Hence, in
social work and other socially engaged disciplines we are dealing in the crisis
of today with enormously unsuitable knowledge – produced in a different epoch
of welfare state (Flaker, 2016). Social work (and social action) is still
dominated by sociological and psychological theories of twentieth century. In
in encounters with the people those support the dominance of professional
discourses and continuation of the notion that ‘professionals know best’. Further
on, social work has been disassociated from development work (which has been
left to self-styled developers, managers, politicians and NGOs and firms) and
remained a concept of ‘a personal profession’ (Grebenc & Žganec, 2016).
Cultural
changes have through individualism, westernisation and globalisation corroded
connections between people. It has produced arrogance to numerous indigenous
and inclusive paradigms and not only these changes are physically depleting the
planet, also the world is becoming soulless (Napan & Oak, 2016). Feeble are
becoming threat – by myths of demographic changes, scapegoating the refuges,
producing the folk devils out of people with mental distress, drug users etc.
Culture of fear has become walls of the institutionalised regimes in community
or in the institutions without walls (Case & Yates, 2016; Mali, 2016;
Flaker & Ramon, 2016).
New ethico-political projects can be an antidote to such translations and to
what is basically post-colonial mentality (Stubbs, 2016). They must be based on
new knowledge production arising from the pragmatic but ethically bound
solutions – dignity of humanity that may serve people. They need not rely just
on the imperative of non-exclusion, also on ethics and aesthetics of old age,
disability, deviance. Old age as one of the central issues of the epoch does on
one hand assert the value of life, but also the value of death and life’s
finality (Mali, 2016).
Programme for the future of social work
knowledge must therefore involve synergies of theory, research and movements –
Dialogues in praxis to transform the Knowledge. It has to employ inquiry approach with hope, participation and
must acknowledge the importance of people’s indigenous, and sometimes hidden
knowledge (Napan & Oak, 2016). Social work has access to the knowledge
seldom expressed publicly and is responsible for the minor cultural heritage
preservations and representation – e.g. old age. In this was it can contribute
to creation of new humanity, one that goes beyond race, nationality, class and
gender but also affirms uniqueness of cultures, beliefs, orientations,
contexts.
In this
attempt, social work must address the dialectics of individual and collective
responsibility, deconstruct actively the problematics of individual and devise
ways of creating a collective responsibility, respect
for diversity of life that would make a sublime community possible. Social work
has a legitimate and indispensable
duty to shape, within this context, its own taxonomy and syntax of action and
become a real science of change and human emancipation (Flaker, 2016).
References
Case,
S. & Yates, J. (2016) ‘Examining social work with
children in conflict with the law: Trajectories and possibilities’, Dialogue in Praxis (Ethics of Inclusion –
special issue), vol. 5, no. 1. (forthcoming).
Flaker, V. (2016) ' Social work is
the art of remaining human in the inhuman conditions’, Dialogue in Praxis (Ethics of Inclusion – special issue), vol. 5,
no. 1. (forthcoming).
Napan, K. & Oak, E. (2016) ‘Inquiring
into the Spirit of Social Work’, Dialogue
in Praxis (Ethics of Inclusion – special issue), vol. 5, no. 1.
(forthcoming).
Stubbs, P. (2016) ‘Resistance in
Austerity Times: Social policy, social work and social movements in crisis
conditions’, Dialogue in Praxis (Ethics
of Inclusion – special issue), vol. 5, no. 1. (forthcoming).
