To begin, social work is not a profession, nor should it be.
Paul Starr, in “The Social Transformation of American Medicine”, defines “profession” as an occupation that:
regulates itself through systematic, required training and collegial discipline;
has a base in technical, specialized knowledge;
has a service rather than profit orientation enshrined in its code of ethics;
has a monopoly granted by the state.
Some members of the social work occupation have worked assiduously to gain these characteristics; these days, social work generally has systematic training and collegial discipline and most—though certainly not all—social workers have a service orientation. Wherever social workers have organized sufficiently, there is a monopoly granted by the state, although the wisdom of this arrangement is questionable, as its fundamental rationale is pecuniary.
The one characteristic that social work surely does not possess is a base in technical, specialized knowledge. Social work is one part sociology, one part psychology, a dash of political economy, at its best an ideology of radical social change, and an enormous amount of heart.
Two considerations that contradict professionalization:
1) Social workers should be opposed to the boundaries that professionalization entails. Concomitant with the desire for higher remuneration is the separation of the professional from the hoi polloi. Higher remuneration and higher status are the yin and yang of professionalization; how can we form an effective alliance with our clients if we insist on being above them?
2) The truly unique aspect of social work is that unlike any other human service occupation, social work incorporates the paradigm of person-in-community and community-in-society, otherwise known as the dialectic of the microsocial and the macrosocial. Neglecting either the microsocial or the macrosocial results in an incomplete method and outcome.
For example, a family owes three months’ rent and is facing eviction; the children are anxious and the parent is depressed. The social worker can:
1) Find resources to pay the back rent;
2) Seek a rental subsidy to prevent a future eviction;
3) Provide (or secure) mental health services for parent and children;
4) Develop a plan to increase the family’s income;
5) Connect the family with an organization working to strengthen public housing or create new forms of social housing;
6) Connect the family with an organization seeking to redistribute wealth.
7) Join with this and other families to fight the racism, sexism, ageism, ableism that divide us and increase the power of the rulers.
Social workers who only address the microsocial elements of their clients’ problems are merely assuring an endless supply of clients in the future; social workers who only address the macrosocial elements of their clients’ problems are not developing leadership and continuity of struggle.
I was fired from the Baltimore City Department of Social Services Homeless Unit for organizing a homeless union with the clients. The agency, a strong proponent of professionalization, defined this characteristic as wearing business attire and engaging in only microsocial practice. Organizing the Baltimore Homeless Union was judged to be a conflict of interest!
I became the first social worker at Health Care for the Homeless and created a nonprofit agency dedicated to a praxis integrating the microsocial and the macrosocial, while reducing the boundaries (e.g., power and pay) within the staff and between the staff and clients. All staff, Board members, and clients were provided opportunities to engage in advocacy, and we paid a living wage.
Perhaps building these sorts of workplaces can produce a society where equality plus freedom equals justice.
コメント