CAPÍTULO VI Medidas Cautelares
RESOLUCION DIRECTORAL Nº 439-2008-PRODUCE-DGEPP
This third strand of thinking has focused on possible mixed ontological positions where the assumption is that reality consists of both objective social facts and subjective interpretations (critical realism). These ontological positions explore whether a reality or social phenomenon is understood as being either out there (objective), or constructed internally (subjective), or both (Delanty and Strydom, 2003). In paradigms for social work practice, radical humanism is considered to have origins in critical theory and to be aligned with both subjectivist and objectivist traditions (Howe, 1987; Healy, 2005; Fook, 2012). For example, a wide range of approaches such as community-based social work alongside feminism and postmodernism are embraced here (Pease and Fook, 1999; Fook, 2012). Change in social work targets change at a variety of levels (micro, meso, and macro), through
consciousness raising and dialogue aimed at the subjective level but influencing wider social practices (Healy, 2005; Fook, 2012).
Political and contextual trends in social work are said to limit social worker’s critical engagement with the wider context of the work that they do (Parton, 2000). According to Ferguson (2003, 2006) this ‘influenced a paradigm of practice that seeks to reconstruct the idealised theoretical prescriptions of social work’ (cited in Roscoe and Madoc-Jones (2009, p.10). In other words, it seeks to challenge oppressive practices, which consist of a variety of fixed ideas of service users’ problems which can otherwise be sustained and reinforced. Critical social work draws upon Ife’s (1997) Critical Practice and Pease and Fook’s (1999) Postmodern Critical Perspectives. Assumed to be emancipatory educational methods, these enable people to see the links between their experiences and the material conditions and dominant ideology of society (Fay, 1987). The capacity of critical theories to explain sources of oppression in society and take action to transform them is considered a useful tool in the raising of consciousness.
Whether considered philosophical, political or sociological, critical theory embraces a variety of theoretical positions underpinned by a reaction to positivism, and critically deconstructs the notion of a unitary truth that can be known by one way or method in social science enquiry (Comstock, 1982; Healy 2005). Deconstruction associated with Derrida's methods of textual criticism involves unpacking, exploring and understanding the unspoken and implicit assumptions that underpin thoughts and values (Harrison-Barbet, 2001). It embraces a way of logic inspired by Marx, Hegel, Kant, Foucault and Derrida, and can be aligned by the commonality of scientific research with a socio-political purpose (Bernstein, 1990; Lennon and Whitford, 1994; DePoy and Gitlin, 1998). These theories are grounded in the critique of the dominant ideology of the day, and provide a way in which to critically deconstruct social work discourses, exploring and analysing how these might guide practice (Habermas, 1971; Giroux, 1983; Fay, 1987).
Imperative to critical social work, critical theory shares an emancipatory agenda. Finn (1994) argues that a major challenge facing social work has been the ‘call for
change-oriented, value-based models of knowledge development that address people, power and praxis’ (p. 25). (Praxis is a form of reflection in action, understood as the relationship between theory (what we think we know) and practice (what we do as a result). In social work, these ideas are concerned with evoking praxis potential through critical dialogue (Freire, 1970; Fook, 2012). Bernstein (1970) asserts that critical social science is praxis-oriented research which seeks to recover the critical reflection in social disciplines. Thus, how social institutions such as the welfare state condition social regulation, unequal distribution and power. Praxis thus consists of practical action-orientated ways of generating knowledge with the aim of catalysing political or social change (Bernstein, 1970). Critical theory methodologies juxtapose empirical and interpretive accounts to facilitate its dialectical and critical aims (Comstock, 1982; Guba, 1990).
Objectivism here is concerned with socially formed patterns that impinge upon people’s daily lives as unquestioned boundaries, acknowledging how these are historically formed and represent human struggles (Guba, 1990; Harrison-Barbet, 2001). Analysing the manner in which lived experiences can be distorted by false consciousness and ideology, these theories are concerned with reductions in the illusions of human experiences (Harrison-Barbet, 2001). False consciousness and ideology are firmly established ideas in sociology which differ in theoretical assumptions, but in general refer to the ideals we develop in our thoughts (schemas/ideas) in abstract terms, and how these compare to the lived experience of reality. Marx, Hegel and Althusser analyse this concept from a variety of theoretical perspectives (Lancaster, 1959; Harrison-Barbet, 2001). Hegel pinpointed how the state developed a unifying idea of family, giving meaning to what constitutes a family. All subsequent policies in government reflected these ideals, imposing order on the population. Consequently, anyone stepping outside these ideals will become the deviant, for example ‘problem families’ (Lancaster, 1959). These ideological formations underpinning policy objectives in government subsequently provide the moral platform from which the social worker operates.
Critical theory adopts dialectical ways of understanding reality and denotes a philosophy that can be understood as a form of logic, a way of seeing the world; it can be aligned with Descartes, Marx and Hegel’s significant developments of this philosophy. Hegel argued that the multiple systems which make up modem society could be understood as parts of a whole. This is a form of logic based on the fact that any truth is viewed in opposition to false, and is in a continual process of opposition and reconciliation; hence, nothing is absolute (Lancaster, 1959). Reality always shows an identity of opposites and is full of contradictions, and these contradictions are never complete. For Hegel, this is his logic and the opposing point of view is simply not common sense, but rather an opposing philosophy, logic and way of seeing things. What this means is that any reality consists of two opposing components. This includes the thesis and antithesis which interact and influence with one another to form a synthesis (Morgan and Burrell, 1979). This synthesis, the dialectic, is the form of logic. So what we have is an argument between two different philosophies.
For example, any reality of social work comprises two opposing forces. One force is the thesis of social work, understood as the ideals located in ethics and values (socially constructed), which arguably include aspects of false consciousness. The second force is the antithesis of its ideals: a profession located in a realist context of social structures or state social work, based on positivist rational-technical principles said to provide a platform in which to initiate those values. Understood as critical social work (Pease and Fook, 1999; Fook, 2012), these ideas highlight the contradictions of social workers’ role (Corrigan and Leonard, 1978; Dominelli and McLeod, 1989). This form of social work analyses how social structures such as the welfare state impact upon individuals (social workers) seeking to limit the damage of these structures. It incorporates a dialectical view of human behaviour which recognises that structures are (re)created by and through the actions of people (Dominelli, 1997).