Human and Machine: A Journey - Part 7

The Politics of Knowledge

Throughout our journey exploring welfare systems, we've examined how knowledge moves between contexts, how human judgment interacts with systematic approaches, and how ethical considerations shape practice. Now we turn to a crucial dimension that underlies all these aspects: the politics of knowledge in welfare services.

The Democratic Cycle: From Social Contract to Practice

The social contract we explored in Part 2 creates a fundamental cycle in democratic societies:

• Citizens voluntarily limit their freedom by submitting to society's laws

• They exercise democratic power through voting

• Elected officials create laws and policies

• Public institutions receive authority to implement these laws

• This creates legitimate power over citizens

• Citizens retain rights and obligations under law

• The cycle continues through democratic participation

This cycle depends crucially on trust.

At a recent conference¹ that deeply impacted my thinking, I heard Jan Eliasson, former UN Deputy Secretary-General, highlight a concerning trend: growing mistrust between not just nations but within societies themselves. He observed: The quality of our domestic society increasingly determines how we act as international actors. We're seeing 'us versus them' tendencies, hate and threats in social media... Trust and honesty have existed, perhaps still exist, but I feel they've diminished.

I managed to get a picture with Eliasson before going home:

Three key challenges Eliasson identified resonate deeply with our field.

1. The imperative to organize around problems rather than bureaucracy - focusing on real needs rather than administrative convenience.

2. The critical importance of fact-based knowledge in democracy, especially as misinformation threatens to undermine public discourse.

3. The fundamental value of collaboration - as he powerfully stated; Together is the world's most important word

Multiple Worlds in the Democratic System

This democratic cycle operates through distinct worlds within welfare organizations, each playing a specific role in translating political mandate into practice. Drawing from Science and Technology Studies research, we can identify:

• The Administrative World represents the formal structures through which democratic decisions are implemented. Here, control and accountability mechanisms ensure that public resources are used as intended, with standardized documentation and measurable outcomes providing transparency to the democratic process.

• The Professional World embodies how political mandates transform into practice through professional judgment and expertise. This world emphasizes relationship-based work and practical wisdom, operating through both formal structures and informal networks to deliver services that align with democratic values and legal requirements.

• The Client World reflects how citizens experience the democratic system's services and support. Here, lived experience meets formal structures, as people navigate systems while maintaining their rights and dignity within the social contract. Their participation and feedback form a crucial part of the democratic cycle.

• The Political World connects citizen needs with system responses through democratic processes. It emphasizes public accountability and measurable results while balancing competing demands and resources. This world must continually demonstrate its legitimacy through both effective service delivery and democratic participation.

Trust Relations and System Development

The relationships between these different realities fundamentally depend on trust. When trust erodes between political and professional spheres, we see increased detailed control and demands for formalization. As Theodore Porter analyzed², this drive toward mechanical objectivity often emerges when professional expertise faces external pressure and scrutiny. The system shifts toward standardization and measurement, seeking certainty through the “Machine” rather than trusting the Humans.

Similar dynamics emerge when public trust in politics or professionals diminishes. The response typically involves more formalization and increased demands for objective knowledge and evidence. While accountability matters, excessive formalization driven by mistrust can paradoxically undermine the very quality it aims to ensure.

This creates a complex balance between chaos and order. Maintaining order requires energy and structure - it doesn't emerge spontaneously. Yet excessive ordering through formalization can stifle the professional judgment and flexibility needed for effective practice. The key lies in finding appropriate levels of structure while preserving necessary professional autonomy.

Responsibility becomes crucial here - both professional responsibility to maintain trust through ethical practice and responsibility among politicians to support rather than constrain professional work. When trust exists, lighter control structures can effectively support practice. When trust erodes, the resulting bureaucratic responses often create new problems while trying to solve old ones.

The Democracy of Knowledge

Eliasson's insights about successful negotiation offer valuable guidance for democratizing knowledge in welfare services. His framework emphasizes four key elements:

1. language that opens doors to understanding,

2. timing that recognizes when change is possible,

3. cultural understanding that respects different perspectives, and

4. personal integrity that builds trust through honest engagement.

These principles guide the creation of inclusive knowledge systems that integrate multiple perspectives while supporting local adaptation and meaningful participation.

Digital Systems and Democratic Knowledge

The technology we use to manage welfare services isn't neutral - it actively shapes how knowledge flows through organizations. When we configure welfare systems, design documentation requirements, or implement decision support tools, we're making crucial choices about:

• What types of knowledge count as valid

• How different perspectives are weighted

• Where professional judgment fits

• How client voices are heard

These choices have implications for democratic participation and trust. Systems designed primarily for administrative efficiency may inadvertently suppress important forms of knowledge that resist standardization. Conversely, thoughtfully designed digital tools could potentially enhance democratic dialogue by creating new spaces for different voices to be heard.

Configuring Systems for Trust

Creating systems that support trust requires careful attention to human dignity, collaborative potential and balance between competing needs. Human dignity demands respect for professional judgment and client perspectives while supporting relationship building and meaningful dialogue. Collaboration thrives through spaces for dialogue, knowledge sharing, and joint problem-solving. Balance requires maintaining accountability while preserving flexibility, documenting learning without constraining practice and enabling efficiency without sacrificing quality.

Looking Forward

Eliasson's message carries both warning and hope for welfare services. While trust may be diminishing across society, he identifies crucial sources of hope: the power of knowledge and education, the importance of engaging youth, the fundamental value of collaboration, and the transformative potential of equality.

Yet this raises a fundamental question we must confront: When we say something works or represents good practice in welfare services, we must ask - good for whom? How do different stakeholders define success? Whose values shape our understanding of evidence and effectiveness?

These questions become increasingly crucial as welfare services navigate between human judgment and systematic approaches. Before we explore these value dimensions in our next episode, consider:

• How do power dynamics affect knowledge use in your practice?

• Where do you see opportunities for more democratic knowledge development?

• What helps you maintain trust amid system pressures?

• How can we better balance different forms of knowledge while serving public trust?

---

This is part 7 in our ongoing series exploring the intersection of human judgment and systematic knowledge in modern welfare systems. Join the conversation by sharing your thoughts and experiences in the comments below.

1. Eliasson, J. (2024, Oct 4). Det nya globala landskapet [The New Global Landscape]. Keynote speech presented at Socialchefsdagarna 2024, Stockholm, Sweden.

2. Porter, T. M. (1995). Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life, Princeton University Press.