Political Ideologies and Social Work - Essay Example

Running Head: POLITICAL IDEOLOGIES Political Ideologies [The Writer’s Name] [The Name of the Institution] Political Ideologies Introduction Contemporary political ideologies fail to grasp the many facets of privacy. Conservatives mourn the loss of public morality and demand more invasive public scrutiny of private attitudes but ignore the fact that, when the private psyche becomes a political battleground, autonomy is undermined, social peace is endangered, and individuals act in response to the loss of self-possession from side to side elaborate forms of dishonesty and hypocrisy. Liberals fear the erosion of public solidarity and wish to shore it up by insisting we keep divisive attitudes and activities private, but they fail to recognize that any private attitude worth having demands public expression. Libertarians lament the loss of individual freedom when privacy is violated, forgetting that privacy without public accountability produces futile fantasies or virulently antisocial attitudes (Abramovitz, M. 2002, 512-526). According to the latest Innovations in Social Work practice and social work teaching have been credited to a postmodern model. No doubt, postmodernism suggests that fact, meaning, or structure are not fixed or intrinsic in a ultimate external reality but constructed during evolving dialogues and discourses characterized by a limited history and a socio-cultural individuality. No doubt, a basic constituent of postmodernism "has been the challenging of assumptions about truth and reality" (Addams, J. 2000). It has been recommended that this element of postmodernism may be helpful in discover issues of culture, power, domination, social justice, policy-making, and further issues matching with social work values. Others have used elements of postmodern theory in mixture by extra theoretical perspectives in an effort to unite clinical practice with social action. It is obvious that in order to sufficiently chase social justice and deal with issues of power and domination in a clinical context, the bifurcated structure of social work, usually known as micro-macro or clinical and social action, have to somehow be united (Agger, B. 2001). Political Ideologies and Social Work No doubt, Social Work is at a serious stage. Scholars, practitioners, and policy makers are busy in debates over the epistemology, theory base, precedence, and general significance of the profession. No doubt, these debates are fueled by outside forces such as rising financial globalization and disparity, social prohibiting and dislocation, advances in information and communication technologies, sustained trends in the direction of delegation, privatization, and productivity in the human service sector, and the instability of essential human rights. The main theories that at present guide the practice of social work, formulated beside the profession's appearance as a critic of, soothing for, and, some would contend, servant to 20th-century capitalism, appear more and more anachronistic in the face of the uneven global logic of late entrepreneurship. As another expert contends, the hallmarks of capitalism since the 1970s include the increasing concentration of capital in the hands of the few (primarily multinational corporations), the growth of flexible and mobile labor markets that have weakened unions and placed greater pressures on workers,, the decline of older industries and a surge in the service sector, patterns of uneven development, and the emergence of new forms of production and marketing that shape new kinds of workers and consumers (Alvarez, S., 2003). A new social work paradigm is needed to confront these challenges, tensions, and contradictions and to address human concerns that transcend national, geographic, and cultural borders and domains of practice. Social work scholars contend that we need an integrated approach grounded in the context of critical community practice, a greater emphasis on internationalism, the incorporation of a political dimension in practice and the preparation of social workers to serve as interpreters of environments for policy makers and the public, and an engagement with critical postmodern theories that envision social work as an emancipatory project. These issues call for approaches to thought and action that challenge our certainties, acknowledge our partial and positioned perspectives, and enable engagement with radically different ways of interpreting and acting in the world. They offer opportunities to transform social work as we know it into social justice work through the democratization of the processes of knowledge development and the promotion of new forms of partnership and participation. In short, we need a fundamental rethinking of the nature and direction of social work practice as we come to grips with the rapidly changing environment in which we live and work (Bailey, R., & Brake, M. 2001). In this research, we take steps toward a new paradigm of integrated social work theory and political practice that is grounded in the profession's commitment to social justice, informed by its historic possibilities, and responsive to these 21st-century challenges. We argue that the predominant theories and perspectives that inform contemporary social work are inadequate for meeting the current issues that we face. We then examine promising intellectual and political interventions that are being articulated by a range of critical social theorists and consider their value for social work. In particular, we address the important work of contemporary social and cultural theorists who have been articulating a theory of practice which attends to the dynamic, power-laden interplay of structure and human agency. These practice theorists are interested in how existing social, cultural, and political orders constrain human understanding and action while people simultaneously create these very structures through their actions, either reproducing or transforming them. We contend that this practice theory has relevance for social work, particularly in regard to the ways in which we build knowledge of social troubles and modes of intervention (Barber, J. 2005, 30-37). Finally, we outline the Just Practice Framework, which is structured around five key themes meaning, context, power, history, and possibility and discuss its potential for transforming social work thought and practice by providing the basis for critical questions. How do people give meaning to the experiences and conditions that shape their lives? How do we apprehend and appreciate the contextual nature of human experience and interaction? What forms and relations of power shape social relations and experience? Who has the power to have their interpretations of reality valued as "true"? How might a historical perspective provide us with a deeper understanding of context, help us grasp the ways that struggles over meaning and power play out, and enable us to appreciate the human consequences of these struggles? How do we claim a sense of the possible as an impetus for justice-oriented social work practice? By examining the relationship among these key themes, might we be able to conceptualize a shift from social work to social justice work? The Just Practice Framework articulates a linkage of epistemology, theory, values, and practice. It is grounded in a critical understanding of social practice and a political and ethical commitment to social justice. It represents a significant shift in how we think about and practice social work; this shift is necessary for the promotion of social justice in the (post)modern world (Bourdieu, P. 2002). Contemporary Social Work Thought and Its Discontents With Political Ideology In contemporary U.S. social work, systems, strengths, and empowerment approaches rule the theoretical domain. Structural approaches, although less prevalent in the United States than in other national and political contexts, have also influenced social work thought and practice. We will briefly address these approaches, their contributions and limitations, and their impact on our conception of social justice work. We also acknowledge that a range of narrative, constructionist, and postmodern ideas have been expanding the discourse of contemporary social work. Our approach has been informed by these critical interventions, which we discuss briefly in a later section (Bourdieu, P. 2004). Systems Perspectives For the past 25 years, systems or ecological perspectives have dominated social work. These approaches argue that individuals are complex living systems and that human behavior therefore needs to be understood in its broader systemic context. The language of systems theory--boundaries, hierarchy, transaction, homeostasis, feedback, and entropy--has become a key metaphor for conceptualizing human relationships and social work practice. Systems theories were readily adopted into practice with families, groups, and communities in the 1980s. Since the 1980s, this ecological or ecosystems paradigm has powerfully shaped social work thought and practice in the United States. The various articulations of the ecosystems approach have pointed to the fundamental importance of context and have drawn attention to the person-environment relationship. They provide a theoretical basis for social work's uniqueness that is predicated upon the profession's grasp of this relationship. They challenge understandings of social problems based on a medical or personal-deficiency model that emphasizes individual problems or deficits, and they look beyond the individual person when designing solutions (Briar-Lawson, 2001). Furthermore, ecosystems approaches have pointed to social work's historic concern for environmental conditions, as evidenced in the Settlement House Movement and its attention to issues of housing and public health. In short, systems and ecosystems perspectives offer little basis for critical engagement with questions of power. They tend to naturalize arbitrary power differences, and they assume rather than question the dominant social, political, and economic order. These approaches are premised on the positivist view of the social world as a single, objective, and ultimately knowable reality. They offer no epistemological base through which to consider multiple constructions of social reality and the power of thought, language, and structured social interactions that shape those constructions. Systems and ecosystems perspectives focus on extant, "observed" relations and practices rather than on a critical analysis of how these relations and practices have come to be constructed in a particular manner and at a particular historic moment (Carniol, B. 2002, 1-20). Political Personnel’s And Social Work If analyzed the political powers then we come to know that the Assembly reiterated its deep distress and alarm at the extensive violations of the right to life, freedom and security of person, counting the "commonplace practice of torment and précis executions of the opponents of the regime", as well as at ongoing proof of a policy of spiritual intolerance. Profound concern was articulated concerning the number of persons apprehended for seeking to implement their basic human rights and freedoms, and their custody under conditions opposing to internationally documented standards. Moreover, the Assembly noted by great apprehension that human rights violations had caused millions of people to flee their homes and country (Carr, E. 2001). The Special Reporter had relied on the "preposterous allegations" of "mercenary ringleaders", he said, through interpreters provided by "bandit groups" he chose to call "opposition movements". No statement was made of significant measures accept by the Government to promote such basic rights as the rights to health, life, service, shelter, education, safety, freedom of religious consideration and practice, and political faith. His Government discarded the report, which meant to "frame the Government and its genuine and dependable friend, the Soviet Union", and symbolize a stark picture of "dishonesty, manufacture and gross bend of facts". Moreover, the Assembly optional the early continuation of open and bighearted talks towards a complete political resolution which would donate determinedly to an development in the human rights situation. The Government and the opposition should co-operate fully with humanitarian organizations operating in the country; the procedure of reform of the legal system ought to be deepened; and continuance and expansion of reforms were essential to donate to solving the financial and social troubles which were the roots of the interior conflict (Chambon, A., 2001, 15-30). Other action If we analyzed then we come to know that to that end, the Assembly stated, international co-operation ought to aspire at preservation of stable and continued financial growth with concurrent action to augment confessional assistance to rising countries, build world food safety, resolve the debt load, eradicate trade barriers, endorse financial constancy and enhance scientific and technological collaboration. Executions: The Assembly, in declaration 41/144, takes on devoid of a vote, powerfully condemned the great number of précis or random executions, counting extra-legal executions, which sustained to take place. It insist that the practice be brought to an end, and greeting the financial and Social Council's choice to carry on the mandate of the Special Reporter to scrutinize questions related to précis or random executions for a different year. (Coates, J., & McKay, M. 2005, 27-43) The Structural Approach The structural approach to social work, also referred to as the political-economy or conflict perspective, is part of a larger radical social work movement. Structuralists view the problems that confront social work as a fundamental, inherent part of the present social order, wherein social institutions function in ways that systematically maintain social inequalities along lines of class, race, gender, sexual identity, citizenship, and so forth. Informed by Marxist theory, structuralists place questions of conflict and exploitation at the center of social work theory. They see personal problems as the consequence of structural injustice and the resultant unequal access to means and resources of social and economic production. Structuralists raise questions about the historical and material conditions through which inequalities are constructed and experienced. They view clients of social welfare systems as victims of unequal social relations and advocate for systems-changing interventions (Comite Mercosur 2000). Advocates of the structural approach have critiqued systems models for their neglect of power relations and inequality and their emphasis on the maintenance of the established order, rather than its transformation. Structuralists argue that systems approaches assume that the system itself is functional and that people can be aided in their adaptation to existing social arrangements. They contend that systems perspectives view conflict and resistance as deviant, rather than as legitimate consequences of systemic inequalities. Further, structuralists argue that interventions informed by these systems perspectives seldom call for more than the fine-tuning of the liberal, capitalist, democratic, and patriarchal social order. The root causes of social problems go unaddressed (Cowger, C. 2004, 262-268). In contrast, structural social workers start from the assumption that the dominant political and economic order directly contributes to social problems. Thus, the goal of social work practice is the transformation of existing structures into a new order grounded in social justice, egalitarianism, and humanitarianism. Structural social workers challenge the ecosystems assumption that the social environment is a neutral concept. Instead, they attend to the ideological underpinnings of the social order and its relationship to social and material conditions. Structuralists argue that ecological models emphasize stability over change, ignore the conflicts of goals and interests among different groups, and consider existing power inequalities to be the norm. In short, structural social work has made power a central theme and has placed questions of social justice in the foreground (Stephens, R., & Waldegrave, C. 2001, 77-107). While structural social work has been a prominent voice in diverse international contexts of social work theory and practice, it has largely been marginalized in the United States. Structural social workers have been criticized for being too political in their sympathies for a socialist alternative to the dominant order and for being unrealistic about the possibilities of achieving structural change. This approach has also been critiqued for its emphasis on persons as "victims" of structural inequalities rather than as actors capable of participation in the processes of personal and social change. Structuralists have largely embraced a historical materialism that has left little space for the appreciation of human agency, creativity, and the capacity for giving meaning to experience. Ironically, this approach has also been criticized for its failure to recognize the need for person-changing interventions to heal the damage inflicted by systemic inequalities (Swenson, C. R. 2001, 527-539). The Empowerment Approach As Simon (2004) has addressed, social work has a strong tradition of empowering praxis--the mutual interplay of action and critical reflection--that merits appreciative inquiry. However, an empowerment approach to social work has only been gaining prominence in the field during the past decade. A number of new social work texts articulate this perspective, which is premised on the recognition and analysis of power, group work practices of consciousness raising and capacity building, and collective efforts to challenge and change oppressive social conditions. This approach seeks to articulate the linkages between the personal and the political and to build on the traditions of self-help, mutual support, and collective action. Empowerment theorists frequently speak of personal, interpersonal, and political levels of empowerment and advocate forms of practice that engage all three. Some have drawn on both feminist and critical race theories to critique the limitations of competing approaches and to articulate an alternative direction for social work. For example, an expert argues that social work can strive toward greater social justice by simultaneously promoting individual and social transformation. They recognize both the possibilities of human agency and the significance of cultural and political knowledge and history. Expanding the Theoretical Possibilities We have highlighted some of the possibilities and limitations of dominant social work theory. As we have discussed, systems approaches have drawn attention to context. Structuralists have critically attended to power, conflict, and the "order of things." Advocates of a strengths perspective have drawn attention to human agency, creativity, and capacity. Empowerment approaches, along with a number of narrative, social constructionist, and "postmodern" approaches, have variably addressed questions about meaning, power, and knowledge in social work. Some of these approaches have emphasized questions of meaning, others have addressed relations of power and inequality, and a few have attended to questions of history. However, we contend that none of these perspectives have articulated an integrated approach to social work that theoretically and practically links themes of meaning, power, and history to the context and possibilities of justice-oriented practice. They do not prompt us to systematically address questions regarding the production of meaning and difference, the construction of social subjects and structured inequalities, the intersections of multiple forms and relations of power and domination, and the possibilities and constraints of historical conditions. The terrain of discourse and practice circumscribed by the dominant models largely excludes questions regarding the tensions between economic globalization, civil society, and the role of individual states and the ways that these tensions are manifested in people's everyday experience. These issues are fundamental to any grounded discussion of social justice in the 21st century (Thomas, E. J., & Rothman, J. 2004, pp. 3-20). In contrast to the United States, these questions are central to the social work imagination in other national and political contexts. The concerns expressed in these principles reflect these countries' recent political histories and contemporary struggles. Unfortunately, within the dominant constructions of social work in the United States we seldom grapple with the underlying epistemological, ethical, and political issues regarding how we create knowledge of the social world and how we employ that knowledge in social interventions. We may address questions of meaning and interpretation, yet we tend to operate from assumptions of persons and society as knowable, separable entities. Little attention is given to the politics of knowledge production through which particular understandings of social problems and interventions, informed by certainties imbricated in the dominant order, constitute the terrain of what can be discussed or accomplished in social work. In practice, strategies for personal or interpersonal change tend to overshadow the structuralists' interest in institutional transformation. What are some possibilities for challenging the limits of theory and practice and realizing the potential of social justice work? We turn to the diverse and challenging field of critical social theory to address this question (Tomm, K. 2002, 54-59). Understanding Critical Political Ideology and Social Theory Over the past 2 decades there has been considerable attention devoted to the "crises" of theory throughout the social sciences. Critical social theorists have questioned the ideology of scientific objectivity and have explored the social construction of knowledge. Feminism and Critical Race Theories Feminist perspectives have made important contributions to critical social theory, social work practice, and our thinking about just practice. Feminist movements have challenged the political, social, and economic marginalization of women and the systems of thought and practice that have informed and justified gender inequality. Feminist theorists and activists have addressed the connection of the personal and the political and have critically examined the politics of family and everyday life that have contributed to women's oppression. In social work, feminist scholars have explored assumptions about gender, women, marriage, and family that have informed and continue to inform social welfare policies. In their discussion of the integration of gender and feminist thought into social work practice knowledge, Many experts have articulated a set of intellectual and practical guidelines that reflect the principles of feminism and critical theory. Some of these guidelines include the recognition of gender as a complex social, historical, and cultural product; attention to particular histories, contexts, and social formations that challenge universalist assumptions; and the awareness that the end of subjugation, not difference, is the goal of action. These principles undergird our thinking about just practice (Turner, J. H. 2001). Critical theorists have also challenged scientific racism, which is the body of knowledge about race produced within the biological and social sciences that is designed to "prove" the inferiority of people of color. These theorists have addressed the social construction of race, ethnicity, and racist ideologies; the processes of racialization, which is the assignment of racial meaning to a previously neutral event; and the practices of everyday racism as well as the social and institutional structures of inequality. Conclusion The Just Practice Framework challenges us to examine how we give meaning to people's experiences in the context of social work and how certain assumptions gain currency at certain moments in time. It guides us to look at the context of social problems and question the relations of power, domination, and inequality that shape the way knowledge of the world is produced and that decide whose view counts. It pushes us to recognize the importance of history for providing insight on how definitions of social problems and the structuring and shaping of institutions and individuals are time specific and contextually embedded (VanVoorhis, R. M. 2003, 121-133). Many interventions, such as those focusing on character education, sex education, and moral training, are value laden and personal in their orientation. They attempt to inculcate particular values rather than to engage young people in critical questioning of the politics and ideologies embedded in the values. Furthermore, such interventions fail to locate the personal struggles confronting young people in a larger political and cultural context that speaks to the interrelatedness of challenges young people face. Questions of racism, sexism, and classism seldom figure into the construction of the problem or the solutions. And, for the most part, young people remain the passive recipients of services rather than active participants in a process of community change (Vodde, R., & Gallant, 2005, 119-138). If the political debates of the recent past have been too crude to appreciate the finer points of privacy, wrangles over our technological future are likely to be even more opaque. The penetration of private space by information processors has only just begun, as we look "forward" to a future of ubiquitous cameras and devices that monitor everything from health to habitat--information that exists in the form of binary code for effortless but unfettered transmission. In the future, each of us will have our own impersonal biographer as search engines mine databases for every bit of trivia to feed the habits of information junkies (Vodde, R. 2002, 59-80). Reference Abramovitz, M. (2002). Social work and social reform: An arena of struggle. Social Work, 43, 512-526. Addams, J. (2000). Twenty years at Hull House. New York: Crowell/Macmillan. Agger, B. (2001). Critical social theory: An introduction. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Alvarez, S., Dagnino, E., & Escobar, A. (2003). Cultures of politics and politics of cultures: Revisioning Latin American social movements. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Bailey, R., & Brake, M. (2001). Radical social work. New York: Pantheon. Barber, J. (2005). Politically progressive casework. Families in Society, 76(1), 30-37. Bourdieu, P. (2002). Outline of a theory of practice (R. Nice, Trans.). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. Bourdieu, P. (2004). Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste (R. Nice, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Briar-Lawson, K., Lawson, H., Hennon, C., & Jones, A. (2001). Family-centered policies and practices: International implications. New York: Columbia University Press. Carniol, B. (2002). Structural social work: Maurice Moreau's challenge to social work practice. Journal of Progressive Human Services, 3(1), 1-20. Carr, E. (2001). What is history? New York: St. Martin's Press. Chambon, A., Irving, A., & Epstein, L. (Eds.). (2001). Reading Foucault for social work. New York: Columbia University Press. Coates, J. (2002). Ideology and education for social work practice. Journal of Progressive Human Services, 3(1), 15-30. Coates, J., & McKay, M. (2005). Toward a new pedagogy of transformation. Journal of Progressive Human Services, 6(1), 27-43. Comite Mercosur de Organizaciones Profesionales de Trabajo Social y Servicio Social (2000). Principios eticos y politicos para las Organizaciones Profesionales de Trabajo Social del Mercosur [Ethical and political principles for the Professional Social Work Organizations of the Mercosur countries]. Retrieved on October 15, 2001 from http://www.ts.ucr.ac.cr/decla-002.htm Cowger, C. (2004). Assessing client strengths: Clinical assessment for client empowerment. Social Work, 39, 262-268. Stephens, R., & Waldegrave, C. (2001). The effectiveness of the transfer system in reducing poverty in 1998. Social Policy Journal of New Zealand, 16, 77-107. Swenson, C. R. (2001). Clinical social work's contribution to a social justice perspective. Social Work, 43, 527-539. Thomas, E. J., & Rothman, J. (2004). An integrative perspective on intervention research. In J. Rothman & E. J. Thomas (Eds.), Intervention research: Design and development for the human services (pp. 3-20). New York: Haworth. Tomm, K. (2002). Externalizing the problem and internalizing personal agency. Journal of Strategic and Systematic Therapies, 8(1), 54-59. Turner, J. H. (2001). The structure of sociological theory (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. VanVoorhis, R. M. (2003). Culturally relevant practice: A framework for teaching the psycho-social dynamics of oppression. Journal of Social Work Education, 34, 121-133. Vodde, R. (2002). Fighting words and challenging stories in couples work: Using constructionist conflict theory in dealing with marital conflict. Journal of Family Social Work, 6(2), 59-80. Vodde, R., & Gallant, J. P. (2005). Skill training as a facet of self-exploration: A qualitative study of teaching social work methods from a postmodern perspective. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 11(1/2), 119-138. Read More