Empowerment: Transforming Power and Powerlessness
The precise definition of transformational politics is a never ending issue in the governmental realm. Consequently, Edward W. Schwerin stresses the idea in a connotation with deliberative state that such is a social and scholarly movement wherein such adherents are sharing an interest towards building a political community basically coherent to norms and other significant details in the concept of empowerment.
Conceivably, these factors that build up the connotation are also based on standards such as cooperation, grassroots democracy, equality, environmental awareness and other demonstrative dynamics which possess the ability to the implications and the answers to how these dynamics are able to gain what tends to be the root on how “politics” and the people shall actually change or live with political decisions.
Obviously, Shwerin’s definition and characterization of empowerment is derived from the philosophical works of Plato as well as with the idea that empowerment is in point of fact dependent on how the individual believes how one can be empowered or be disempowered for that instance.
To quote his line with regard to the definition of “empowerment”—the process of gaining mastery over one’s self and one’s environment in order to fulfill human needs (p.81)—perhaps his ideological definition may be correct in the factual basis, but if collaborated with the contemporary scenario, empowerment is not only conquered through an individual’s conception on such idea, but it must also be given by the environment upon which that person who wants to achieve such will be vested in the most holistic sense possible.
Further, it would also be taken to assumption that Schwerin’s basis for stressing his views on “empowerment” are too vague and broad that upon arguing on the aforementioned perspective as a composition of the following: “self-worth, self-effectiveness, piece of knowledge and of abilities, awareness on the political aspect, and participation on socially and politically inclined events—it may be taken to assumption that he is nevertheless referring on the ideological perspective alone on transformational politics and not barely lingering on the schemes of contemporary deliberation and analysis on empowerment.
However, his views on mediation experiences (p.93)—as empowering factors on individuals who participate on the ‘activities’—may be acceptable in further delight. Specifically, his prediction that mediation trainees shall have personal empowerment is a great ordeal on understanding empowerment and the objective of empowering those who are powerless, per se.
On the aspect of “grouping” and on the mediation strategy towards building a highly empowered group, his research has led him good value worth the critical analysis. As far as political threshold is concerned, it is indeed realistic to say that mediators possess the higher chance to achieve “empowerment” rather than those who do not get exposed on the organizational activity—those who are experienced shall have the highest empowerment scores—more experience, greater the chance. In the classroom basis, a “group of leaders” will have the highest score of getting “empowered” than only those who are considered as “group of mediators”—intensive training is effective at teaching recruits (Schwerin, 1995). Precisely true enough to prove his worth on his research.
Levels of personal empowerment may be brought upon by training and the acquisition of knowledge, so to speak. But the “real” empowerment comes from experience—dispute resolution, bringing up conflicts to a formal legal system—all these are piously given ample importance in trying to distinguish the definition of “empowerment.” Hence on personal opinion, empowerment may come from “own” beliefs but making other people believe that one is capable of such “high regard” is the best empowering method to be taken into account.
Reference
Schwerin, E. W. (1995). Mediation, Citizen Empowerment, and Transformational Politics. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger Publishers.
