Partnership is to do with equality, in theory – public sector partnerships have proliferated in the late 1990s and early 2000s with mandates to try and tackle ‘inequality’ (close the gap – as it is commonly described). They also confront those that are involved in them with the paradoxes of working with those who are not one’s equals, and with whom the sense of superiority or inferiority can move around. My inferior in this context, may be my superior in another; and vice versa. In his book of essays, ‘Equals’, Adam Philips discusses ‘Superiorities’. He writes:
‘In Bion’s work, Lacan writes, the analyst, as group leader, “will undertake to organise the situation so as to force the group to become aware of the difficulties of its existence as a group, and then render it more and more transparent to itself to the point where each of its members may be able to judge adequately the progress of the whole.” As Lacan puts it, this is a version, to use his word, of forcing people to become equals. Clearly, the aim of arriving at a point “where each of (the group) members may be able to judge adequately the progress of the group,” is to arrive at the point at which the position of leader disappears.
Now this is such an interesting thing to say since whilst leadership is reified in partnerships – those which are successful are almost always said to be so, because of their leadership – the fact is the vast majority both seek to be led, but also seek to either distribute, or ‘share’ leadership. And sharing leadership shapes governance – and its associated rules and norms for ‘how we work together’.
But what is going on here – in this utopian, almost pastoral scene – where we want to be led by our equals? Adam Philips I think, helps us to see something significant. He mentions that Chantal Mouffe in the Democratic Paradox, defines “…antagonism as the struggle between enemies, and agonism as the struggle between adversaries“.
So, if we apply these suggestions to partnerships, we can see them as in part democratic mechanisms, designed as arenas for conflict. They are where the conflict in how to meet need, how to deliver public services, takes place. In loose psychoanalytic talk, they are a ‘container’, but of a special kind – because the conflict will only last, if in some respects, it is between equals. Mouffe proposes we call this “agonistic pluralism.”
When we are intimate relation to one another – as we, for example, innovate together – we are playing with our own ‘agonistic pluralism’: this is the ‘push back’ of intimate challenge. This train of thought reminds me of Mandalah’s conception of dialogues – ‘Dialogue and sensitivity, used lightly, subtly and compassionately, make a difference. They make the world more plural, and better’.
Slingshot