A comic paradigm in social work
A comic element is as underrated in social work as is comedy in
arts. Its value as a tool is not recognised. Common opinion is that social work
is something “dead serious”, that it is about human tragedies or, that it is
about something official. Yet, it is not uncommon that social workers relate
jokes – funny anecdotes – about their users during their “unofficial” coffee
breaks. Likewise, users often ridicule the social workers in their circles. Late
Zoran Sedmak once commented: “Why don’t we laugh together?!” Would it give us
hiccups?
Unfortunately, the tragedy was installed in our civilization to be a
paradigm of understanding human
nature and destiny. The comedy is there to make this easier to bear. It is the art
of having fun, to forget and run.
Indeed, the tragedy is an appliance of remembering (false memories),
and humour is a way of oblivion, forgetfulness. It is a way of subtle capture
of a situation, laughing at it and then taking off. This is why it is difficult
to remember jokes. Is this why one who tells the joke laughs the most?
Not only laugh transforms the unbearable situation into surpassable
one; it makes it possible for us to intellect it. To read between the lines of utterances and
deeds. Unresolvable (tragic) contradictions transmute into witty paradoxes. You
may need to be stupid to be clever or clever to be stupid (I do not know
which), yet, you do not need to be Wittgeiststein to be witty,
Humour is overturning situation, yet you stay on your feet and walk
away. The overturn of mind-frame and situation-frame. It allows staying in the
situation while exiting it. Surprise is a welcome.
This is a good model for social work. The humour is not only a vent
making it easy to sustain the hardship, it is also a good way of coming and
being together, doing things in a different way, having fun while working
seriously. It is not just a talent; it is also a skill – to be nurtured. It is
not useful in breaking the ice, moving on, de-blocking the working of the situation;
it is also an ethical statement – in itself.
The importance of being earnest
Classic posture of a professional (and a scientist) is to be
impartial, neutral. Not only from social work perspective, have we known that
this is not the case. No matter how hard they try to stage, and even to achieve
this, at the end of the day, in the crucial moments the professionals will be
on the side of the powerful.[1]
On the other side, social work is by definition on the side of the (most)
powerless. Such a clear position and
calling is rare for professionals and a luxury. Not only is it necessary for
assuming the users perspective, foster empowerment and be an advocate - it enables
social work to state the values clearly and decidedly, and act upon these
values. Nevertheless, like all the
professionals, we need to stay impartial and nurture the professional discipline,
which gives us credibility that we are not acting for some private reason.[2]
There are many tools and instances of practising social work as a
partisan profession. However, just empathy[3],
user and strength perspectives, and observing the ethical imperative of being
on the side of the weakest, may not be enough. Moreover, not only in anthropology[4],
but also in social work, there is a whole history of becoming native[5],
i.e. of relinquishing the appointed role and mandate and joining the users. Not
only joining youth subcultures, also joining trade unions, activist groups and
movements. And, this might not be just a fleeting jaunt, but a road of no
return, ships might be burned and the bridges wrecked. Becoming the other is
not just imagining how it is to be in shoes of the other, it not just
provisional step out the role, it is relinquishing the power invested in it.
The prince has to become a pauper, for real, in order for a synthesis to
happen.
[1]However, we do expect and respect this impartiality. If it is
impossible to the absolute degree, although knowing this, we expect the judges
to be as neutral as possible, to asymptotically approach the ideal. Even if
their ruling will be on the average class, race, gender or any other way
socially biased. However, there is also a general bias – in theory and practice
of the law – on the orientation to retributive
or restitutive justice. And a
general bias of ruling against an individual even when the crime is structural.
The jurisdiction does not have the guts to rule on the structural issues and
perform the transformative justice –
i.e. apply the power of the court to transform the social arrangements (Asja
Hrvatin in personal communication, after the debate on the issue of social work
and law, retributive and restitutive justice in social work symposia at IUC
Dubrovnik).
[2] Classic definition of a professional equates personal and private.
In social work, we need to make a distinction. It must be absolutely clear that
we are not extracting any private gain from the social work situation, or if we
do, apart from the fee, salary, that it is accidental and not intended result.
A social worker who takes children on a summer camp, should enjoy the camping
too, he or she should be motivated also by their own personal experience,
however, there should not be any doubt about the overarching intention of the
enterprise, that it is for common good of the participants and the camp is not
organised for the benefit of the social worker (e.g. having holydays and being
paid).
[3] In social work, two kinds of empathy are important – interpersonal in the conversation in
order to establish an emotional bridge between two people and a social or situational of experiencing the social situation that one is in. However,
the concept and techniques of empathy are often used as a trick to fend off the
feeling and intense involvement with users, to grasp and apprehend their feelings
and situation but not get “caught” in them, get overwhelmed by emotions and
drawn into the situation. Empathy in this way may be useful as a short cut in
recognising the situation and identifying with people, when there is no time or
urgency to enter the situation fully. However, making a principle out of it, is
not necessary nor productive. There are many other ways of creating a
reflective distance to a situation (e.g. writing a diary, poems, blogs or
having reflective discussion in the whole collective experiencing the
situation), and there are situations where it is not enough to understand the
situation but to act in it, and to act personally with gusto. Often, the
allegiance must be enacted, the trust created by actions of intense involvement,
of a personal risk, that attest that we are truly on the side of our users.
[4] It could be claimed that in »going native« anthropologist becomes a
social worker.
[5] The term “going native” is usually applied. I use becoming in
deleuzeguattarian sense, to mark that it is not only about crossover, changing
sides, but also a thorough metamorphosis affecting the whole being. Additionally,
this imperfect verb denotes a process, transposition of existence and not just
a Hdeed performed at a certain moment.
oh buy youtube views
OdgovoriIzbriši