Social work is a unique profession because it concerns itself with social justice and making institutions responsive to human needs (Dominelli, 2010, Ferguson, 2008, Reisch and Andrews, 2002, Lundy, 2004, Mullaly, 2002). The Canadian Association of Social Workers (C.A.S.W.) defines social work as the following:
“Social work is a profession concerned with helping individuals, families, groups and communities to enhance their individual and collective well-being. It aims to help people develop their skills and their ability to use their own resources and those of the community to resolve problems.
Social work is concerned with individual and personal problems but also with broader social issues such as poverty, unemployment and domestic violence.
Human rights and social justice are the philosophical underpinnings of social work practice. The uniqueness of social work practice is in the blend of some particular values, knowledge and skills, including the use of relationship as the basis of all interventions and respect for the client’s choice and involvement. In a socio-political-economic context which increasingly generates insecurity and social tensions, social workers play an important and essential role” (C.A.S.W. on-line, retrieved June 1, 2012).
Dominelli (2010) outlines the history of social work in Europe as a response to the industrial revolution and, when it spread to North America, a response to further the rationalization for colonization.
“Social work developed as a profession to deal with the social problems emanating from the process of industrialization. It relied heavily on philanthropic initiatives to begin with, but it soon became an outlet for the energies of middle-class women, who were instrumental in challenging definitions of what constituted professional social work, developing its scientific elements and eventually staffing the welfare state. Consequently, social work became a ‘handmaiden’ of the nation-state, especially in Europe, where it became active in colonizing ventures that sought to spread messages about the superiority of Western culture. Its dependency on state funding also meant that social work was unable to finance its own autonomous development. Its low professional status was rooted in this dependent infrastructure and the social devaluation of caring labour. This
has created a problem that persists today, despite its greater role in world affairs through consultative status at the UN” (Dominelli, 2010: 28).
Liberalism can be defined as the, “worldview that emphasizes the importance of the global market, but with allowances for government interventions to correct faults.
Such action is concerned with preserving the existing system and reducing poverty, for example, rather than addressing structural inequalities” (Karabanow, personal communication, 2003 in Campbell, 2003:7). As outlined above, social work has concerned itself with carrying out government policies, even to the detriment of groups of people such as Indigenous people(s).
Specht and Courtney (1994) argue that social work in North America has a socially progressive legacy and that this social perspective is being left behind in pursuit of better working conditions. As a result, social workers are going into private counselling practice that is more psychology-based than social work-based. They further argue that psychology should not be a model for social work practice. “Social workers should not be secular priests in the church of individual repair; they should be the caretakers of the conscience of the community” (Specht & Countney, 1994: 28). Specht and Courtney’s attempt to promote community-based care is reminiscent of the settlement house movement.
Oko (2008) sees the role of social workers as mediators between society and individuals, families, groups and community that may be controlling and/or therapeutic.
The perspective that frames social workers as mediators is a liberal assumption that bypasses the structural root of problems and issues. Models of social work practice can be organized into “those that stress personal deficiency, ecological factors, or the larger political economy” (Lundy, 2004: 52). This third model could extend to all forms of domination and oppression, but generally is focused on seeking reform from the state.
Reisch and Andrews (2002) also talk about the historical tensions between radical and liberal or reformist social workers as well as the repression of radical social workers both within and outside of the profession. There are tensions in social work over the role of social workers in the kinds of work they do (Reisch & Andrews, 2002, Specht &
Courtney, 1994).
Social work has become a professional project rather than a project for social justice (Olson, 2007). “More narrowly, social work’s professional project consists of standardizing and codifying methods of intervention into ‘evidence-based practices’ so that they form a professional standard of care in all of the various venues in which social work is conducted” (Olson; 2007: 47). This is a far cry from a social justice paradigm that is constructionist in nature and starts in reflection and incorporates dialogue-action with others. Evidence-based practice is common in social work practice. With its claim to a scientific standard of ‘the truth,’ it is contrary to constuctionism and to Freire’s pedagogy of the oppressed (1970). Evidence-based practice relies on objectivist epistemology while social construction sees knowledge as a process of engagement with others (Gergen, 2006). Evidence-based practice is top-down, from the experts to the client, whereas constuctionism and Freirian dialogical change models start with engaging
‘with’ others.
Working for social justice calls for action beyond amelioration and reform. If we are to go beyond just maintaining a steady state of neutrality that sides with the status quo, we must work to change our own institutional arrangements (Mullaly, 2002). Until then, the contradictions and incongruence between social work in practice and theory remain. The work of social work is necessary and important yet insufficient when it comes to social justice. Until social justice is attained and sustained over generations we really do not have social justice. Facilitating social justice also requires that we work to change those contextual relations that prevent it from being sustainable (Mullaly, 2002).
Regardless of the size of an organization and the orientation of particular social workers, the disadvantage for service users is that the organizational culture is individualistic and tends to decontextualize the service users. It is almost expected to ask service users to adjust to oppressive situations when we, as social workers feel forced to do the same (Carniol, 2005). The problems that the service user brings to the social worker are seen as resulting from what goes on in the service user’s head, their lack of personal skills, or their inability to cope, where the social context is ignored. For example, Carniol writes about how the orientation and organizational culture are shaped by business and professions’ concerns with efficiency (2005: 93). When writing about the orientation of a social work agency in Canada, Carniol describes how the board of
directors, where he was working, viewed his joining a protest with clients who were on welfare as ‘unbecoming of a professional’ from the board’s perspective of social problems.
“They believed in general that things were being taken care of efficiently and properly, for the basic good of all concerned. The few problems they saw were limited to ‘abuses’ of the system, usually emanating from the service user end of things. Sometimes they saw problems as being caused by ‘bad apples’ or malcontents: social workers who were not trying hard enough to make things work; or service users who were not trying hard enough to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. At the most, they thought, the problems called for some careful, judicious, and ‘realistic’
mediating” (2005: 93-94).
Like everyone, social workers are forced to work in systems of domination because this is the context of the world we all live in. The difference between social workers and, say, plumbers is the social workers’ ethic of social justice. The plumbers’
association (if there is such a thing) does not espouse social justice as a value related to their work. Social workers, like everyone else, need to support themselves and, like everyone else, are trapped working in systems that reproduce themselves. This is a vicious cycle of pushing for reforms to reshape institutions that snap themselves back into their original power structures with each reform.
Social work is a unique profession because it concerns itself with social justice and making institutions responsive to human needs (Dominelli, 2010, Reisch and Andrews, 2002, Lundy, 2004, Mullaly, 2002). Social work however has mainly played the role of mediating between the state and the oppressed. Social work can no longer afford to sustain a practice model based on helping service users cope or adjust to unjust circumstances (Mullaly, 2002). In order for social work practice to remain credible it cannot be content with ‘systems tinkering’. As Mullaly (2002: back cover) declares, “If, in our personal lives and in our social work practice, we assist in making oppression acceptable by helping people to cope with it or adjust to it, we not only fail them, we fail ourselves and we become the problem.” Social work is most at home ameliorating suffering, advocating on behalf of clients, and asking the government to make changes to policies. Working for improvement in policies, taxation, political representation and other areas that impact the options and opportunities of individuals is a significant area of
social work attention. Neutrality in the face of injustice is an ethical blunder. To do nothing supports the status quo and therefore is complicit with systems of injustice.