Spiritual_Wellness_Holistic_Health_and_the_Practic

Health Promotion and Empowerment 181
relations. But vehicles must exist or be created through which this new social movement
knowledge can be translated into broader social sectors, such as government
institutions, if the knowledge is to influence how political and economic decisions are
made.
The Ottawa Charter ’ s concept of health promotion and community psychology ’s
use of empowerment as an “ exemplar of practice ” (Rappaport, 1987) are such vehicles.
Both terms in their elaborated definitions incorporate some of the critiques and
new knowledge claims of the women ’ s, environmental, gay/lesbian rights, and other
social movements (Minkler, 1989). Both terms represent challenges to the narrowness
and rigidity of the biomedical paradigm, the disempowering tendencies of professionals
and the disabling qualities of bureaucracies and institutions. Health promotion is
less a social movement in itself than a response to the new knowledge claims of social
movement groups (1). Health promotion and empowerment exist as conceptual lenses
through which professional (bureaucratic, within - the - state) practices can be revalued.
The goal of this revaluing is a more empowering relationship between professionals
and clients, between institutions and community groups. Although not sufficient in
itself, such a relationship is a necessary strategy for healthy social change.
Health promotion and empowerment nonetheless exist between two perils: That
of co - opting or neutralizing social struggle and conflict within the conservative ethos
of institutions, and that of naively proclaiming the community as the solution to all
sociopolitical and economic health problems. This tension, which arguably underpins
all relations between government institutions and community groups, is embedded
even within the concept of “ empower ” itself.
KEY ELEMENTS OF THE EMPOWERING RELATIONSHIP
Empower , the central act in the new health promotion, is both a transitive verb, in
which the subject acts upon an object, and an intransitive verb, in which the subject
acts only upon itself. Used transitively, empower means bestowing power on others, an
enabling act, sharing some of the power professionals might hold over others. But
there is a danger in empower ’ s transitive meaning. Professionals, as the empowering
agent, the subject of the relationship, remain the controlling actor, defining the terms
of the interaction. Relatively disempowered individuals or groups remain the objects,
the recipients of professional actions. Our language exerts considerable force in our
world constructions (Seidman & Wagner, 1992). Continually stating “ we need to
empower this or that group ” creates and reinforces a world of professional practice in
which nonprofessional groups are incapable of their own powerful actions. This danger
is illuminated by the intransitive meaning of empower : the act of gaining or assuming
power ( Compact Edition of the OED , 1971, p. 855). Empower used in this sense is
reflexive; it takes no object. To some, this meaning of empowerment should stand as
its litmus test. The only empowerment of any importance is the power seized by individuals
or groups.