Aworker may accompany the family in a context of authority. To begin with, there are three types of authority context.
Social Authority
Thefirst is social authority, where the worker tries to persuade the family to change a behavior, belief, or situation. This form of power varies from person to person. Specific characteristics such as age, social status, religion, etc will be considered. For example, the intervention must be done with discernment regarding an immigrant family who does not know the subject of mental health. The worker presents the resources available to support loved ones and those affected. On the contrary, the intervention can be carried out more quickly with people who have experience as special educators or in another social field. Although authority is exercised by taking into account the particularities of each person,
Authority Under Mandate
Thesecond type of authority is that which is exercised under the mandate. The worker then has decision-making power according to the appointment of his affiliated organization. He assesses the affected person and his environment. For example, the CS social workers who offer home follow-ups are mandated workers. They have a particular mandate to accomplish: to see to the smooth running of the family’s steps with the person affected.
Authority Under Mandate And Power Of Constraint
The third and last type of authority is exercised under mandate with the power of constraint. In addition to the two previous types of charge, these people act within the framework of law. For example, suppose you have to resort to intervening parties under the cover of the law to protect persons in danger to themselves or others (P-38). In that case, the police officer who intervenes is mandated and has the power to compel no one to follow him to the hospital.
This authority is not exercised to harm the family but rather to obtain collaboration between the worker, the family, and the person affected.
Authorityis exercised through four methods: persuasion, confrontation, the obedience-oriented method, and coercion. There are many ways to persuade a person, but what matters is not giving the person a choice between action and inaction to prevent them from retracting. To persuade the person, it may be beneficial to explain the problem to them and highlight the common goal of the family and the worker.
InAdditionally, the practitioner must adjust their expectations and aim for gradual change to be sustainable. Highlighting the successes of the family helps maintain a satisfactory climate. Some people perceive confrontation as a lack of respect. However, there are several forms of confrontation, and this one can be beneficial and lead to a change in behavior or perception. Confrontation involves pointing out a contradiction between values, beliefs, desires, behaviors, etc. It is essential for the worker to clearly explain his observation using examples so that the person does not perceive this confrontation as a judgment.
Thefamily may find it difficult to accept the speaker’s words, but this may fuel the family’s motivation. Then, the obedience-oriented method precedes coercion. The worker is more authoritarian and tries to direct the family towards a precise framework. Oppression is synonymous with pressure; at this point, the worker is no more than an authority figure.
Therefore, the person concerned in the intervention will have fewer possibilities of action, and he will be imposed on a way of acting. It is, however, preferable to communicate with the family and the person affected before coming to the constraint to preserve as much as possible a bond of trust.
Inaddition to wanting to maintain harmony between the affected person and those around him, the worker also tries to raise community awareness of this problem.
He attaches great importance to the therapeutic alliance; that is to say, he tries to reactivate the links between the person affected, his family, and himself. Indeed, the intervention considers the affected person’s and his family’s needs.
…