Communicative Legitimacy Habermas

and Democratic Welfare Work Anita

Kihlström
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/communicative-legitimacy-habermas-and-democratic-
welfare-work-anita-kihlstrom/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Philosophical introductions five approaches to

communicative reason Habermas

https://textbookfull.com/product/philosophical-introductions-
five-approaches-to-communicative-reason-habermas/

Welfare, Work, And Poverty (International Policy

Exchange) Qin Gao

https://textbookfull.com/product/welfare-work-and-poverty-
international-policy-exchange-qin-gao/

Centripetal democracy : democratic legitimacy and

political identity in Belgium, Switzerland, and the
European Union First Edition Lacey

https://textbookfull.com/product/centripetal-democracy-
democratic-legitimacy-and-political-identity-in-belgium-
switzerland-and-the-european-union-first-edition-lacey/

Inequality and Organizational Practice Volume I Work

and Welfare Stefanos Nachmias

https://textbookfull.com/product/inequality-and-organizational-
practice-volume-i-work-and-welfare-stefanos-nachmias/
The Welfare State and the Democratic Citizen: How
Social Policies Shape Political Equality Jennifer Shore

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-welfare-state-and-the-
democratic-citizen-how-social-policies-shape-political-equality-
jennifer-shore/

The masses are the ruling classes policy romanticism

democratic populism and American social welfare 1st
Edition Epstein

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-masses-are-the-ruling-
classes-policy-romanticism-democratic-populism-and-american-
social-welfare-1st-edition-epstein/

Welfare Markets in Europe The Democratic Challenge of

European Integration 1st Edition Amandine Crespy
(Auth.)

https://textbookfull.com/product/welfare-markets-in-europe-the-
democratic-challenge-of-european-integration-1st-edition-
amandine-crespy-auth/

Educational Psychology Anita Woolfolk

https://textbookfull.com/product/educational-psychology-anita-
woolfolk/

Engineering Legitimacy Iva Petkova

https://textbookfull.com/product/engineering-legitimacy-iva-
petkova/
Communicative
Legitimacy
Habermas and
Democratic Welfare Work

Anita Kihlström
Communicative Legitimacy
 Anita Kihlström

Communicative
Legitimacy
Habermas and Democratic Welfare Work
Anita Kihlström
Gothenburg, Sweden

ISBN 978-3-030-54948-0 ISBN 978-3-030-54949-7 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-54949-7

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer
Nature Switzerland AG 2020
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights
of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on
microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and
retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc.
in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such
names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for
general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and informa-
tion in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither
the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with
respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been
made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps
and institutional affiliations.

Cover illustration: © Melisa Hasan

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature
Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
To Lukas, Maja and Olivia
 Acknowledgments

The potential of democratic welfare work can benefit the development

of its system as well as its ambition to respect individuals and human
rights. To support it, however, an overall perspective is needed, which
Habermas’s theories of communicative action, law and morality offer.
By focusing on the legitimacy of welfare, such a perspective can indicate
existing deficits and show how they can be corrected.
This book wants to give the reader a clear and factual description
of the structure of the perspective and its application in welfare prac-
tice. Writing it was a long and complicated process, but always stimu-
lating and interesting, not least because Habermas’s texts challenged the
experiences I had in practical social work while also providing a breath-
taking insight into the deepest issues in the social sciences. For processing
that, I especially want to thank Dr. Hans-Edvard Roos, Department
of Sociology, Lund University, Sweden. His excellent theoretical reflec-
tions, his knowledge of Habermas’s writings and his outstanding ability
for mutual communication and association made my work lively and
inspiring. Also thanks to Professor Carsten Otte, now retired from the
University of Applied Sciences, Mannheim, Germany. His kindness in
continually informing me of Habermas’s scientific work from a German
perspective developed my understanding of national and cultural differ-
ences. Many thanks also to colleagues at my Department of Social Work
in Gothenburg, especially to Assistant Professor Dr. Jörgen Lundälv and

vii
viii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

lecturer Per-Olof Larsson, which reflected on my draft. I am also fortu-

nate to have a wise old colleague, Dr. Gunborg Blomdal Frei, who made
me aware of the need for a short title. Finally, thanks also to Palgrave
Macmillan, where Sharla Plant saw the potential in the book, and Poppy
Hull as well as Naveen Dass offered excellent guidance in reaching the
final product. However, you also need someone who always believes in
your capacity. That person is my daughter Karolina, who I thank from my
heart.
 Contents

1 Introduction: Legitimacy Deficit 1

1.1 An Illustration 4
1.2 A New Dependency 8
1.3 Communicative Challenges 11
1.4 Purpose and Outline of the Book 13
References 16

2 A Social Paradigm 19
2.1 What Is the Social? 20
2.2 Threatening, Empty, Civilizing or Playful? 21
2.3 A Risk for Oversocializing? 23
2.4 The Social as Regulating Communicative Actions 23
2.5 Summary 26
References 27

3 Communicative Legitimacy 29
3.1 Intersubjectivity as Mutual Understanding 31
3.2 From Everyday Life to Systems 38
3.3 Morality and Law 45
3.4 Welfare Administrations 58
3.5 Summary 68
References 70

ix
x CONTENTS

4 Conclusions: Legitimacy Challenges 73

4.1 Help and Control 74
4.2 Solidarity and Justice 77
4.3 Individual Freedom and Collective Will 82
4.4 Recommendations for Welfare Work Professions 86
References 88

Index 91
 CHAPTER 1

Introduction: Legitimacy Deficit

Abstract The chapter describes the nature of legitimacy problems in

democratic welfare work and how global economics, bureaucracy, system
efficiency and individualization reinforce them. These processes increase
the individuals’ dependence on the systems and the demands on profes-
sionals to develop better communicative skills to deal with the problems.
Habermas’s theories of communicative action, law and moral provide
tools for identifying and rectifying these legitimacy deficits. An illustration
from the practice shows how the analysis reveals critical moments in the
interaction between clients and professionals. Earlier attempts by Lipsky
to handle legitimacy and later criticism of bureaucracy from Rockman,
Honneth and others are also presented as well as the basic requirements
for a communication that can meet these challenges.

Keywords Legitimacy deficit · Jürgen Habermas · Communicative

action · Bureaucracy · Globalization

Do citizens trust your welfare work? Does it keep its promises to the citi-
zens and are they met with dignity, respect and ability to respond to the
various interpretations that may arise? These issues concern the legitimacy
of welfare work, which in short means a consensus-based authority to
apply laws and regulations democratically. To succeed, professionals1 need

© The Author(s) 2020 1

A. Kihlström, Communicative Legitimacy,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-54949-7_1
2 A. KIHLSTRÖM

to develop capacity to meet new communicative requirements of glob-

alized and individualized service users.2 These challenges are the main
theme of this book.
The analyses are made from the communicative action3 perspective
(Habermas 1981), which show how to reveal a deficit of legitimacy,
as well as clarify approaches that reconstruct and strengthen it. The
perspective differs significantly from those inspired by bureaucratic or
psychodynamic approaches, which have been the usual models of inter-
action in welfare work. Those approaches focus on the individual either
as object or subject. In the bureaucratic perspective, the individual’s posi-
tion is determined by the functions of the system, expressed in its roles,
goals and directions, while neutralizing subjective experiences (Denhardt
1981; Beetham 1996). In the psychodynamic perspective one appeals to
the consciousness of the individual as a solitary subject, to the individu-
al’s feelings, desires and inclinations (Payne 2002). Thus, the bureaucratic
perspective builds validity on externally accepted objective conditions,
while the psychodynamic, with its purely internal access to truth, reduces
validity to a subjective opinion (Habermas 1984). Both perspectives are
problematic as a basis for examining legitimacy. They are too narrow and
cannot identify a truth that is objectively true (truth) as well as norma-
tively right (rightness) and subjectively sincere (truthfulness). That is, the
kind of truth that underlies everyday life and legitimacy building.
By contrast, the communicative perspective of action is intersubjective.
It means an interaction based on subject–subject relations for estab-
lishing a mutual validated, collective truth. This model is based on new
insights on the power of language: it coordinates both understanding and
a rational action, which also clarifies the moral which affects the action.
All in all, these open both for identification and rectification of legitimacy
deficiencies (Habermas 1987).
Legitimacy deficit has been discussed for a long time, but the knowl-
edge of how to counteract it is fragmented (Denhardt 1981; Beetham
2013). This book focuses on the latter in a context of democratic welfare
work, where the legitimacy deficits can be hidden behind legality, but
nevertheless undermine trust (Habermas 1997; Rothstein 2017). The
classic study Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in
Public Service (Lipsky 1980) relates to these problems. According to the
author, they appear as a paradox when the public welfare worker should
treat all citizens equally while being “responsive to the individual case
when appropriate” (Lipsky 2010: xii). From that it follows that “the
 1 INTRODUCTION: LEGITIMACY DEFICIT 3

exercise of discretion”4 could not be performed in accordance with the

“highest standard of decision making” (Lipsky 2010: xi).
By comparing various professions that involved client contacts, Lipsky
saw different strategies for dealing with uncertainty in discretion situa-
tions; strategies that sought to minimize tensions and maximize approved
compliance. At best, they were characterized as “public fairly, appro-
priately and thoughtfully” at worst they were reduced to “favoritism,
stereotyping, convenience and routinizing” (Lipsky 2010: xiv). Clients
were also pressured to “strike a balance between asserting their rights as
citizens and conforming to the behaviors public agencies seek to place
them as clients” (Lipsky 2010: xvi). However, it is important to keep
in mind that Lipsky’s study is based on an American context, where,
according to him, citizens are expected to show gratitude for the help
offered. That side of citizenship is not so pronounced in English or
Scandinavian welfare work.
In this text welfare work is strongly connected to ideas about equality,
recognition of all citizens and a right to say yes or no to claims, without
being excluded. The communicative action perspective indicates that
opinions, experiences and expectations can be clarified between the parties
in the situation in question. This means that they validate the expressed
claims of legitimacy and can act in accordance with them, or argue for a
change that better fits the intentions of the legal social order. The process
strengthens them as citizens, even though they are vulnerable as clients,
and that can increase confidence in the welfare work and democracy.
However, strengthening trust is complicated for many reasons. In
his reflection over the study, thirty years later, Lipsky (2010) highlights
some of them. He notes for example that “support for government has
been eroded, and the very purpose of government is deeply contested”
(Lipsky 2010: 214). This, together with budget cuts, makes it difficult
to demonstrate responsiveness and accountability, which are the links
between bureaucracy and democracy. Therefore he believes that account-
ability must mean more than just answering to people’s superiors. The
key question is whether there is any “reliable relationship between what
the superior seeks and what subordinates do” (Lipsky 2010: 160). Since
accountability is based on a concrete relationship between people or
groups, he calls for changed “patterns of behavior” among the public
workers. It should hopefully include the development of professional stan-
dards and organizational incentives, but also appropriate responses to
4 A. KIHLSTRÖM

individual clients and their situations, which require “fresh thinking and
flexible action” (Lipsky 2010: 160, 161).
These are necessary but provocative ambitions in the development
of welfare interactions (Denhardt 1981; Habermas 1997). Necessary,
because citizens and clients demand increased participation and co-
determination, not only in terms of the law itself, which they already
have, but also when it is implemented in welfare. Provocative, because
it interferes with the kind of instrumental5 rationalization that tradi-
tional bureaucracy maintains. Today’s young people want more freedom,
respect, human rights and independence. At the same time they become
more isolated, more extradited from their own abilities and more depen-
dent on what the system offers. This paradox intensifies the need to
interpret and understand the arguments that favour constructive social
actions, those which are both legal and legitimate. Since a communica-
tive action perspective is based on reciprocity, equality, non-authority and
non-hierarchy, it provides opportunities to do that through the valida-
tion of arguments, rooted in the lifeworld of individuals as well as in the
collective will of the welfare system. Such a process can strengthen both
self-determination and self-realization, and makes the system even more
efficient and credible, and as a result more democratic. So much is at
stake!

1.1 An Illustration
During my postgraduate studies, I sometimes went to the Department
of Social Work for supervision, and then quickly returned to my work in
social welfare services. On one occasion there was an angry man with
a letter in his hand waiting there for me. He was irritated and asked
me where I had been, and I answered, “at the university to discuss
a theory”. “What kind of theory”, he asked impatiently. “A theory of
communication and action”, I answered while taking my coat off. “It
makes no difference here”, he continued pessimistically. “By the way,
what is it about”? “About us”, I replied, surprised by his interest, but
then concerned by the situation I had ended up in. How could I save my
face and apply the meaning of the theory so quickly?
However, I knew his case and I also had the basic model for commu-
nicative action in my head, which was: validating the truth, the fact (the
objective aspect), the rightness (the social aspect), and whether the claims
were honestly meant or faked, that is the truthfulness (the subjective
 1 INTRODUCTION: LEGITIMACY DEFICIT 5

aspect), so there was no return. “We contacted you via letter and called
you here because your daughter reported that you hit her”, I said quickly.
“The law states that we have to investigate such information in order to
protect children from being abused or hurt (the objective aspect). Do
you accept such a law?” I asked, a little bit stressed. “Yes, it’s fine, but
I have nothing to say, it is not relevant here.” “Anyway, your daughter
has also been invited, so we can meet all concerned parties, and listen
to what each of you has to say. We are not going to make any decisions
until everyone has had the chance to give their opinion of what happened
(the social aspect). So can’t we just sit down and talk about it?” I asked,
and pointed at the sofa. “Sometimes, children fabricate incidents because
they are angry, and teenagers are known to change their moods swiftly.
Has your daughter ever lied?” (the subjective aspect). “Oh no, never”, he
replied, almost offended. “She is honest and nice!” he said and suddenly
seemed proud and strong. He seemed ready for a discussion. I suggested
that we ask the daughter and her mother to join us. “Want some coffee?”
Before going further it must be said that this example can raise many
questions about how to talk to individuals, how to respect children’s
rights and so on. But the purpose here is to show a common communica-
tive situation that can arise in everyday work, where a professional tries to
gain confidence in a process where laws and rules need to be transformed
into an accepted act, legitimate for those concerned. But must a public
service representative reflect on it? Is approval not already incorporated
into the process? Wouldn’t it be enough with an instrumental procedure
that informs us about the law and implements it efficiently and rationally?
“Legitimacy means that there are good arguments for a political order’s
claim to be recognised as right and just; a legitimate order deserves recog-
nition. Legitimacy means a political order’s worthiness to be recognised”
(Habermas 1979: 178). Thus, it is a process in which the claims can be
contested. Obviously, such a process not only includes the substance of
the matter, but also norms, moral judgements and feelings. It indicates
the need for participation in “processes of opinion- and will-formation,
which occurs in forms of communication that are themselves legally guar-
anteed” (Habermas 1997: 110, 111). In general, they take place in the
political sphere. But when a society has become more complex, its welfare
administration is forced to take greater responsibility for these issues. If
these interactions indicate any deficit of legitimation, then the legality
can also come into question. The law must be complied with, but must
at the same time correspond to the individual’s expectations in question,
6 A. KIHLSTRÖM

concerning facts as well as norms. If events go wrong, then not only are
there disappointments, but disturbances and conflicts can result, which
can violate the confidence we have in the democratic system. Therefore,
these challenges are important to understand in order to handle them
correctly (Beetham 2013).
In our example, the father could have chosen to react in several
different ways; he could have agreed with the law, but refused to partic-
ipate. He could have claimed that the law was wrong, or was directed
to a very special group which did not include him. He could also have
refused to subordinate himself to any law at all, but then, the discussion
would have been pointless. It implies that the step between a legal and a
legitimate order can be unpredictable and fragile!
The perspective used here shows that communication is much more
than just a transfer of information. The parties concerned value what is
said, that is its truth, its rightness and its truthfulness. This happens mostly
unconsciously, but if something feels wrong it can be highlighted, so that
misunderstandings can be clarified. Thereby it generates meaning, coor-
dinates action and balances interests. It clarifies morality preferences and
refers to everyone’s equal rights. At the same time, it maintains interaction
and can produce codes and systems. Thus, it also constructs social orders,
which its participants can stand behind, reconstruct or reject without
being subjected to violence (Habermas 1984).
But if someone wants to destroy a given social order, or is scared of
it, despises it, or wants to create something completely different, can the
theory help to reveal such an agenda? Yes, to some extent. As already
stated, communication can be used in many different ways, including a
destructive one. For example, we can build up false trust to get space for
our own, unspoken plans. We can dismiss the other side’s arguments as
unimpressive, childish, too emotional or block them completely. We can
also exploit the basic model by expressing private interests as if they were
objective facts, while ignoring respect for the equal rights of others, and
act only for “our own benefit”. These factors will be revealed if argu-
ments are irrelevant in relation to the matter itself, unfair in relation to
accepted norms, or meaningless in relation to how an utterance should
be interpreted. However, validating arguments can obviously not change
all destructive actions, but these will at least be exposed and understood.
Then the opportunity will be given to question their rationality and the
people responsible for them. This is important to consider, because a
 1 INTRODUCTION: LEGITIMACY DEFICIT 7

destructive strategy has a price—a lack of trust for the professionals or

the system.
Now, let’s return to the example! The case itself was a legal one and
concerned child abuse. The father accepted the law6 and moreover, as a
citizen, he was de facto responsible for following it. Unfortunately, from
his perspective, it was used against him here, which perhaps made him
uncertain, afraid and angry. But when he was informed about how the
investigation would be conducted, and that no decision would be made in
advance, he calmed down and accepted the situation. Some may think that
he was trying to be smart and strategic,7 or that he was just acting, and
saying whatever benefited him. However, as mentioned earlier, commu-
nicative action also includes morality and authenticity, which can partly
reveal a hidden strategy. In this example, there were no such indications.
Instead the man seemed frank when he said, with some pride, that his
daughter was honest and generally did not lie. Thus, he referred to the
moral value that says that lies are bad, which indirectly indicated that her
accusation about him could be true.
After that the discussion went on well. The father told us that he
had been unemployed for a long time and felt increasingly stressed. The
teenage girl said that she often wanted to provoke him, and once, during
dinner, it went too far and the father became so upset that he lashed out
and hit her. He said that he barely knows how it happened, but that he
felt very bad afterwards; he was ashamed and tried to repress the inci-
dent. When we discussed the matter, the family thought that the best
help would be to talk to a therapist and have some treatment that would
ease the tension in the family. We agreed to that and decided to keep in
touch.
When summarizing the communication process with the family, we can
see that they reached some kind of consensus about what had happened.
The sincerity during the talk strengthened them and their moral values
brought them together. Despite their difficulties, they could see the
struggle of other members of their family, and thus “see the other in
themselves”. They gave each other recognition. The father accepted that
the girl reacted when she was hit, and he distanced himself from his
behaviour. The girl also realized what her provocation had triggered and
took responsibility for it. But at the same time she knew that her dad had
overstepped a boundary and so she reported him to social services. She
had the right to invoke her rights and she had used it. Thereby the parties
8 A. KIHLSTRÖM

interpreted the prescribed intention of the law in a constructive way, and

thus strengthened its legitimacy.

1.2 A New Dependency

The interaction between individuals and welfare systems is not just any
communication, but is regulated in different ways. In most modern
welfare countries, the regulations are based on democratic values. In
Sweden for example, these would be equality, freedom, justice and soli-
darity. In addition, the interaction must be handled with transparency,
reciprocity, discussion and responsibility (Lundqvist 2001: 119).8 Never-
theless, people may experience that communication within this sphere can
be insufficient or go wrong. It depends on many factors; for example a
one-sided, authoritarian interpretation of the problems, rigidity when it
comes to solving them, or just lack of interest. A shortage of time to
present the problems, a lack of competent information of what is appli-
cable, as well as moralizing, prejudiced and disrespectful interactions are
other reasons. The representatives of the system can also neglect ques-
tions or just avoid talking to the service users. So the communication
does not always move forward or result in constructive actions. Instead,
the client can get a sense of being abandoned, of being unimportant,
with an undermining of self-confidence as a result. Reports from the
Swedish Health and Social Care Inspectorate (IVO 2018)9 show that
vulnerable and dependent people can be particularly sensitive to these
situations. They indicated a remarkable increase in interaction problems,
such as the clients’ weakened position, their increased lack of participa-
tion or responsibility, and increased shortcomings in the coordination of
assistance between different systems. This also puts the service user in
a new and unintended situation as the messenger between the different
professions.
Bureaucracy is often accused for causing these shortcomings (Lipsky
1980, 2010; Denhardt 1981). Recently, in an international journal, it
was argued that “everyone hates bureaucracy, even bureaucrats” (Pili-
avsky 2017: 107). Bureaucracy misuses power and exerts violence by
forcing us into certain behaviours. Whether it is justified or not, let us
briefly reflect on bureaucracy. Developed a long time ago by the German
sociologist Max Weber (1864–1920), bureaucracy became “a system of
administration carried out on a continuous basis by trained professionals
according to prescribed rules” (Beetham 1996: 3). It was designed to
 1 INTRODUCTION: LEGITIMACY DEFICIT 9

handle conflicts of interests. The officials were to be instrumentally effi-

cient and accurate, and not take any of their own ethical or moral reasons
into considerations. Against the background of the more unpredictable
governance models that previously existed, undoubtedly this bureaucracy
could be perceived as a tool for a more functional administration, suitable
for supporting the emerging democracy.
However, although originally developed for the marketplace with its
demands for efficiency, bureaucracy later became an important tool for the
professional control of strong, democratic states (Rockman 2011). Nowa-
days is it nearly “impossible to imagine effective government without
bureaucracy” although its tendencies to rest too much on outdated
authority begins to be problematic (Rockman 2011: 170). In a discus-
sion organized by the University of Frankfurt in 2016, it was claimed
that bureaucracy is still needed, but should be developed and redesigned
for the context that it is used for, to better serve today’s society. For
example, the marketplace and the welfare system need different models.
When used in a welfare system, bureaucracy should comprise a moment
of decent interpretation (Honneth 2016). This requires reciprocity, which
opens up for a communicative legitimacy process.
According to Rockman, today’s bureaucracy has internal as well as
external problems. The internal ones can be formalism, which makes the
bureaucracy “short of compassion, empathy, or extenuating circumstances
of case equity”, and accuses the bureaucrats for being “faceless”, “name-
less”, or “unfeeling” whose decisions defy “common sense” (Rockman
2011: 171). However, in some sense this can secure control, equality and
accountability. Another internal problem comes from tensions between
the top- and the operational-level hierarchies. Organizations with street-
level bureaucrats are especially exposed because of challenges to find a
balance between the law and people’s vulnerability.
External pathologies are, for example, excess paperwork and rule
restrictions. These can be frustrating, but they are also a way of avoiding
accusations of favouritism or actions without legal support, which can
undermine trust. Foa and Mounk (2016) found in their studies that trust
in democracy had begun to fail with those who had negative experiences
with its institutions. They claimed, like Beetham (1996) that distrust
creates tensions, which can undermine the legitimacy of democracy.
In addition to these pathologies, today’s bureaucracies, as well as the
individuals they serve, are affected by globalization. Held and McGrew
(2002) describe this as transcontinental flows and interaction processes
10 A. KIHLSTRÖM

that have become increasingly comprehensive, faster and that have deeper
effects. Its processes seem to come and go in waves. According to Castells
(1996), the latest wave has been the intertwining between a new informa-
tion technology and a new form of global capitalism. These networks of
interactions have made the economy an informational one, because they
rely on the “capacity to generate, process and apply efficiently knowledge-
based information”; and “global because the core activities of production,
consumption, and circulation, as well as their components (capital, labor,
raw materials, management, information, technology, markets) are orga-
nized on a global scale, either directly or through a network of linkages
between economic agents” (Castell 1996: 66). It makes the state “increas-
ingly entangled in the interdependencies between the global economy
and global society”, which reduces its autonomy, capacity for action and
democratic content (Habermas 1999: 427).
These tendencies penetrate the system and can affect its entire ethos.
During the golden age, the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, the state could
promote economic dynamism and secure social inclusion. Today it has
become harder to deal with crisis situations and instead poverty, social
insecurity and disintegration grow. In a changing labour market with
inferior contribution systems and increased housing shortage, these will
generate new difficulties for individuals to master social situations on their
own. Such “dismantling” policies damage social cohesion and stability
(Habermas 2001: 51).
These changes also erode those public arenas where citizens’ rights and
obligations are formulated. Seyla Benhabib (1992) saw at an early stage
that these tendencies could make it meaningless to fight to maintain the
difference between the social and the political sphere. Not because poli-
tics has become an administration or because the economy has become
the hallmark of the public, but because the struggle to make something
public in modern society has been forced to be a fight for justice. This
makes individuals more vulnerable and dependent on social support, espe-
cially for young people, women and immigrants. These trends, also noted
by the Norwegian sociologist Aakvaag (2010) in his analyses of democ-
racy, highlights the difficulties for the poor resource groups in claiming
their interests. Their position, as citizens with established rights and
needs, must be more respected. He advocates for developing public spaces
where neither economic purchasing power nor status are the determining
factors, but instead the better argument should come first. Aakvaag is
 1 INTRODUCTION: LEGITIMACY DEFICIT 11

inspired by Habermas’s contemporary diagnosis, where democracy is the

supporting institutional principle in modern societies.10
The effects of globalization on the individual have also been noticed by
the English sociologists Elliot and Lemert, who speak about the “global-
ized individual” (2006: 172). It refers to individuals’ self-reflexivity and
their adjustments to the new risks they are forced to face: reduced and
disappearing stable forms of employment in working life; decoupling from
supportive family networks; increased risks of confrontation with social
and economic violence; differences in life-experience between those who
have and those who have not, and between being included and excluded
(Brodie 2008; Beck 1998, 1992). So an almost unlimited flow of knowl-
edge and information can expose individuals to frightening and violent
social risks. Elliot and Lemert wonder how individuals should deal with
this paradox and “survive in worlds made deadly by social structures?”
(2006: 185).
Changes like these pressurize individuals to decide who they want to
be and what decisions they will make. These considerations may result
in what Beck has called a “do-it-yourself - biography” (Beck 1992: 135).
This means to make decisions about a person’s entire form of life: educa-
tion, profession, accommodation, number of children, etc. For many it
is a tough and hopeless process, for others it can secure a better life. In
accordance with the Swedish social policy Professor Lennart Lundqvist,
these challenges between individuals and the state cannot be mastered “by
independence but with reciprocity” (Lundqvist 2001: 51, my trans.).

1.3 Communicative Challenges

What is expected by a communication having ambitions to handle these
challenges? Two requirements will be highlighted. First, the communica-
tion perspective must have a foundation that can support opinions and
claims from the individual as well as from the system. It can ensure indi-
viduals’ request for equality, freedom, justice, solidarity and the collective
social orders’ request for functional efficiency. It also ensures the possi-
bility of switching between the two forms of expression under one and
the same interaction without the mutual foundation being lost. Switching
between two modes is often used in everyday life, without problems. For
example, when asking for a deadline for applications, a one-way informa-
tion system will function well, but in a “talk out” with a friend, or to sort
out a misunderstanding, mutual communication works best. However, a
12 A. KIHLSTRÖM

switching competence within one and the same interaction has rarely been
seen as a professional potential. Instead a solution has been to change the
perspective, the situation and sometimes even the profession.
The communicative action perspective responds to this first require-
ment through its intersubjective character, which provides a symmetrical
interaction between the parties as a starting point. From that, a mutual
validation can find out if an asymmetric approach would be more
relevant. Then the interaction is handled constructively with respect
to self-determination, self-realization and the trust in the system can
be maintained. This transition to asymmetry may occur when profes-
sionals need to provide new information about laws and regulations
or when a service user informs about new circumstances. One partici-
pant assigns more skill or life experience to somebody else, and thereby
listens passively. Such non-authoritative, non-hierarchical transformations
between symmetry and asymmetry are unproblematic. However, if forced
or misused, it can undermine legitimacy.
The second requirement for communication that is capable of meeting
the new challenges is that it has a link to action. Communication is not
only talking, it also means action. Weber defined an action as “‘social’
which, in its meaning as intended by the actor or actors, take account
of the behaviours of others and is thereby oriented in its course” (Weber
1922/1978: 4). It implies an action based on the individual’s own convic-
tion and own considerations about how to achieve a goal. The problem
with this approach was that underlying values were not tested by other
involved. It undermined moral responsibility and gave the action an
unsocial character.
By reconstructing Weber’s model into a social action based on commu-
nicative rationality, Habermas clarified the parties’ need for mutual
understanding to act constructively. This validity test guides them to the
most appropriate action without coercion. It also gives them the opportu-
nity to choose between mutual reasoning or strategically addressing their
own interests. Being strategic can be a communicative action as well if
the parties harmonize their action plans (open strategic) for executing a
specific goal “without reservation” (Habermas 1984: 294).
Thus, the internal relationship between communicative action and
social action enables two forms: a communicative and a strategic one.
The communicative action means, as we have seen, that the participants’
actions are coordinated by mutual understanding and offer a shared defi-
nition of situations and goals. Strategic action means that the participants
 1 INTRODUCTION: LEGITIMACY DEFICIT 13

are “following rules of rational choice” and instead prioritize their own
interests by a one-way influence on the other parties (Habermas 1984:
285). It makes strategic actions more directly focused on the efficacy
of influencing others’ decisions, while communicative actions are filtered
through a mutual validation process, which is then able to act success-
fully in a way that is also accepted by others. In addition, there are also
non-social, instrumental acts, in which all parties are objects that can be
influenced effectively. However, that is not of interest here.
So it is only the communicative types of action that have a complete
and strong kind of communicative rationality because they intersubjec-
tively refer to all the three claims for validity: the truth, rightness and
truthfulness. However, an open strategic action can, unlike a hidden
action, be seen as a normatively reduced form of a communicative action,
even if it does not refer to an intersubjective will, based on rightness in
the social world. By referring to two of the three claims: the truth and
truthfulness, it is a simplification and in that sense a weak communica-
tion. In practice it means that one party can accept “the seriousness ” of
the utterance, its sincerity and truth, without a further validity test of its
normative insights (Habermas 1998: 327). A hidden strategic action, on
the other hand, is often equated with manipulation, because the client is
not given the opportunity to validate the claims.

1.4 Purpose and Outline of the Book

As stated, the new vulnerability of fragmented individuals and the need
for increased credibility and efficiency in the welfare system can be met if
interpreted as a matter of legitimacy within the framework of commu-
nication action theory. The purpose of this book is to argue for that
by making explicit which aspects of interaction are important, and how
they can affect outcomes and provide professionals with science-based
theory that support tools for how to dealing with these legitimacy issues
in practice.
However, knowledge of communication action theory may seem
unnecessary if viewed as only a dialogue in general, where we commu-
nicate just because we have learned to. Nevertheless, new theories show
that communication is a complex combination of advanced intersubjec-
tive processes that must be clarified, externalized and learned if it is to
be professionally useful in practice. Having such knowledge is especially
important for all the welfare professionals involved in direct interaction
14 A. KIHLSTRÖM

with citizens and clients, since they are usually criticized for unscientific
methods. Or to quote Habermas and Plato: “Nothing is more practical
than theory itself” (Habermas 2003: 278).
For providing professionals with a scientifically-based theory that
presents useful tools for their work, this description is carefully grounded
in the theory of communicative action. This arises out of Habermas’s
extensive analyses of the dialectic between the individual and society. As
is well-known, his work amounts to a huge amount of writing, which has
made it necessary to be selective. Here it means that texts about commu-
nicative action, moral values and law have come into focus. These have
generated further discussions, interpretations and corrections, presented
by Habermas himself and others. Some of them are also presented here,
in order to make it easier to understand as many aspects as possible when
implementing the theory in the context of democratic welfare work.
The book is divided into four chapters. This chapter introduces the
central theme: the Legitimacy Deficit, clarifying its purpose and central
arguments. To bridge the theoretical character of the text, it starts with
an illustration of how the legitimacy problem can be handled in praxis
(here social work), followed by an analysis connecting the example to the
book’s theme. The chapter also describes the new dependency and the
new communication model claimed for handling the legitimacy deficit,
and ends with this clarification of purpose and an outline of the book.
Chapter 2, The Social Paradigm, outlines this new basis for commu-
nicative action. Since this intersubjective perspective exceeds both subjec-
tive and objective perspectives, its nature and potentials will be empha-
sized and externalized, especially since interest in the social has been
changed, decreased, underestimated and almost wiped out over several
periods. Therefore, previous reflections on the influences of Arendt,
Rosseau, Baudrillard and Simmel intend to highlight its special character.
Parson’s more theoretically substantiated analysis has also been necessary
to describe, as it was the very basis for Habermas’s reconstruction of the
social, which concludes the chapter.
Chapter 3, Communicative Legitimacy, is the most extensive part,
where specific key phenomena about the theory that is relevant for legit-
imacy, are examined: intersubjectivity as mutual understanding; the life
world’s connection to the system; the relation between morality and
law; and finally welfare administrations. In order to make these concepts
comprehensible, Habermas’s considerations and reconstructions of them
 1 INTRODUCTION: LEGITIMACY DEFICIT 15

in relation to previous theorists like Mead, Durkheim, Schütz and others

are explored.
The concluding Chapter 4, Legitimacy Challenges, focuses on the risks
for legitimacy deficits inside the context of welfare administrative power.
It has been structured by three contradictory ambitions that consistently
challenge the work: how to satisfy help as well as control; solidarity as
well as justice; individual freedom alongside the collective will. The anal-
yses show how the communicative perspective offers an approach that
maintains mutual respect for both the individual and the system on the
basis of democratic grounds. Although the law is the framework for that
work, it also exposes how the parties interpret the morality behind it. The
chapter concludes with a summary of the new knowledge that the welfare
professionals need to develop to handle these challenges.

Notes
1. This concept differs slightly from the concept of expert, which refers to a
general knowledge that diagnoses but often leaves the actual execution to
a profession (Brunkhorst 2008; Dewe et al. 1993).
2. This concept is sometimes replaced with client, since the reference
literature often uses that term.
3. It means “social interactions where language use aimed at reaching mutual
understanding plays the role of acton coordination” (Habermas 2003:
110).
4. For Lipsky it means “the space in which to translate nebulous policy into
practice”. In John Harris and Vicky White (2018): A Dictionary of Social
Work and Social Care. Oxford University Press.
5. Instrumental action are oriented to success and means “following tech-
nical rules of action and assess the degree of efficiency of an intervention
into a complex of circumstances and events”. They are not social actions
(Habermas 1984: 285; 1998: 118).
6. By law is here meant positive law, which is constructed and developed on
the basis of democratic principles, like equality and freedom. It “serves
to reduce social complexity” and compensates “for the cognitive indeter-
minacy, motivational insecurity, and limited coordinating power of moral
norms” (Habermas 1997: 326). The law’s consequences are predictable,
giving you the chance to follow them or accept the sanctions.
7. Strategic actions are also oriented to success, but mean “following rules
of rational choice and assessing the degree of efficiency of its influencing
the decisions of a rational counterpart in action”. They are social actions
in themselves (Habermas 1984: 285; 1998: 118).
16 A. KIHLSTRÖM

8. According to the author, it has not been possible to identify these process
values via a consistent list. Instead, they have been filtered as the most
common and overall values in the democratic debate.
9. The Health and Social Care Inspectorate (IVO) is a government agency
responsible for supervising health care, social services and activities under
the Act concerning Support and Service for Persons with Certain Func-
tional Impairments (LSS). IVO is also responsible for issuing certain
permits in these areas. Its duties include dealing with complaints about
irregularities in care (lex Sarah and lex Maria reports) and about unau-
thorized decisions.
10. Aakvaag compares to sociological classics who instead define the guiding
principle as capitalism (Marx), formal rationality (Weber) solidarity forms
(Durkheim) postmodern differentiation (Luhmann) economics and tech-
nology (Bell, Castell, Baudrillard), individualization (Beck, Giddens,
Baumann, Sennett), disciplinary (Foucault), pluralism (Lyotard) (Aakvaag
2010: 6, my trans.).

References
Aakvaag, G. C. (2010). Demokrati som samtidsdiagnose. Sociologisk tidskfrift, 18,
5–30.
Beck, U. (1992). Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage.
Beck, U. (1998). Democracy Without Enemies. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Beetham, D. (1996). Bureaucracy. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Beetham, D. (2013). The Legitimation of Power. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Benhabib, S. (1992). Models of Public Space: Hanna Arendt, the Liberal Tradi-
tion, and Jürgen Habermas. In C. Calhoun (Ed.), Habermas and the Public
Sphere (pp. 73–99). Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Brodie, J. (2008). The New Social “isms”: Individualization and Social Policy
Reform in Canada. In C. Howard (Ed.), Contested Individualization: Debates
About Contemporary Personhood. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Brunkhorst, H. (2008). Profesjoner i kommunikasjonsteoretisk perspektiv. Soli-
daritet mellom fremmende. In A. Molander & L. J. Terum, Profesjonsstudier.
Oslo: Universitetförlaget.
Castell, M. (1996). The Rise of the Network Society. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Denhardt, R. B. (1981, November/December). Toward a Critical Theory of
Public Organization. In Public Administration Review, 41(6), 628–635.
Dewe, B., Ferchhoff, W., Scherr, A., & Stüwe, G. (1993). Professionelles soziales
Handeln. Soziale Arbeit im Spannungsfeld zwischen Theorie und Praxis.
Weinheim and Munich: JUVENTA Verlag.
Elliot, A., & Lemert, C. (2006). The New Individualism: The Emotional Costs of
Globalization. NewYork: Routledge.
 1 INTRODUCTION: LEGITIMACY DEFICIT 17

Foa, R. S., & Mounk, Y. (2016). The Democratic Disconnected. Journal of

Democracy, 27 (3), 5–17.
Habermas, J. (1979). Communication and the Evolution of Society. Boston:
Beacon Press.
Habermas, J. (1981). Theorie des kommunikativen Handels. Band 1: Hand-
lungsrationalität und gesellschaftliche Rationalisierung. Band 2: Zur Kritik
der funktionalistischen Vernunft. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.
Habermas, J. (1984). The Theory of Communicative Action. Vol. 1. Reason and
the Rationalization of Society. Boston: Beacon Press.
Habermas, J. (1987). The Theory of Communicative Action. Vol. 2. The Critique
of Functional Reason. Oxford: Polity Press.
Habermas, J. (1997). Between Fact and Norms. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Habermas, J. (1998). On the Pragmatics of Communication. Cambridge: MIT
Press.
Habermas, J. (1999, May–June). The European Nation-State and the Pressures
of Globalization. New Left Review, 1(235), 425–436.
Habermas, J. (2001). The Postnational Constellation. Political Essays. Cambridge:
Polity Press.
Habermas, J. (2003). Truth and Justification. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Harris, J., & White, V. (Eds.). (2018). A Dictionary of Social Work and Social
Care (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. https://www.oxfordreference.com.
Held, D., & McGrew, A. (2002). Globalization/Antiglobalization. Cambridge:
Polity Press/Blackwell.
Honneth, A. (2016). Discussion between Axel Honneth (Frankfurt/NYC)
& David Graeber (LSE): Dynamics of the Administered World. On
the Diagnostic and Normative Relevance of a Contemporary Critique
of Bureaucracy. http://habermas-rawls.blogspot.se/2016/04/david-graeber-
axel-honneth-on-critique.html.
Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public
Services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Lipsky, M. (2010). Street-Level Bureaucracy, 30th Anniversary Expanded Edition:
Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Service. New York: Russell Sage
Foundation.
Lundqvist, L. (2001). Medborgardemokratin och eliterna. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Payne, M. (2002). The Politics of System Theory Within Social Work. Journal
of Social Work, 2, 269–292.
Piliavsky, A. (2017). The Wrong Kind of Freedom? A Review of David Graeber’s
The Utopia of Rules: On Technology, Stupidity and the Secret Joys of Bureaucracy
(Brooklyn/London: Melville House, 2015). International Journal of Politics,
Culture, and Society, 30, 107–111.
Rockman, B. A. (2011). Bureaucracy. In International Encyclopedia of Political
Science (pp. 167–172). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
18 A. KIHLSTRÖM

Rothstein, B. (2017). Solidarity, Diversity, and the Quality of Government. In

K. Banting & W. Kymlicka (Eds.), The Strains of Commitment: The Polit-
ical Sources of Solidarity in Diverse Societies (pp. 300–326). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Swedish Health and Social Care Inspectorate (IVO). (2018). www.ivo.se/public
erat-material/rapporter/vad-har-ivo-sett-2017.
Weber, M. (1922/1978). Economy and Society (G. Roth & C. Wittich, Eds.).
Berkeley: University of California Press.
 CHAPTER 2

A Social Paradigm

Abstract This chapter explores the social sphere. For Arendt it was
threatening, objectifying and controlled by no one. Baudrillard predicted
its death and a progressive desocialization. Rousseau saw its positive
potential, which could civilize pre-social people through education. It
reduced oppression by replacing instinct with legitimized rules. Simmel
called it sociability, where individuals behaved as equals and did not
favour themselves at the expense of others. Parsons’ analyses were the
most in-depth, however, they rested on a monological communication
model which created over-socialized individuals and system dominance.
Habermas replaced it with intersubjective communication, which opened
the way to a legitimated order based on mutual validations of the truth,
rights and truthfulness. It provided a precedent for the social towards the
objective and the subjective, and thereby to a new paradigm, the social.

Keywords Social paradigm · Social world · Oversocializing · Regulating

When the social dimension claims to be the basis for communication,

the following question arises: What is the social? In short, the concept
refers to society with emphasis on its interactive nature, often identified
as a concrete place where participants behave in a pleasant way. However,
here it means an abstract sphere where people interact with each other,
either as individuals or in groups, in reciprocity and consideration. It is a

© The Author(s) 2020 19

A. Kihlström, Communicative Legitimacy,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-54949-7_2
20 A. KIHLSTRÖM

sphere between, and in some sense transcending, the object-oriented and

subject-oriented spheres. As a dimension of everyday life it is constantly
reconstructed and rationalized by individuals (Habermas 1987). Thus,
including both individuals and systems, it is internally as well as externally
related to communication.
This definition of the social gives it a more central and basic position in
comparison to previous perspectives, which mostly reduce the social to an
external factor, connected to behaviours, facts or actions. This is the case
in welfare work, where the potential of the social has been seen as an envi-
ronment for the consciousness of the solitary subject, or as an arena where
the individual can be identified as an object. Following Habermas’s anal-
ysis, the social is more than this. It is a dimension of the world formed by
facts, norms, morals and emotions, whose validity is continuously tested
by self-determined and self-realized individuals. In that sense, the social is
a new paradigm, and its potential needs to be clarified (Habermas 1987).
Before exploring this, let’s see how some previous theorists reflected in
this direction.

2.1 What Is the Social?

According to Hanna Arendt in “Rise of the Social”, the phenomena can
be evasive and threatening (Arendt 1958/1998). From the beginning the
meaning of the social was unclear, and this became even more apparent
when translated from Greek to Latin. In the Greek world, interest for the
social was weak. Men (not women) were civilized and defined as political
beings, as opposed to social ones, and appeared in public with words and
arguments. In the household and within the family, people were natural
beings who could solve their conflicts with violence. The contrasted view
of Roman thought on the social referred to the basic nature of all indi-
viduals. When translated, these two ideas were mixed up, which resulted
in the households being reduced to an intimate sphere and other joint
commitments being transferred to the social sphere, making individuals
both anonymous and neglected (Arendt 1958/1998).
According to Arendt, this social sphere between the private one with
intimacy, and the political one with debate, began to grow and expand
in an unregulated manner. In our time it has resulted in the tendency to
define individuals by how they appear there, as a mass product with work
being the meaning of life. The individual is equated with the workforce
and other competences, which results in things like being able to act and
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 Temporary Binder for Magazines
The sketch illustrates an inexpensive temporary binder for
periodicals, magazines, newspapers, etc. It consists of four parts,
namely, two sheets of cardboard, A, the size of the magazine to be
bound, and two pieces of linen or tape, B. A slot is cut in each corner
of the cardboards about 1 in. from the edge. The tape is run through
these slots in the manner shown.

The Binding is Only Temporary to Keep the Magazines in Good Condition for
a Complete Volume

The magazine numbers, as they are received, are placed on the

back cardboard, building them up consecutively as they come. The
ends of the tape are tied to hold them together. The backbone is
open and the contents are readily seen.
The sliding of the tape in the slots provides a means of holding
from one to as many copies as may be desired, and they are kept in
good condition until a complete volume is compiled, when a more
permanent binder can be made.
Instead of tape a leather strap can be used with a buckle. The
tapes can be fastened to one of the cardboards, allowing one end
only to be movable.
 Combination Workshop Seat
A most practical and satisfactory way of using a stool in a small
workshop is shown in the illustration. In much of my small work at
the bench I find it an advantage to sit, and for that purpose I
purchased a small stool. My lathe is operated by a geared foot motor
provided with two foot levers which may be operated singly in a
standing position or both at a time when sitting. The attachment
shown converts the stool, the seat of which is too low except for
bench work, into a comfortable and neat seat for working at a lathe.
The sketch is self-explanatory.
 A plate with a setscrew is mounted under the center of the stool
seat, through which a hole is bored for the seat post. Two pieces of
iron pipe, an elbow and an old bicycle saddle constitute the
remaining parts of the device. Provision is made for adjustment as to
height, and the position of the saddle may be changed in the
ordinary way by using a wrench on the part which grips the
horizontal length of pipe, just the same as the seat on a bicycle-seat
post is adjusted.
 Substitute for Rivets in Couches
The rivets in a couch come loose and work out quite often, leaving
it loose and wobbly. To make rivets fit properly by hammering them
into place is almost impossible and to repair the couch with stove
bolts makes an unsightly job. A very good repair and one that will
make a couch rigid and strong again is by the use of ordinary brass
binding posts from old dry-battery cells instead of rivets. These can
be easily placed without tools.—Contributed by G. H. Clemmons,
Storm Lake, Iowa.
 A Nonbinding Tool-Chest Slide Tray

The Spool in Each Corner of the Tray Rolls against the Side of the Tool Chest

The slide trays of a tool chest, especially if they are wider than
they are deep, are apt to bind. To remedy this trouble, I procured four
ordinary thread spools and inserted them in openings cut for them in
the corners of the tray. Holes were bored through the corners for
pins to hold the spools in place.—Contributed by J. V. Loeffler,
Evansville, Indiana.
 A Brooder

The Feathers of the Duster in the Center of the Box Take the Place of Those
of a Hen

A very effective brooder can be made of an old feather duster

hung in a box so that the tips of the feathers will come close to the
bottom. The brooder consists of a wood box about 1 ft. high. The
cover is removed and a hole cut in the center to receive the shank of
the duster after cutting its handle off. This makes an excellent
substitute for the feathers of the hen. Some finely cut hay, or sand, is
placed beneath so as to bring the level up sufficiently for the chicks
to run among the feathers. For ventilation, bore some holes in the
sides of the box near the top and cut a small opening for an
entrance. For convenience in cleaning, the cover should be hinged.
—Contributed by Wm. T. Miller, Roslindale, Mass.
 How to Make a Fancy Buttonhook

Procure a piece of ¹⁄₄-in. round steel, about 5 in. long, and file one
end of it square for about one-third of the length, so that the diagonal
of the square part is less than the diameter of the rod. Cut about 8
washers each, of brass and iron, from material, ¹⁄₈-in. thick. Make the
hole in the washers square to fit the square on the rod. The washers
can be cut out roughly on the outside, but they must be larger than
the diameter of the rod. Place the brass and iron washers alternately
on the rod, beginning with a brass and finishing with an iron washer,
which latter is held in place by riveting the end of the rod on it.

The Different Colors of the Metals When Polished and Buffed Give the Hook
a Neat Appearance

The washers are then filed round, and the remaining end of the
rod is tapered. The pointed end is bent into a hook. The whole length
is then polished and buffed.—Contributed by H. W. Hankin, Trail,
Can.
 Hinge Lock for Horizontal Sliding Windows

A simple catch for fixing windows of the horizontal sliding type so

that it is difficult to pry them open is shown in the sketch. It is made
of an old hinge, one end of which is sharpened so as to engage the
surface of the frame on which the sash slides. When not in use the
hinge is folded up. It can be used to set the window at various points
when it is desired to have it partly open.—T. H. Linthicum, Annapolis,
Md.
 Repairing a Brass Candlestick

A brass candlestick brought to me for repairs had lost a crownlike

bit of ornamentation once fitting on the top of the grease cup. To
make a finish at this point I soldered therein a heavy brass nose ring.
The soldering being concealed on the under portion, the effect was
very good, and strength was added to the thin brass cup, preventing
possible denting of the edge.—James M. Kane, Doylestown, Pa.
 Hand Guards for Motorcyclists

When riding my motorcycle in cool weather, my hands became

very cold, and in order to overcome this, I had guards, like that
shown in the sketch, made of oilcloth. A piece, tapered from 10 in. at
one end to 4¹⁄₂ in. at the other, and 12 in. long, was formed into a
cone, the smaller end being fitted, with an elastic band, over the
handlebar. The guards keep the hands comfortable without gloves in
cool weather, and, with gloves, are of great service in the winter.—
George Westaway, Davenport, Ia.
 Bicycle-Handle Grip on Rake Handle

By fitting a bicycle handle to the end of a rake handle a grip is

provided that is comfortable in the hand when considerable raking is
to be done. The sketch shows the grip attached. Several small brads
were nailed through the handle and countersunk so as not to injure
the hand. This prevented the grip from becoming loosened easily.
 Removal Marker for Card Index

A marker which is adapted for use in files of various sizes is

shown in the illustration. It may be made easily of medium-weight
cardboard, cut to the shape shown in the diagram below and bent as
indicated. The marker is inserted at a point in the index from which a
card or other filed material has been removed. It is of such a size
that, when in use, the tab projects only enough to be recognized,
and the marker may be left in the drawer so as to be convenient for
future use. The sketch shows the marker partly withdrawn. The small
projections shown in the diagram are important in that they act as
springs when the marker is in use.—John B. Wade, Wellington, Kan.
¶Gaskets cut from old inner tubes are satisfactory for water
connections.
 Driving Nails to Prevent Splitting

A nail driven so that it crosses the grain, as shown in the sketch, is

not likely to split the board through which it passes. The splitting
often results when the nail is driven straight. The nail should be
started at different angles according to the grain of the wood.—
Contributed by Chas. G. England, Washington, Pa.
 Feeding Geese in a Poultry Yard
Having four geese in a yard with chickens, I found that the
chickens would not allow the geese to pick up the food. To feed the
geese I placed the corn in the bottom of a pan and filled it with water.
The geese will easily pick up the corn from under the water, where
the chickens would not attempt to touch it.—Contributed by Walter L.
Kaufmann, Santa Ana, Cal.
 Homemade Calipers

The Spring Wire is Bent So That the Points Turn In or Out as Desired

A good pair of calipers can be easily and quickly made by anyone

in the following manner: Procure a piece of spring wire, about 15 in.
long, and bend it as shown in the sketch, allowing the ends to point
inward or outward as the style demands. A loop of heavy wire is
fastened around the center so that it can be slid back and forth along
the wire. This serves the purpose of an adjuster.—Contributed by
Stanley Radcliffe, Laurel, Md.
 Starting Garden Plants
In starting small plants to get them hardy and ready to plant in the
early spring provide separate receptacles of paper, then the plant
can be set out without trouble and it will grow as if it had never been
moved. Procure some heavy paper and make the cups as shown in
the sketch.

The Paper Cup Starts One Plant and When Reset No Damage Results from
the Change

The paper is cut into squares, the size depending on the plant,
and each square is folded on the dotted line AB. This forms a
triangle of a double thickness. The next fold is made on the line CD,
bringing the point E over to F. Then the paper is folded over on the
line FG, bringing the point H over to C. This will leave a double-
pointed end at J. The parts of this point are separated and folded
down on the sides which form the cup as shown.
These cups are filled with earth and set into earth placed in a box.
The seeds are planted within the cups. When it comes time for
transplanting, the cup with the plant is lifted out and set in the garden
without damage to the plant roots. The paper soon rots away and
gives no trouble to the growing plant.
 Gas Stove for the Dining Table
The stove is made of one piece of No. 6 gauge brass wire and a 6-
in. length of ¹⁄₂-in. gas pipe, A. Drill six ¹⁄₁₆-in. holes in the side of the
pipe, spacing them evenly. Turn a cap on one end of the pipe and fit
a hose cock on the other. Start with the ends of the wire and make
one turn around the pipe, then make loops at both sides, to serve as
feet, and shoulders, on which to set the bread in making toast. From
this point, where the wires come together, twist them for a length of 6
in. They are then spread and formed into a circle about 4 in. in
diameter. The other side, or upright, is made in the same manner as
making the first part.