understanding the material reality
of oppression, most of them have insisted that problems of disenfranchisement and barriers to empowerment are primarily political, not psychological (see, e.g., Breton, 1989). As Solomon (1976) eloquently argued, powerlessness is conceived of as being more complicated than lacking realworld power. Rather, it is the inability to manage emotions, skills,
knowledge, and/or material resources in a way that effective performance
of valued social roles will lead to personal gratification (p. 16). Solomon
explained that although powerlessness is closely related to the lack of selfesteem, it is derived from the absence of external supports and the existence
of ontological power blocks that become incorporated into a persons
development.
Thus, according to many theorists of empowerment, powerlessness is
also an attitude that results from the incorporation of past experiences,
ongoing behavior, and continued patterns of thinking (Rappaport, 1984)

Downloaded from aff.sagepub.com at VITERBO UNIV on February 6, 2015

14

Affilia Spring 2003

conscientization
bx

ax

interpretation

b1

b2

cy

position

dx

political action

cx

change

FIGURE 1: The Process of Empowerment

that are embedded and reproduced by inequitable power relations. This

dialectical and mutually reinforcing relationship between socioeconomic
and psychological power has been described in the literature as learned
helplessness since Freire (1970) argued this position. Contemporary feminist thought has also explicated the nature of powerlessness as a manifestation of institutional and structural sexism and the resulting alienation from
oneself (e.g., GlenMaye, 1998; MacKinnon, 1989).
Despite the insidious nature of powerlessness, theorists of empowerment
and feminists agree that it is a position that can be overcome. In terming
powerlessness a position, I evoke the idea of multiple possible locations that
correspond with the diversity of different peoples lived realities and suggest the inherently changeable nature of positionality. As is indicated in Figure 1, the cyclical nature of empowerment ensures that this position shifts as
people move through the empowerment process, gaining psychological
power through conscientization and political power through engagement
in social action and the resulting change. However, considering the dual
nature of the position of powerlessness, it is imperative that individuals
free themselves of the inner and outer hindrances. Thus, potential psychological, as well as political, catalysts for movement are of interest to
empowerment-oriented practitioners (Evans, 1992). In attempting to understand this initial movement from the position of powerlessness (see Figure
1, ax), Gutierrez (1994) proposed that stressful life events can catalyze the
empowerment process, sparking an identification with others, a perception
of the social components of individuals problems, the development of
political skills, and engagement in collective change. In considering catalysts of mobilization in her study of womens involvement in the Greek
resistance movement, Hart (1996) added that new experiences or special
challenges often serve to spark the empowerment process. This attention to
the possibilities for womens agency, despite the structural and

Downloaded from aff.sagepub.com at VITERBO UNIV on February 6, 2015

Carr

15

psychological constraints imposed by racism, classism, sexism, and other

forms of oppression, is a hallmark of contemporary feminists thought
(Alcoff, 1994).
Conscientization

Freire (1970) suggested that critical consciousness is the key ingredient in

realizing empowerment. According to Freire and his modern-day,
empowerment-oriented adherents in the field of social work, critical consciousness is nurtured through a group-dialogue process known as
conscientization that is aimed at uncovering the political roots of peoples
individual experiences of powerlessness and oppression (Gutierrez &
Lewis, 1999). Feminists have long shared this focus on critical consciousness. They have suggested that through consciousness-raising (CR), women
can connect their experiences of oppression with those of other women and
thereby see the political dimensions of their personal problems. Thus, for
feminists, CR is a process of discovery in which one begins to see ones position and move toward other possible positions. In this sense, consciousness
is not just a process of discovering the hidden but is instead an active strategy (Alcoff, 1994).
As such, conscientization can be said to involve several subprocesses:
interpreting ones positions and relationships in society, creating and/or
recreating an identity in relation to ones environment, and effecting social
change. For example, Gutierrez (1995) described conscientization as involving three processes: (a) group identification, in which individuals select a
group with shared culture and norms and their membership in this group
becomes part of their self-concept; (b) the development of group consciousness, in which individuals begin to understand the political dimensions of
their problems and blame the system, rather than the group, for their relative deprivation; and (c) the development of individual and collective efficacy and a resultant mobilization toward social action. The third process
involves perceiving oneself as a subject (rather than an object) of social processes and as capable of working to change the social order (Gutierrez,
1995, p. 230).
Influenced by Gutierrezs argument and incorporating the work of feminist theorists Alcoff (1994), MacKinnon (1989), and de Lauretis (1984), I
argue that conscientization is simultaneously an analytical, constructive,
and mobilizing process that is crucial to the realization of empowerment
(see Figure 1, b). Conscientization is inherently analytical in that it works to
interpret the structures and discourses that frame peoples experiences (see
Figure 1, b1). It is also constructive or creative, for as people begin to understand such power-laden structures and discourses, they can begin to seek
alternative terrain, conceiving of other possible subject positions. This is the
process of identity building (see Figure 1, b2). Thus, by opening up a range
of possibilities about who one can be and how one can act, the process

Downloaded from aff.sagepub.com at VITERBO UNIV on February 6, 2015

16

Affilia Spring 2003

inspires mobilization for change. These elements of conscientization are

described in more detail in the next section.
Interpretation

Both theorists of empowerment and feminists emphasize the importance of

interpreting the world through the consciousness-raising process. Freires
(1970) famous statement, To exist, humanly, is to name the world, to change
it (p. 69) is elemental in the foundational idea that CR allows people to join
with others to identify common conditions and thereby become critically
aware of their relation to the environment (Parsons, 1991). Similarly, secondwave feminists suggested that women can identify and interpret the effect
of sexism in dialogue groups as they linked everyday personal experiences
to the political realities of patriarchy. These feminists implied that by differentiating themselves from their oppressors, they could begin to see possibilities for personal and societal transformation (MacKinnon, 1989). Until
women engage in the practice of CR, such interpretation is considered
impossible because women are forced to use the language of the oppressor (GlenMaye, 1998, p. 17), an idea that mirrors Freires propositions.
Feminist thinking has further elucidated the intricacies of interpretation.
The work of de Lauretis (1986) is particularly helpful in that it explains
exactly how interpretation is both directed by and able to break free from
patriarchal discourses. Specifically, de Lauretis noted that political interpretation is constituted within a given range of knowledge at a particular historical juncture. Thus, empowerment is premised not only on the individuals desire for and assessment of the possibility for change but on the
ontological possibilities for social transformation. As women join together
in the process of CR, the range of knowledge necessarily expands as they
share their experiences, feelings, and ways of naming. For example, Alcoff
and Gray (1993) suggested that interaction among survivors of sexual abuse
is often constrained by confessional discourses that cast their experiences in
highly personal terms. However, they also showed how the same women, in
interaction, coin terms such as husband-rapist to interpret, share, and politicize their experiences. As de Lauretis explained, interpretation reveals the
possibilities for action and spurs personal transformations. Alcoff (1994)
agreed that the construction of identity and the possibilities for agency are
made possible through political interpretation.
Identity

MacKinnon (1989) proposed that members of oppressed groups are invisible to themselves and must discover their identity. This proposition mirrors Freires (1970) idea that the oppressed are alienated and therefore are
lacking self-knowledge, an idea which is reflected in Kieffers (1981, 1984)

Downloaded from aff.sagepub.com at VITERBO UNIV on February 6, 2015

Carr

17

developmental model of the empowerment process. De Lauretis (1986) and

Alcoff (1994) presented a new way to think about identity, claiming that
through the interpretative process inherent to CR, provisional identities are
created and recreated. Thus, to de Lauretis (1986), an identity is a process
rather than a product of interpretation and reconstruction of ones history:
Individual identity is constituted within a historical process of consciousness,
a process in which ones history is interpreted or reconstructed by each of us
within theorization horizon of meanings and knowledges available at a given
historical moment, a horizon that also includes modes of political commitment and struggle. . . . Consciousness therefore is never fixed, never attained
once and for all, because discursive boundaries change with historical conditions. (p. 116)

Such a description of identity is helpful to the extent that it avoids

essentialized and static notions of the self as something to be discovered.
Instead, feminist scholars have proposed an identity that is radically contingent on historical circumstances but driven by the agency of individuals
who struggle to create themselves (Alcoff, 1994). Such a notion jibes with
Gutierrezs (1990) description of the formation of group identities in which
individuals select alignments and communities, presumably within a given
range of possibilities. Empowerment theorist Staples (1990) also recognized
the importance of identity construction, stating that self-definition is the
foundation, as well as the heart and soul, of any conceptualization of
empowerment (p. 38). Gutierrez and Lewis (1999) noted the benefits of an
approach to empowerment practice that recognizes that people strategically
select, rather than always adhere to, identities.
Mobilization

As I suggested earlier, the process of conscientization involves not only

interpretive and identity-building components but a mobilization component as well. There is much agreement among theorists of empowerment
and feminists regarding this catalytic quality of conscientization (see Figure 1,
bx), but there has been some debate about exactly how mobilization is
derived. For Alcoff (1994), ones chosen identity is a political point of
departure (p. 115) at a particular historical juncture, a delineation of ones
politics, and an impetus for action. Similarly, for Breton (1994), The
consciousness-raising process [is] not only a personal process of cognitive
restructuring, but a . . . politicization process and a liberation process which
create a demand for socio-political restructuring (p. 31). However, in her
study of Latino students, Gutierrez (1995) suggested that it is not identity
but interpretation that serves as the catalyst for action. Cox (1991) concurred
that through the process of critical interpretation, new understandings arise
that provide the basis for personal and social transformation.

Downloaded from aff.sagepub.com at VITERBO UNIV on February 6, 2015

18

Affilia Spring 2003

With these convincing positions in mind, I argue that mobilization

emerges through the very dialectic of interpretation and identity building
that constitute conscientization. Hart (1996) took this position in her proposition of mobilizational narratives: What stands between activism and
passivity . . . is a plausible story about why people should act boldly transmitted in a compelling way (p. 20). The narratives that arise in the course of
CR, then, reflect a new range of options for identification and action, as well
as a new investment in collaborative action, and therefore fuel the process of
empowerment toward social change.
Political Action and Change

The process of conscientization mobilizes people for action. De Lauretis

(1986) noted that this action can be socially organized in group action or
lived subjectively as personal commitment (p. 3). Political action, however,
continues the cycle of the empowerment process (see Figure 1, c) as the realworld action is manifested in two trajectories. In the case of failed action,
such as an unsuccessful attempt by a group of low-income women to lobby
for rent control, agents return to conscientization, interpreting and analyzing why their attempts failed (see Figure 1, cy). What is important is that
engagement in even failed attempts at political change are successful in
that they reveal information about the structures and systems that are being
targeted. As people collectively reflect on these newly generated understandings of themselves and their circumstances, new strategies are formulated and action is again propelled. The second trajectory results in societal
and personal change that affects the position of the agents in terms of their
ontological positions and self-conceptions (see Figure 1, cx). Both trajectories, cycling as they do, are inherent in the process of empowerment.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Identifying and understanding how the empowerment process unfolds is

critical in the attempt to operationalize an empowerment-oriented practice.
This article suggested that empowerment is an inherently interpersonal
process in which individuals collectively define and activate strategies to
gain access to knowledge and power. As such, empowerment is praxis, a
cyclical process of collective dialogue and social action that is meant to effect
positive change. Therefore, empowering practice necessitates a modality
that can successfully accommodate this dynamic, cyclical process.
CR, mobilization, and political action are fundamentally collective in
nature. I have also argued here that identity and interpretation, often considered to be affairs of the individual, are inherently interactional. With this
point in mind, I suggest that long-term, intensive, small-group work is a
highly efficacious means of empowerment practice. Such groups would

Downloaded from aff.sagepub.com at VITERBO UNIV on February 6, 2015

Carr

19

allow people who occupy relatively powerless positions to reflect on and

interpret the social dimensions of their personal problems. And just as the
empowerment-oriented group can accommodate this process of collective
interpretation, group members can work to choose new, strategic identities
as they plan for social change. Finally, the group offers the opportunity to
find power in unison that is more effective than most solo performances and
thereby acts as a forceful vehicle in relations with larger systems and communities. It is no wonder, then, that theorists of empowerment and feminists have lauded the group as an ideal venue to host empowerment praxis
(Carr, in press).
Furthermore, with the interactional, collective nature of the empowerment process in mind, feminist social workers should consider how our
own positions, interpretations, and identities inflect the empowerment process. Because we are often in positions of power in relation to those with
whom we work, it is especially important to be reflexive throughout the process, finding creative ways to share and cede power toward the common
goal of political change.

REFERENCES
Alcoff, L. (1994). Cultural feminism versus post-structuralism: The identity crisis in feminist
theory. In N. Dirks, G. Eley, & S. Ortner (Eds.), Culture/power/history: A reader in contemporary social theory (pp. 96-122). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Alcoff, L., & Gray, L. (1993). Survivor discourse: Transgression or recuperation. Signs, 18, 260290.
Bernstein, E., Wallerstein, N., Braithwaite, R., Gutierrez, L., Labante, R., & Zimmerman, M.
(1994). Empowerment forum: A dialogue between guest editorial board members. Health
Education Quarterly, 21, 281-294.
Breton, M. (1989). Liberation theology, group work, and the right of the poor and oppressed
to participate in the life of the community. Social Work With Groups, 12, 5-18.
Breton, M. (1994). On the meaning of empowerment and empowerment-oriented social work
practice. Social Work With Groups, 17, 23-37.
Carr, E. S. (in press). Battling poverty through empowerment-oriented group praxis. In
C. Garvin, M. Galinsky, & L. Gutierrez (Eds.), Group work handbook. New York: Guilford
Press.
Cox, E. O. (1991). The critical role of social action in empowerment oriented groups. Social
Work With Groups, 14, 77-90.
de Lauretis, T. (1984). Alice doesnt. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
de Lauretis, T. (1986). Introduction. In T. de Lauretis (Ed.), Feminist studies/critical studies
(pp. 1-19). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
East, J. (2000). Empowerment through welfare-rights organizing: A feminist perspective.
Affilia, 15, 311-328.
Evans, E. N. (1992). Liberation theology, empowerment theory, and social work practice with
the oppressed. International Social Work, 35, 135-147.
Freire, P. (1970). The pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Pantheon.
Freire, P. (1973). Education for a critical consciousness. New York: Seabury Press.
GlenMaye, L. (1998). Empowerment of women. In L. Gutierrez, R. Parsons, & E. O. Cox
(Eds.), Empowerment in social work practice: A sourcebook (pp. 29-47). Pacific Grove, CA:
Brooks/Cole.
Gutierrez, L. (1990). Working with women of color: An empowerment perspective. Social
Work, 35, 149-153.

Downloaded from aff.sagepub.com at VITERBO UNIV on February 6, 2015

20

Affilia Spring 2003

Gutierrez, L. (1994). Beyond coping: An empowerment perspective on stressful life events.

Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 21, 201-219.
Gutierrez, L. (1995). Understanding the empowerment process: Does consciousness make a
difference? Social Work Research, 19, 229-237.
Gutierrez, E., & Lewis, E. (1999). Empowering women of color. New York: Columbia University
Press.
Hart, J. (1996). New voices in the nation. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Kaminski, M., Kaufman, J., Graubarth, R., & Robins, T. (2000). How do people become
empowered? A case study of union activists. Human Relations, 53, 1357-1383.
Kieffer, C. (1981). The emergence of empowerment: The development of participatory competence
among individuals in citizen organizations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Kieffer, C. (1984). Citizen empowerment: A developmental perspective. In J. Rappaport,
C. Swift, & R. Hess (Eds.), Studies in empowerment: Steps toward understanding and action
(pp. 9-36). New York: Hayworth Press.
MacKinnon, C. (1989). Toward a feminist theory of the state. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Maguire, P. (1987). Doing participatory research: A feminist approach. Amherst, MA: Center for
International Education.
Mies, M. (1983). Towards a methodology for feminist research. In G. Bowles & R. D. Klein
(Eds.), Theories of womens studies (pp. 117-139). London: Routledge.
Mullender, A., & Ward, D. (1991). Empowerment through social action group work: The selfdirected approach. Social Work With Groups, 16, 57-79.
Nelson, G., Lord, J., & Ochocka, J. (2001). Empowerment and mental health in community:
Narratives of psychiatric consumer/survivors. Journal of Community and Applied Social
Psychology, 11, 125-142.
OBrien, P. (2001). Claiming our soul: An empowerment group for African-American women
in prison. Journal of Progressive Human Services, 12, 35-51.
Pandey, R. S. (1996). Gandhian perspectives on personal empowerment and social development. Social Development Issues, 18, 66-83.
Parsons, R. J. (1991). Empowerment: purpose and practice in social work. Social Work With
Groups, 12, 7-21.
Rappaport, J. (1984). Studies in empowerment: Introduction to the issue. In J. Rappaport,
C. Swift, & R. Hess (Eds.), Studies in empowerment: Steps toward understanding and action
(pp. 1-8). New York: Hayworth Press.
Rees, S. (1998). Empowerment of youth. In L. Gutierrez, R. Parsons, & E. O. Cox (Eds.),
Empowerment in social work practice: A sourcebook (pp. 130-144). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/
Cole.
Simon, B. (1990). Rethinking empowerment. Journal of Progressive Human Services, 1, 27-39.
Solomon, B. (1976). Black empowerment. New York: Columbia University Press.
Staples, L. H. (1990). Powerful ideas about empowerment. Administration in Social Work, 14,
29-42.
Zimmerman, M. (1995). Psychological empowerment: Issues and illustrations. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 23, 581-598.

E. Summerson Carr, MSW, MA (anthropology), is a doctoral candidate in the Joint Program

in Anthropology and Social Work, School of Social Work, University of Michigan, 1696
School of Social Work Building, 1080 South University, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1106;
e-mail: summer@umich.edu.

Downloaded from aff.sagepub.com at VITERBO UNIV on February 6, 2015