Operation D: Words - From none to too many (operations 14, relationship 4)

Although the finality of this operation is working, doing, it may seem to involve much of talking. Not only are the words, talking and language significant, even essential^[1] part of human existence, it is also of virtual importance in establishing the contact, getting to know each other, formulating goals and planning, in monitoring and evaluating, reflecting the work, etc.

Working with no words

There are people among the users of social work that have no faculty of language. We are not referring to people who speak other language or people who cannot hear or vocalise the words, but about the people who do not understand the words in any language, who do not have this mental capacity. In such situations it is possible to have contact on body, movement, perception level, it is possible to get to know them by being together, by observing what they do and how they feel, by trying things out in action, learning by doing. It is possible to sense their desires and their will. It is possible to enter their Life-World, to sense it, and even reflect it – in a dance-like fashion. It is even possible to provide support in the world they live in without the words.

The absence of words and language is crucial in bridging their Life-World with others, and especially while bridging their Life-World to the institutional worlds – in making pronouncements about entitlements, plans, goals, arrangements and relationships. In these words there is a material power of action. Role of a social worker is similar to a translator or a loudspeaker, to convey the sensed desires to the audience that has no faculty of immediate presence, which is needed to understand such an utterance. This involves transforming or transposing the deeds, the feelings and material aspects of situation in the words by the means of logical deduction and induction, which has to be based on the common experience, empathy or even becoming the other (see above), of knowing the situation and the person in a way of praxis.

What has just been noted does not apply only to the situation with no words; it is the basic and generic underlying process of social work in this, and also other operations. The social work, even in the reconnaissance phase, is not only about the words and language but also about “being there”, observation and experimenting – trying out. On the other hand, there is always necessity of translation of such a-verbally gained knowledge and insight into the performative words of language of the entitlements and other formal languages that dominate the caring and helping (guardian) professions and their action.

Fetishism of words

Talking and words having such an importance generally and in the operation of establishing a work relationship especially there is a considerable possibility to get stuck in empty words – the words that have no practical meaning the words that do not yield any action, that bear no, at least indirectly, performative property. Empty words are the ones that are too abstract to have a operable meaning, but even more perilous are the speech acts that are taken as acts in the reality – that equate something said with something actually being done.

If we as social workers, practitioners, students or academics, which skills is most important in social work, they are likely to respond that it is the skill of talking, interviewing. Users, on other hand are more likely to respond differently. They are expecting form social workers to “sort out” something, to provide an access to resources needed, to help them to get a job, a flat etc. This divergence between value of deeds and things for users and of words for professionals, could be a consequence of a strong influence of the psychology and psychotherapy on the profession. Moreover, of a historical contingency that in the process of academisation of social work, psychologists who came to teach social work, often taught methods of social work, consequently turning them mainly towards counselling. The divergence can be attributed, perhaps, to the fact that just talking is the least intensive intervention into the Life-World. In this intensity, we remain on the level of representation of words. The virtual world of words is a safer place than the world of action and events. Or maybe because the ideological, indoctrinating function of social work is more important than the operative, functional. Certainly then because the words make it possible to “catch” the deeds and happenings^[2] - an important issue both for the professional and the user – especially from the control aspect of social  work. This is also, why it is important to “give the word”, to “let the users speak” and decode the utterances into a common action, why in recording them preserve their action charge, that stalks from their life situations.

“To be realistic”

When users express their desires or goals, professional are often concerned that these would not be too “unrealistic” (as if the professionals were the “Guardians of the reality”). The stupid worry of the powerful. Goals and desires are unreal by definition, when they get realised they cease to be. Their essential property is that they are about something that there is not yet, something to become. Realistically speaking, the reality is approached only when we act. If the concepts catch it in the thought, we touch it only with acts – by which we test the reality. Work and deeds are the membrane, the interface between what we think and the things. In them we realise ourselves, (while words can reify us – make things out of us amenable to action of others). The reality is powerful in its own right, it does not need an advocate – an advocate, a support is needed by the one who confronts the reality.

Specifically in social work, for instance in personal planning, we resolve this complication with the “method of first steps”. It is not important how unattainable a goals seems or not, important is to know what will be the first step in attaining it. With the steps that we make to approach the goal, we test the reality.  In terms of action, the desires and goals, provide the direction and the energy (motivation), real work is a series of deeds, actually performed – by which we transform the reality. The slogan of the sixties: “Be realistic and demand the impossible” has retained its special meaning in social work.

---

[1] In the context of this discussion it is important to note that some thinkers put the work and some the language as a basic distinctive feature of humanity.

[2] Etymological root of word “concept” stems from Latin “capere” – “to take”, “to catch”.

Operation D Intensities of intervention (operations 13, relationship 3)

The goals, projects and plans are invitation of user to enter into his or her life. And should be taken as invitations are – politely and respectfully. However, this invitation may be issued for varying degrees of entering the Life-World, or to put it clearly – various degrees of social work intervention in one’s Life-World. The relationship can start and stop at level of just representing the Life-Worlds in a talking encounter, which is usually termed counselling. In this case, a social worker does not enter the realities of the user.

Next degree is to enter into world actually lived by user by providing support to user in specific activities (by informing, encouraging, assisting the activity materially and morally but in the real contexts of one’s Life-World, like it happens in what is called personal assistance or could be termed “support-work”. When this is a case, the “supporter” enters the Life-World of the user and for the moment of support becomes a part of it.

In the operation of “help” the “helper” acts from the position outside the Life-World and brings into the field force not only originating but being also anchored in the domain outside the user’s Life-World. This duplicity of the positions creates a power relationship, in which the “helper” does not only contribute to the activities of the “helped” but is “by doing things for or instead” of the “helped”, adding actions of his own and from his own position. In this action, a middle ground between the ordinary Life-World and the institutional world is being generated, in which the user is still embedded in his or her Life-World but is drawn into relationships where he or she loses a degree of the sovereignty characteristic of Life-World. This intensity of help is usually referred to as “casework”.

“Help” and “support” are essentially synonyms. Here we use the two terms to denote a difference that in everyday parlance is negligible. “Support” denotes an activity that upholds the activity of an actor by adding a force to it without altering the direction or intention of the activity. In this context, we define “help” as a force in the field that operates as a vector, thus contributing to the activity of the actor but introducing an extra dimension to it and thus, however slightly, changing its direction and adding to its intention. In the terms of mechanics, support is a “scalar” and help is a “vector”.

When things get more complex, and especially if more input of the institutional resources is needed, there is more organisation and coordination involved – there are more “helpers” and “supporters” needed, the intensity of intervention increases and reaches a new quality. This comprehensive taking care is often referred to as “care management” and brings the social work action onto a level of organising. It happens still mostly in the intermediate space between the Life-World and the institutional world, but it is tangential to the latter by virtue of spanning the whole arch of activities from the actors’ finalities of Life-World across the various degrees of intensity of the help.

The most intense social work intervention[1] into the Life-World is taking somebody from his or her environment and relocating it to some, usually readymade institutional space. This is usually called “institutional care” or in a post-institutional setting “residential care”. Here, the person is up-rooted from his or her Life-World and transferred to a simulacrum of it.

This progression of intensities of interventions can be seen as a series of non-corporeal transformations of space as well as relationships situated in it, and of respective professional and user roles. The space transforms from an ideatory space of Life-World representations, “theoretical context” in Freirean terms, created in an interpersonal encounter, into blending of the social worker with the user’s Life-World, bridging the institutional space with the personal, to making “a dome” of care to the artificial institutional space. The work relationships thus formed range from a free exchange of ideas that bear no immediate consequence in the Life-World with a usual goal of reflecting the Life-World, getting an insight and creating a new orientation to a relationship where the provider of care takes a person in charge and is basically, even if not legally a guardian relationship. In between, there are relationships of companionship in action in one’s Life-World, power relationship resulting in and out of help and a relationship of care brokerage between the Life-World and institutional realm.

Action	Level	Term	space	relationship	remedial action
Talking	Representation	Counselling	ideatory	reflective	reflexive thought + mutuality, symmetry of exchange
Supporting	Deeds (action)	Personal assistance (Support-work)	Life-World	companionship in action	user perspective
Helping	Power	Casework	Life-World – institutional space bridge		empowerment
Caring	Organisation	Care management	institutional “dome” over the Life-World	broker	self-management, re-appropriation of institutional resources
Placing	Shift in space	Residential care	institutional	guardian	temporary and personalisation of the space

In the progression of the intensity of intervention, we can observe two very strong tendencies. One is related to the power drop caused by power differential introduced by the professional and the very idea and process of help. The other, concurrent with losing power is one of losing ground, being uprooted from the Life-World. This de-territorialisation can have a productive result in increasing the capacity of improving one’s life – by expanding the view of reflection, by expanding manoeuvre space, gaining autonomy of everyday Life-World and by providing access to the goods of the institutional space. However, it may lead to progressive exclusion from meaningful relations, estrangement from one’s home and community. This upscaling of help stages a series of metamorphoses – non-corporeal mutations, that cease to be not merely situational (as they are usually in everyday life) and lead to progressive objectification into an institutional object. The path to hell is paved by good intentions.

The intentions, in social work, are good indeed. Even the results need not to be catastrophic, but quite benign. However, this is not enough to undo the underlying processes of losing power and ground. Good news is that social work has an arsenal of antidotes to these “iatrogenic” harms. Just as in everyday interaction there has to be a remedial action to each hazard of losing ground and power capacity.

One is the conscience of Life-World being the point of departure and return. Not only because it is a criteria of social work intervention, as described above, but also because of the basic finalism of support, in which the intervention takes place. We need to keep in mind that we are dealing with activity, which is by definition purposeful that has its goal (by default specific, in general, to improve one’s life conditions) and this is the point of common action. Therefore, acquiring and consistently applying the “user’s perspective” is the main way of fending of the negative corollaries of social work intervention.

There are diverse types of remedial action regarding the hazard of each degree of intensity. Even at the least intruding action of representation, since it takes off from the Life-World, is an act of de-territorialisation, there is a danger of skewing the vision by importing the ideas via representation into person’s living world (Freire – invasion). Dialogic precautions have to be made in order to eschew them by critical and reflexive stance, as well as with mutuality and symmetry of the exchange.

Empowerment is a general antidote to losing power immanent to different degrees in social work intervention. If helping diminishes the power of the help, the power must be “measured” at the completion of intervention to assure that “the patient is not dead after successful operation” and to design the remedial action to restore power beyond the side effects of helping.

In coordinated care, it is important to observe all the hazards being uprooted and not in control of one’s life that come up on the levels of lesser intensity and integrate them in specific of this intensity. Special concern must be made about symmetry, critical thought, user’s perspective and empowerment at all stages of planning and coordinating care. However, specific to this intensity is the imperative of “self-management”, being in charge of one’s care and the influx of the means from institutional resources should not be treated as a state charity but as an of re-appropriation of the public good.

Displacement should be omitted at all cost (and erased as a panergic and paramount response to distress). When necessary, as in family violence, or need for safe haven etc. it must be as short as possible temporary solution, preserving the connections to one’s usual Life-World, with intense work on lower intensities of intervention to enable the return to it. In the case when the return is not possible a maximum of personalisation of the new place (i.e. creating a new home) should be enabled, as it is the case when people move their home from one environment to the other in the ordinary life.

This five-gear shift of intensities in social work, inter alia, demonstrates the ability and necessity of social work to traverse and connect the Life-World (concrete) and institutional (abstract) planes. In doing so, it creates crevices into what would otherwise be solid construction with no interim space between the two. The “Life-World” of social work is in these cracks of the social construction. The critical moments of transitions induce the necessity of social work.

---

[1] Of all the other social work interventions removal of legal capacity matches this intensity. As it happens these two interventions – displacement and disqualification – often take place simultaneously, as a part of the same combined operation. However, in principle they are two distinctive doings. In one, the subject of the operation can remain in his place, but is “deterritorialised” by inability to inscribe into meaningful dealings, in the other deterritorialisation is by necessity a physical one.