Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
com/
A critical analysis of the social work definition according to the relational paradigm
Fabio Folgheraiter and Maria Luisa Raineri International Social Work 2012 55: 473 originally published online 3 April 2012 DOI: 10.1177/0020872812440588 The online version of this article can be found at: http://isw.sagepub.com/content/55/4/473
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
International Association of Schools of Social Work International Council of Social Welfare International Federation of Social Workers
Additional services and information for International Social Work can be found at: Email Alerts: http://isw.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://isw.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
>> Version of Record - Jun 26, 2012 OnlineFirst Version of Record - Apr 3, 2012 What is This?
440588
ISW
Article
i s w
International Social Work 55(4) 473487 The Author(s) 2012 Reprints and permission: sagepub. co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0020872812440588 isw.sagepub.com
A critical analysis of the social work definition according to the relational paradigm
Fabio Folgheraiter
Catholic University, Milan, Italy
Abstract In this article, we attempt to conduct a critical analysis of the joint IFSW and IASSW social work definition by re-reading it from the perspective of the relational paradigm. Our hypothesis is that if we adopt a precise position that focuses on the essentials, rather than seeking to pull together different and sometimes discordant perspectives, it might be possible to overcome some discrepancies and difficulties evident in the current definition. The intention is to identify the core of social work without undermining the paradigmatic openness of it. Keywords reciprocity of help, relational approach, self-determination, social change, social work definition
Introduction
The enduring problem of intuitively representing the essence of social work (Bartlett, 1958) has induced the International Federation of Social Workers
Corresponding author: Fabio Folgheraiter, Sociology Department, Catholic University, L.go Gemelli 1, Milano 20123, Italy. Email: fabio.folgheraiter@unicatt.it
Downloaded from isw.sagepub.com at Central European University on November 25, 2012
474
(IFSW) and the International Association of School of Social Work (IASSW) to work together to formulate a Definition Statement officially approved by both IFSW and IASSW at their respective General Assemblies in 2000 and by both organizations jointly in 2001. It runs as follows:
The social work profession promotes social change, problem solving in human relationships and the empowerment and liberation of people to enhance wellbeing. Utilising theories of human behaviour and social systems, social work intervenes at the points where people interact with their environments. Principles of human rights and social justice are fundamental to social work. (Hare, 2004: 418)
The text is dense, and carefully thought out. Although the definition was intended to be a cornerstone of professional thought, this valuable aim has been achieved only partially. In this article, we conduct a critical analysis of the definition by re-reading it from a particular point of view, that of the relational paradigm (Donati, 2010; Folgheraiter, 2004, 2007). Folgheraiter (2007) defines relational social work as a practice paradigm in which practitioners identify and resolve problems by facilitating coping networks (conceived as a set of relationships between people interested in a common aim) to enhance their resilience and capacities for action at both individual and collective levels. Participative and inclusive ways of working are engaged to mobilize and develop supportive and problem-solving networks that can include both family members, friends, neighbors and professional as teachers, health workers and social workers. Relational social work focuses on relationships as the basis for change. The central idea is that change emerges from a reciprocal aid. The practitioner helps the network to develop reflexivity and improve itself in enhancing welfare, and in turn - the network helps practitioner to better understand how he/she can help it, even when the matter is to counter structural inequalities. Although intended to provide for broader understandings of persistent social problems, it is developed within a Western social context, so can only be applied elsewhere with caution. Nevertheless, a number of good social work practices implemented in non-Western context can be well understood in the light of the relational paradigm. Our hypothesis is that if we adopt a precise position which focuses on the essentials, rather than seeking to pull together different and sometimes discordant perspectives, as the current definition does, it might be possible to move in new directions, although intrinsically unsettled ones (Rossiter, 2011). The relational paradigm overturns the normally taken-for-granted assumptions in mainstream social work: that is, that if we exploit the prescriptions furnished by scientific knowledge, it is possible to eliminate
475
peoples problems. This salvationist claim is gainsaid by relational theory, which provocatively suggests that it is the human energy that emanates from motivated people that resolves the problem of the apparently growing inefficacy of welfare systems. It is sociality and humanity, modulated in the correct ethical and scientific terms, that legitimate whatever helping practices are adopted.
476
impact unilaterally with beneficiaries or end-users. Even when a social worker acts as a mere cog in one of those mechanisms, she or he is still a social worker because she or he is acting as a fluidifier of human reflexivity (Seikkula and Arnkil, 2006). Whatever his or her institutional status may be, a social worker acts in such a way that the interested parties can so long as they are recipients of services always evaluate those services and discuss them on an equal footing with the professionals who deliver them (Barnes, 1997). For the above reasons, the analysed expression could be reformulated as follows:
The professional arena of social work is the set of the various social professions carried out within or without national welfare systems . . .
477
actional, and therefore relational, because it always presupposes an associated (social) action, that is, a joint will to attain a desired improvement, a change which, it is hoped, will be for the better and therefore lead to recovery (if not to a solution). It is not, therefore, any change whatever that is of interest to social work; but rather, since social work is a welfare profession, a recovery which changes for the better human living conditions that are perceived as precarious and poor. The well-known relativistic dilemma (the question of establishing what exactly constitutes the good: is it what I say it is, or what you say it is?) typical of applied ethics, and which is always likely to arise in any situation where subjectivity is prominent, attenuates in the day-to-day practice of social workers. This is due to the remedial intrinsic nature of social work. Social workers generally intervene in severe hardship situations where establishing what is right, or at least what is openly wrong, is usually immediate (for example: in the case of an alcoholic who abuses his children and asks for help, it is he himself who suggests that it would be good if he gave up drinking and stopped being abusive; even if the drinker does not acknowledge the problem and it is his or her partner who asks for help, it is obvious that it would be good if he or she quit drinking and abusing). Relational theory assumes that every human being has an innate drive although sometimes covert or blocked towards the good (a life more human), and that this drive is more powerful when, because of various ordeals or misfortunes, people find themselves in the bad to the point that they have grown tired of it. It is in these circumstances, where people have an acute awareness of the hardship in which they find themselves or into which they may fall, that the most powerful internal energies are unleashed to achieve change, and at the same time to seek alliances and human support that is, to construct social bonds of trust. If, by contrast, people perceive themselves at ease, there will not be the self-motivation to change. Also, prevention is driven by a fear of the bad. Even if the bad does not exist at present, it is still foreseen in our minds, and as such exists now. As we said, the desired change which inspires social work moves in two directions: a) a direct change in community, family or individual lifestyles; and b) a change in the institutions and normative/administrative systems which may affect peoples lives in a certain place or time. In order to reorganize their lives on more salubrious, more human principles, people may direct their actions against these structural situations. Also in this latter case, social work is circumstantial and particularistic, and it aims to achieve changes brought about from below by responsible, motivated individuals. When institutional changes or reforms are driven from above, the change is political, and not attributable (except perhaps indirectly) to a primary social
478
action. When changes are made through violence or fiat (even with a view to a perfect good or justice), they do not pertain to social work, because they are extraneous to its underlying values (IFSW and IASSW, 2004). The analysed expression could therefore be reformulated as follows:
[Social work] promotes and accompanies the desired social changes which emerge as a reaction from shared perceptions of severe hardship, actual or potential, in social life . . .
479
opposed to miserable, relationships (Ramsay, 2003). Unlike a systemic therapist, a relational social worker will always believe, until proved wrong, that if peoples desire to solve their problems by helping each other is cultivated and supported, it will always prevail over their unconscious, mechanical, self-hurting. The analysed expression could therefore be reformulated as follows:
[Social work] promotes problem-solving, whatever the origin of the problems, by exploiting the energy present in human relations . . .
480
and enable them to overcome their own shortcomings and environmental constraints, and therefore the problems which assail them. For social work professionals, the obligatory way to create power is to take a step back and relinquish some of their own power. Here we follow Levinas and also refer to subtle powers such as the exercise of knowledge and professional representation (Dominelli, 2002; Parton and OByrne, 2000; Rossiter, 2011). Social workers promote empowerment when, notwithstanding their role, they express trust in such a way that they leave weak individuals (how weak they need to be we shall see later) free to find their own escape routes, thereby respecting the typically human need for conscious self-determination. Professionals have a role, and they perform it, but it is supervisory and facilitatory rather than manipulative and technical. Thereafter, experts may achieve greater power for themselves from the betterment of persons who are motivated to change. Because their role is facilitating success of this kind, social workers receive in exchange the emotional benefit implicit in doing a job well and delivering what has been promised. Both experts and interested parties work together on a synergic search for a common good.1 In genuine relational social work, there is not one party who seeks to provide well-being to another; everybody pursues the well-being of everyone else together. Generally speaking, the relational approach maintains that every interaction between a professional and a social network including individuals within it, should be authentically and radically reciprocal. By definition, a social worker recognizes and boosts the freedom of action of those being helped, even to the extreme extent that other peoples freedom, when constructively used, becomes to all intents and purposes an indispensable support to the social workers own humanity, and, therefore, to his/her capability to do his/ her work most effectively. The reciprocity of help letting the person being helped be an equal and help us is not an empty slogan, or something which is better if it exists. It is a radical turning point, because if it is absent that is, on the null hypothesis that those being helped do not reciprocate help to their helpers the help withers and dies (Beresford and Croft, 2004). Both human agents in a true helping relationship aid each other (Pettersen and Hem, 2011) in a twofold sense: to undertake their shared task, operating to all intents and purposes as co-workers, and to improve their personalities by virtue of the liberating experience of trusting each other. The analysed expression could therefore be reformulated as follows:
In accordance with the spirit of empowerment, [social work] promotes the liberation of people by showing trust in their real powers of initiative, so that they feel that they are able to contribute towards the building of common well-being, and even to help the helping professionals in [the] exercise of their statutory tasks.
481
482
7.6. Social work intervenes at the points where people interact with their environments
In light of everything said thus far, we may once again ask a terminological question: does social work really intervene? The word intervene literally means interfere in other peoples business, to modify it according to my idea, as Levinas (1972) would say. We may doubt that social work seriously understands the word in this sense. In actual fact, social work accompanies, facilitates and offers guidance. It only intervenes as a last resort. Having said this, with regard to the considered expression, it is still of interest to ask in what sense the locus of an imaginary intervention of this kind might be that mysterious razors edge, where people interact with their environments. However, the statement is part of mainstream theory in social work. The literature has always stressed interaction with the environment, in order to emphasize that distance must be maintained from all those forms of introspection typical of psychology. If we examine the issue more carefully, however, some serious semantic issues arise. By definition, there is an interaction between two distinct parties if both of them act in relation to each other. Yet it is doubtful that a given environment can act in regard to individuals: the environment is an amorphous container indifferent to its creatures, let alone concerned to interact with them. It is also doubtful that human beings literally act with the environment. Strictly speaking, people interact only with other living beings on a par with them, while they are all influenced by the impersonal environments in which they act.2 Relational theory accepts that social difficulties powerfully influence, for better or worse, the desire and capability of people to establish bonds: when the matters to be remedied concern serious questions of life itself. If not a question of survival, their associative efforts become more intense and more productive. We know that individuals who are vulnerable frequently isolate themselves because of embarrassment or a suspicion of others. But here we are discussing relational potential, which remains intact amid difficulties, and indeed is stimulated by them. If these individuals are helped to join together in a united whole such as a group, they will usually seize such opportunities and soon realize their benefits (as in mutual help groups; see Steinberg, 2004). Environments raise challenges or create niches within which people can, if they so wish, develop shared strategies for action. The analysed expression could therefore be reformulated as follows:
Social work operates at the points where people interact among themselves, joining together to more effectively cope with shared difficulties within their environments.
483
7.7. Principles of human rights and social justice are fundamental to social work
Social work has always held the values of human rights and social justice in high esteem (Healy, 2008). However, the term fundamental can be used simply to state that these principles are of great importance, for example in deontological terms, so that as social workers do good they never inadvertently breach those fundamental values. Similarly, one may say that specific social work practices are geared to the defence of human rights and justice. But it is quite different to claim that the protection of human rights or social justice is the main operational responsibility of social workers, as if fulfilling these rights or guaranteeing them directly were the essential competence of the profession. The definition is ambiguous on this point, though it should instead make it explicit. If we ask where the responsibility to ensure general respect for human rights and social justice lies, we must reiterate that it lies primarily with politics. Social workers are closely concerned with these principles (OBrien, 2011), but it is doubtful that they can work primarily to establish them or to guarantee them in a general and abstract sense (Murdoch, 2011). This is the task of political systems, and of social policy in countries with mature welfare systems. The defence of social justice through redistribution or the protection of fundamental human rights is the statutory duty of welfare systems in countries where they exist and therefore of policymakers, who work to protect these principles through universal measures. Social work does not operate on a massive, impersonal scale: it always works directly with real people, here and now.3 The fundamental and deeply humanistic principle with which social workers must comply in their professional tasks is the inalienable right of the users to activate themselves, and, if they wish, to associate to deal with their problems, as they themselves have defined them. If we look at the ethical roots of the profession, and conceive justice and rights as the cornerstones of its methodology, then we can appreciate the tone of the global definition. Thus we can only state that: a) the right to be actively involved in decisions which relate to a persons life is a fundamental human right even if that person has accepted welfare services and professional interventions; and b) it is an elementary principle of social justice (a kind of restorative justice) that social workers establish wholly human contact to ensure that the aspirations of the weakest individuals are fully heard, and support them until these have been fulfilled. It is only with these semantic specifications that we may say that the two principles mentioned in the definition pertain in essence, even if only tangentially, to social work practices.
Downloaded from isw.sagepub.com at Central European University on November 25, 2012
484
More simply, the principle lying at the root of social work is the classic one of self-determination. The essential, and truly exclusive, constituent principle of a relational profession like social work is that Otherness must be respected as far as possible, and that each individual must be enabled to achieve good in his or her life in the manner that she or he wishes, within the limits of his or her constitutional rights and obligations, and thereby become the controller of his/her own life under all even the most adverse circumstances. This celebrated principle must necessarily be cited in any definition of social work, which by definition manipulates the lives of human beings most vulnerable to abuses even those unintentional abuses which may paradoxically originate from the good intentions of the helpers themselves (Illich, 1977; Rossiter, 2011). Another fundamental principle is the principle of reciprocity, connected with the famous golden rule of ethics the duty not to do unto others what you would not have them do to you. In social work, besides its obvious deontological implications, the principle of reciprocity has a crucial methodological significance: in any helping relationship, the help is only produced when the worker accepts help from the interested parties as if they themselves were workers. The principle of reciprocity states that terms like workers and users are misleading categories in social work because in a true helping relationship, each human being simultaneously gives and receives help (Folgheraiter, 2004). The analysed expression could therefore be reformulated as follows:
The principles of self-determination and reciprocity, as well as the defence of human rights and the redress of concrete social injustices, are fundamental to social work.
Conclusions
We represent but one suggestion in the debate about a definition of social work that has universal relevance. The preceding arguments that we have made result in our concluding with the following refinement to the existing definition. The professional arena of social work is the set of the various social professions carried out within or without national welfare systems. Based on all the social sciences, with special reference to phenomenological and humanistic oriented ones, social work promotes problem-solving, regardless of the origin of the problems, by exploiting the energy present in human relationships. The principles of self-determination and reciprocity, as well as the defence of human rights and the redress of concrete social injustices, are fundamental to social work. Social work operates at the
485
points where people interact with each other and come together to cope more effectively with shared difficulties within their particular environments. Social work promotes and accompanies the desired social changes which emerge as a reaction from shared perceptions of severe hardship, actual or potential, in social life. In accordance with the spirit of empowerment, social work promotes the liberation of people by showing trust in their real powers of initiative, so that they feel they are able to contribute towards the building of common well-being, and even to help the helping professionals themselves in the exercise of their statutory tasks. Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Notes
1. So, that is a relational good, as Donati (2007: 11) writes: The relational goods are those that can be produced and enjoyed only together with ones who are concerned in them. 2. It should be noted, obviously, that other people also constitute a social and socio-cultural environment. But here it should be specified that my interacting with Tom, Dick or Harry to achieve common goals is different from my living in a wider society which affects me in various ways, with its customs and rules (Archer, 2003). 3. As Lipsky (1980) has argued, the decisions taken at the front line make policy effective, but these micro-practices themselves are not the policy line.
References
Archer, M. (2003) Structure, Agency and the Internal Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Barnes, M. (1997) Care, Communities and Citizens. Harlow: Addison Wesley Longman. Barnes, M. and R. Bowl (2001) Taking Over the Asylum: Empowerment and Mental Health. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Bartlett, H. (1958) Working Definition of Social Work Practice, Social Work 3(2): 58. Beresford, P. and S. Croft (2004) Service Users and Practitioners Reunited: The Key Component for Social Work Reform, British Journal of Social Work 34: 5368. BASW (1997) The Code of Ethics for Social Work, rev. edn. Birmingham: BASW. Dominelli, L. (2002) Anti-oppressive Social Work: Theory and Practice. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Dominelli, L. (2004) Social Work: Theory and Practice for a Changing Profession. Cambridge: Polity Press.
486
Donati, P. (2007) Birth and Development of the Relational Theory of Society: A Journey Looking for a Deep Relational Sociology. Available online at: http://www.relationalstudies.net (accessed 19 October 2011). Donati, P. (2010) Relational Sociology: A New Paradigm for the Social Sciences. London: Routledge. Ferguson, H. (2001) Social Work, Individualization and Life Politics, British Journal of Social Work 31(1): 4155. Folgheraiter, F. (2004) Relational Social Work: Toward Networking and Societal Practices. London: Jessica Kinsley. Folgheraiter, F. (2007) Relational Social Work: Principles and Practices, Social Policy and Society 6(2): 26574. Hare, I. (2004) Defining Social Work for the 21st Century. The International Federation of Social Workers Revised Definition of Social Work, Interna tional Social Work 47(3): 40724. Healy, L.M. (2008) Exploring the History of Social Work as a Human Rights Profession, International Social Work 51(6): 73548. Hutchings A. and I. Taylor (2007) `Defining the profession? Exploring an international definition of social work in the China context, International Journal of Social Welfare 16 (4): 382390. IFSW and IASSW (2004) Ethics in Social Work, Statement of Principles. Available online at: http://www.ifsw.org/f38000032.html (accessed 19 October 2011). Illich, I. (1977) Disabling Professions. London: Marion Boyars Publ. Ltd. Levinas, E. (1972) Humanisme de lautre homme. English transl. Humanism of the Other. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press. Lipsky, M. (1980) Street-level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation Lorenz, W. (2001) Social Work in Europe: Portrait of a Diverse Professional Group, in S. Hessle (ed.) International Standard Setting of Higher Social Work Education. Stockholm: Stockholm Studies of Social Work. Murdoch, A. (2011) Is Social Work a Human Rights Profession?, Social Work 56(3): 193288. OBrien, M. (2011) Social Justice: Alive and Well (Partly) in Social Work Practice?, International Social Work 54(2): 17490. Parsloe, P. (1996) Pathways to Empowerment. Birmingham: Venture Press. Parton, N. and P. OByrne (2000) Constructive Social Work: Towards a New Practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Pettersen, T. and M.H. Hem (2011) Mature Care and Reciprocity: Two Cases from Acute Psychiatry, Nursing Ethics 18(2): 21731. Putnam, R.D. (2002) Democracies in Flux: The Evolution of Social Capital in Contemporary Society. New York: Oxford University Press. Ramsay, F.R. (2003) Transforming the Working Definition of Social Work into the 21st Century, Research on Social Work Practice 13(3): 32438. Rossiter, A. (2011) Unsettled Social Work: The Challenge of Levinass Ethics, British Journal of Social Work 41(5): 98095.
487
Schn, D.A. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books. Seikkula, J. and T.E. Arnkil (2006) Dialogical Meetings in Social Networks. London: Karnac Books. Sen, A. (1999) Development as Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Smith, M. and B. Whyte (2008) Social Education and Social Pedagogy: Reclaiming a Scottish Tradition in Social Work, European Journal of Social Work 11(1): 1518. Steinberg, M.D. (2004) The Mutual-aid Approach to Working with Groups: Helping People Help One Another, 2nd edn. London: Routledge. van Ewijk, H. (2009) Citizenship-based Social Work, International Social Work 52(2): 16779. Webb, S. (2010) (Re)Assembling the Left: The Politics of Redistribution and Recognition in Social Work, British Journal of Social Work 40(8): 236479.
Author biographies
Fabio Folgheraiter is Professor in the Sociology department at the Catholic University, Milan, Italy. Maria Luisa Raineri is a researcher in the Sociology department at the Catholic University, Milan, Italy.