A central dilemma for social work has been the apparent choice between working with the individual or working with society. In the British context, Dominelli (1997: 1 54) has referred to "social activists" and "individual interventionists" and the same divisions and changing emphases occur in Aotearoa /New Zealand.
One method of dealing with any dilemma is first to thoroughly explore its meanings and a historical approach is one way of accomplishing this. Analysis of a dilemma frequently resolves the issue by reconstructing the given. In this case, the solution is expressed in the feminist expression: the personal is political. The reconceptualisation of the problem in this way deepens the understanding of what social work is all about. Ehrenreich's
history of social work focuses on this question (Ehrenreich, 1985). He quotes
The locus of social work practice is neither in the "inner psychological", nor in the "outer reality" but in the crucial life space where inner and outer confront each other (Ehrenreich, 1 985: 10).
This is not a thesis on the American history of social work, but Ehrenreich's well-argued chronological and thematic history dep icting the accommodations between social work and the upper classes through p rofessionalisation, is relevant to the history of social work in Aotearoa /New Zealand. Professionalisation and education necessarily go hand in hand. His class-based analysis is a good example of this genre of critical social work thought and offers an analysis of the role played by social work (unconsciously?) in sweetening the pill of capitalism in the nineteenth century, while at the same time answering the call of Christian duty. Later, social workers strove to attain professional status partly for their own sake and partly by way of improving services to clients. Ehrenreich mentioned the rank and file movement, which sprang up in America during the Depression. Its members, recruited hastily into social work, studied the problems of poverty, called for social action and unionisation and later fad ed into acquiescence as experience of agency policy and responsibilities eventually brought its members understanding and identification with the profession (Ehrenreich, 1985: 1 13). The issue of professionalisation is discussed later with relation to the social j ustice movement in Aotearoa/New Zealand. Interestingly, Ehrenreich made no mention of Biestek's fifty year history of the concept of client self determination although Biestek's account, like Ehrenreich's, linked the social, political and economic events to the changing way that the concept of client self-determination was understood.
The term "social caseworker" (Cormack: 1945) gradually made way for that of "social worker" (Butrym: 1978) as the common elements of practice were recognised and named. Social workers, once they identified themselves (often through recognition of casework as their generic practice) invariably formed associations, and sought professional status through training and education (Butrym, 1978; Leiby, 1 978; Younghusband, 1978; Dominelli, 1 997: 155).
A brief look at when significant professional bodies were formed is useful
for comparison with the situa tion in Aotearoa / New Zealand . The
took place long before it occurred in Aotearoa/New Zealand. Chart 3: 2, gives a chronological picture of the formation of international and national professional social work associations.
Chart 3: 2, Chronology of International and National Formation of Professional Social Work Associations:
I n ternational Aotearoa/New Zealand
1 9 2 0 s American Association of Social Workers, open to all
paid social workers, regardless of qualifications British Institute of Hospital Almoners
International Permanent Secretariat of Social
Workers, (Paris)
1 9 3 0 s Qualifications necessary for AASW membership
British Association of Psychiatric Social Workers 1 9 4 0 s Australian Association of Social Workers
1 9 5 0 s International Federation of Social Workers New Zealand Association of Child
USA Council of Social Work Educators Welfare Workers (1949·54)
National Association of Social Workers
1 9 6 0 s New Zealand Association of Social
Workers
1 9 7 0 s British Association of Social Workers and Central New Zea l a nd Social W o r k
Council for Education and in Social Work Council
1 9 8 0 s New Zea l a n d Council for
Education and Training in the
Social Services NZSWTC
1 9 9 0 s Te Kaiawhina Ahumahi Industry
Training Organisation replaced NZCETSS
When founded in 1955, the National Association of Social Workers (USA
)
sought to promote social work identity; to establish a generic base for
common body of knowledge and to see social workers speak in a single voice. These goals were similar to those set by the NZASW which also
included education. In the USA, the CSWE took over from two organisations competing for control of accreditation: the American Association of Schools of Social Work and the National Association of Schools of Social Administration and eventually all schools operated under a nationally recognised curriculum with accreditation standards set by the CSWE (Biestek & Gehrig, 1978: 88). The national associations consolidated
regional and piecemeal efforts at centralisation. This sequence of
consolidation and centralisation of an accrediting body occurred later in Britain, and in Aotearoa/New Zealand.
A significant change of policy took place when, in 1933, the American Association of Social Workers altered the conditions of membership. The decision to limit members to those with professional qualifications in social work has considerable implications for social workers and indicates confidence in the existence of a critical mass of qualified practitioners. It also signifies a common understanding of the nature of social work.
Terms used to express tensions and contradictions between the controlling and empowering aspects of social work may date, but every generation has experienced the same difficulty. Distinctions are drawn between social control, social care and social justice, casework and community work, remedial, preventive and developmental approaches (Benn, 1976). The client may either be helped to adapt to circumstances, or the social worker may attempt to bring about social change or social action on the client's behalf (Middleman and Goldberg, 1974) , or with the client, using empowering and conscientising methods as advocated by Freire in 1972. The individual social worker will tend to focus either on civil rights, human rights, poverty, homelessness, discrimination and other structural inequalities, or on personal distress, crises, emotional trauma, family breakdown, abuse, and use their knowledge and skills to effect beneficial change, macro or micro (Ehrenreich, 1985). Different value positions and insights tend to have their own vocabulary.
An understanding and internalisation of the core values of social work have been an essential part of the educational process involved in becoming a social worker. When the AASW closed ranks in 1933 and insisted that members should not merely be practitioners but also qualified, this was to protect the profession from the influx of untrained, radical novices recruited because of the depression. Although under pressure to increase the number
of social workers, the Association was unwilling to risk losing precious ground gained in the fight for professional recognition (Ehrenreich, 1985). It will be noted that in Aotearoa /New Zealand, the social work profession faced exactly the same dilemma when the NZSWTC was midway through its twelve year existence. The acquisition of social work values takes place through the socialisation of social work students and has been described as part of the hidden curriculum. One of these core values in social work is that of client self-determination, which has been one of the most challenging and central values of the profession (Biestek, 1978).
The ideal of client self-determination may be applied in different ways, according to the social context and common values of the day. Therefore, it is instructive to be aware of how social workers are implementing their commitment to this value. Biestek has been criticised by radical social workers over his concentration on the individual in The casework (1957) in which, it has been argued, he saw social work as merely attempting to find a way whereby a client could, with the worker's respect, be helped to achieve a better adjustment to his or her environment (Jordan, in Philpott, 1987: 25). However, Biestek's later work shows critical concern for this question. As a social worker, he was not alone in faCing the challenge. There is, though, an interesting difference between his position and that of Ehrenreich.
Ehrenreich used a Marxist analysis of class and labour relations to explain the existential difficulty experienced by social workers when confronted with the choice between professionalism for status and security, and professionalism for the sake of client self-determination in the most radical sense of liberation. He is more convincing in accounting for the actions of radical social workers than when discussing those who work at a micro level with individuals and their relationships. Marx, after all, exposed exploitation and the conflictual basis of capitalist society. It follows that the exploited and those in sympathy with them will struggle for social and political freedom. Why, however, do people work in a low paid profession with unsuccessful members of society on a one to one basis? Biestek is well positioned to answer this question, by reference to Christian beliefs and ethical beha viour.
The positions of both Biestek and Ehrenreich are compatible within the overarching framework of social justice, a concept which has room for both
secular and Christian social teaching in relation to the preferential option for the poor, whether they themselves made such connections or not. At the social justice/social action end of the professional social work spectrum there have been (and continue to be) difficulties accommodating to the goals and values of employing agencies.