Prikaz objav z oznako methods. Pokaži vse objave
Prikaz objav z oznako methods. Pokaži vse objave

ponedeljek, 5. avgust 2019

THE BREAKTHROUGH OF THE SOCIAL Dubrovnik Draft Manifesto (Version 1.2)[1]





The Social

The aim of the conference is to reassert, or even reinstate, social work. However, it is also about the social re-emerging or even breaking through as real action. 

After decades of a diminished social, a conjuncture that has privileged the economic and neglected and downgraded the social dimension as the basis of our existence, there is an urgent need for the breakthrough of a brand-new social, analogous to the one superseding classic liberalism at the end of the 19th century in the Global North.

Social work has, not only to be a part of this breakthrough, strengthened by this emergence and enabled to survive as an essential feature of society, but also needs to play an active role in bringing it to fruition.

Radical Social Transformations

We are living, in Polanyi’s terms, through yet another great transformation: a radical transformation. The transformation of the future will be radical anyway, whether we give up and merely observe the collapse of civilisation, or if we try to bring about a more socially just world, based on the common good and on living together – actively preserving that which is good, including the natural world and the eco-system, and radically changing what does not work. Globalisation, digitalisation, forced migration, demographic change, a changing division of labour, etc., have all exposed us to unprecedented, and sometimes unseen risks, but has also created numerous new opportunities in terms of communication, mobility, diversity, productive capacity and culture. Yet we crave for security (both social and physical) and fear violence, which keeps emerging in new forms and with a growing intensity.

The natural and political dimensions of the catastrophe merge into one through global warming, caused by fossil capitalism and the need to turn natural resources into profit. They are epitomised by migration, including migration forced as a result of conflicts, climate change and/or economic misery; fear exploited by authoritarianism (containing and fuelled by many kinds of religious fundamentalisms of many kinds , growing and massive inequality created by neo-liberal regimes, and the removal of liberties and freedom (gentrification for the rich – immobility for the poor), growing exploitation through new forms of work in the so-called gig economy, an expanded precariat, with deep psychological and social consequences, making human existence precarious indeed.

Yet, there have been important developments towards an inclusive society. The rights of people with disabilities and children have been clearly stated, enshrined in global Conventions, and, albeit with some hiccups, implemented on the ground, although not fully. Deinstitutionalisation and long-term care, have been introduced, not without obstacles, contributing to a re-evaluation of old age (Old is good), madness, handicap, childhood, and disability. More and more new social movements keep arising desiring a better, more dignified, life connecting the grassroots and global scales. New, alternative, forms of economic relations are being developed and a new kind of urban revolution seems to be imminent, not least in the Fearless cities movements. Although the age of austerity seems to be waning, what post-austerity will look like is still under construction. Trades unions, including trades’ unions of social workers, need to adapt to new forms of work and to advocate for measures to benefit the whole of society. 

Wisdom of Social Work Interfaces

To steer the transformation toward human solutions, practical wisdom is needed. The role of social work is to do just that; even more, it has to safeguard and promote the local or indigenous knowledge of minorities so it withstands and has impact on the global rule of abstract schemes. Ordinary everyday life – the Life World - should become the basic and pragmatic criterion of policy change and mutations – assuring the sovereignty of people (over the abstract schemes).

Besides the unalienable mandate of social work to provide the everyday, users’ perspective on life and the world, the strength of social work lies in bringing together unseemly combinations of knowledge and logic of action. The major sources of social work action syntheses are ethics, organisation and politics. There is the need to know what is the right thing to do, how to organise the transition and where to get the power to do it. Social work’s ethics of Inclusion and imperative of non-exclusion provide the humanist synthesis of the broken dialectics of Reason/ Unreason. To follow its ethical imperatives, forms of self-management (rather than social service management) should be sought. Social work engagement in politics needs to stem from popular activism and a  politics of intersectionality and emotions.

The practical power of social work lies in its transversal, inter-disciplinary, approach and inter-sectoral position. The Welfare (State) needs to be reinvented on the grounds of a critical evaluation of the post-socialist (with post-austerity in mind) syntheses (Balkan, East, Third World) and social work’s role in the bottom-up construction of social policies asserted. Social work has to create productive links with the human disciplines and sectors. In education, social work can contribute to learning in action and provide the solutions to schooling problems (bullying, teacher protection). In health, being constantly in relation with social work, it can bestow the importance of the user’s perspective, involvement and participation leading to a holistic approach to health and well-being. In combining legal frame and social process (in the law and administration), it can counter the debasing practices and bureaucratisation with empowering and advocacy practices. 

Practical Utopias (Challenges for Social Work)

Social work is a practical, everyday Utopia (Basaglia), it is always about becoming, searching for a better place, more human and more social. It has to have a (utopian) goal of desire – be it about changing for the better or conserving what is good. In its history, social work has developed many productive Tools, which need to be re-strengthened and re-loaded, with new alternatives sought and built. With classic tools and stories joined by new ones and governed by the notion of users’ emancipation.

Comparative social work should enable the transfer and translation of good practices, not only across diverse national and local contexts, but also over the life cycle in working with children and youth, the old, families facing multiple challenges, with people with diverse labels – poverty, delinquency, disability, heavy mental health concerns and so on. An intersectional approach should focus on the inter-relationship between gender, age, ‘race’, class, sexuality, and disability. Specific attention needs to be focused on providing appropriate support for LGBTQ emancipation and to the attitudes to refugees and migrants and the role of social work in this area.

Deinstitutionalisation, which has in recent decade become a global platform, needs an overview and a context, an appreciation of its achievements, obstacles and traps and a vision how to handle it as a technology and an ethical imperative. Simultaneously it has to be sensitised and polemic to the remaining elements of oppression, detention, constraint, punishment and even torture in the care system. Long-term care, which aspires to become a universal provision is a challenge per se and needs to be consistently and radically implemented as such – to connect with other types of existing provision in order to become universally available. Attention needs to be brought on instances of increased power of service users (e.g. shared decision-making, co-managers, co-trainers and co-researchers)

There are new areas social work is entering into (such as green social work) and new means of performing social work (such as through social media and new technologies).  There is a constant struggle between social work and fragmentising governance and management. In the past decades social work has been under attack of ‘proceduralism’ and projectualism/projectisation, even if social work has invented practical solutions to resolve the formal contradictions between protection (care) and freedom.

Increasing atomisation, individualisation and impotence of a practice based solely on individual social work, calls for a Reinvention of community social work and action (also to challenge the rise of religious fundamentalisms and authoritarian neoliberalisms).

The challenge for social work today is to build a vision that will guide us through new areas, foster and preserve freedoms based on (social) security, dealing simultaneously and comprehensively with diverse adversity and enabling people (both professionals and users) to address life issues in a transversal and intersectional manner; enabling people to live together with minimum exclusion and maximum availability of support for personal and communal projects, without fearing the consequences of oppression and without becoming prey to authoritarian power.




[1] This draft of the manifesto is based on the ideas of the conference content brainstormed by the programme committee and compiled by Vito Flaker. It is 'a draft' – subject to comments, suggestions and additions by the participants before and during the conference The Breakthrough of the Social: Practical Utopias, Wisdom and Radical Transformations – Social Work @IUC: Lessons Learned and Future Challenges. The conference will be held at Inter-University Centre in Dubrovnik, 2–6 September 2019, organised by the IUC ‘School of Social Work Theory and Practice’. 

ponedeljek, 23. april 2018

Contingencies of resettlements (Macedonia) - methods and reception





Little is known of methods used in the first resettlement action (Kriva Palanka). In the first wave of resettlements for Demir Kapija, the methods of assessment and training of the residents that would eventually leave were extensively used. The other part of work was to create day centres, recruit the fosterers and instruct them. In the second wave, the process was planned as by the book and there was more accent on getting the institution as whole involved, more assessment was done on the institution and its resources (staff, amenities). The future carers had a brief but intensive and up to date training. However, it seems something went wrong in the relationships and not everything went the way it was planned and created a schism between the institution, its staff and the external actors who were instrumental in the resettlement process. It looks like the crew responsible for the project got focus on the outcomes and did not let the process stop the resettlements.

Personal plans were used in that period, but not as a basic instrument of resettlement (as a resettlement plan), since the residents were moving collectively into group homes. They were used more to foster users’ perspective, to get the idea of likes and dislikes of the residents exiting the institution. Although the staff of new services has this knowledge, they do not use it as the main tool of the service delivery. We can assume that this is partly the case also because there is not a perspective of move from the group homes on.

That something was lost in terms of the methods during the process is also the impression received in Demir Kapija. Through the years, they have been exposed through various projects, to many methods and some have been developed on their own (cf.: teamwork in the annexe). However, the context of their work and the depressive attitude of resisting change has made staff less motivated to use those trainings and new methods of working. Nevertheless, the methods of ‘intensive interaction’ and personal planning introduced to Demir Kapija staff in recent months have been seen as important contribution to their work, tools of value in the future resettlements and were welcome. These two ways of working seem to be of great importance, since they provide tools of understanding and breaching the gap between the residents who are not able to express themselves in conventional manner and give the staff the vision of what they want, like and wish in their lives. Coupled with training in teamwork, organising new community services, risk taking and assessment methods and change management they would form a necessary pack that the staff of transforming institution should possess.

The reception of the community of the resettled residents was mainly good and welcoming. The interviews with various community members confirm this. They know that conditions in the institutions are bad, but often do not see the alternative since (as noted above) they believe that institutions are as a place where people are treated, cared for – “they have a doctor there (which in fact they have not) and can be given medicaments; they are better off in there than staying home”. Some more informed members of community have heard of the deinstitutionalisation or when they hear what it is about, they approve it and see its merit. A special educator in one of the day centres supports the process, but warns about the conditions that need to be fulfilled, i.e. that it is done completely and that all the residents have a chance for better life.

It looks like ex-residents were as a rule well received and that there was not much of the resistance against the new comers. The NIMBY (not in my back yard) effect was recorded, paradoxically, only in an attempt of the infants’ home to establish a group home for the children that out-grew the requirements of the institution (surpassed the age of three). The group home was planned to be in a ‘well-to-do’ suburban community and parents in the area petitioned against it – not wanting that their children would be in the same kindergarten with Gipsies. The discrimination and racism presented was, in this case, not against the disability but against Roma (children).

The protagonist of the second wave resettlement emphasise that it was more difficult for the users to be accepted by the neighbours and to access other services in Skopje rather than in Volkovo, which is a small community (settlement or village) close to Skopje, the people are friendlier and are accepting the users much easily. Here, the development of the users is much easier because after the day activities and according to personal wishes they go to the city for leisure and entertainment, visiting cultural and sports events etc. In Negotino, which is also a smaller local community, people are more tolerant and willing to provide help; the users have more opportunities to use local services and resources.  This opinion is partly true, but partly can be seen as a rationalisation of the fact that they had to move out of Skopje for economic reasons and we should be careful not to have over idyllic expectations regarding future resettlements. There are good and bad sides of different environments. While there is more of a community spirit and less anomia in smaller towns and communities, the city folks are more tolerant and there are more opportunities (e.g. for service support) in the cities.

The strong value and the norm of hospitality, generousness and compassion in Macedonian culture definitely helps the reception of people who return from the institutions. The part of the culture that is an obstacle to inclusion is the feeling of uneasiness and shame of such people to belong to one’s family. 


Claimer: This blog is intended as a part of Situation Analysis and Assessment/ Evaluation Report of Implementation of National Strategy on Deinstitutionalisation 2008–2018, which will be soon presented to the public within the EU framework project Technical assistance support for the deinstitutionalization process in social sector. For this blog, Vlado Krstovski is considered to be co-author.