Prikaz objav z oznako science of doing. Pokaži vse objave
Prikaz objav z oznako science of doing. 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’. 

četrtek, 8. februar 2018

'Social' vs. 'medical' model – a breakdown

Deinstitutionalisation requires a paradigmatic change on several levels. The patterns of organisation, spatial arrangements, relationships and approaches as well as how we understand the disability, the needs, care and support must take completely other turn. The changes are usually subsumed into change from ‘medical’ to ‘social model’ (Oliver 1990). The basic idea is that – no matter how much an impairment is physical, biological, seated in the body, the disability itself is constructed socially. Various social arrangements, ranging from architectural barriers to the stigmatisation, labelling, devalued social roles, as well the treatment and care, disable people to fully exercise their faculties, their right, participate in society and be fully included in it. 
This paradigmatic change is about not only how we understand and explain the disability but also how we act, how support is provided and organised. Because the distinction between ‘medical’ and ‘social’ models is to a great degree summative, it has become a powerful and mobilising idea but on other hand blurring important distinctions between the explanation and action. Models can be understood as modelling understanding and explaining disability but also as modelling approaches to it (i.e. ‘treatment’), and how the care and support is organised. To be more accurate there is a need to distinguish between the explanatory, treatment and organisation models.

Explanatory models can be divided into reductive explanations reducing human complexity to one dimension (illness, legal norm, psyche etc.) and transversal explanations enabling syntheses of various planes of functioning and existence. Transversalitiy is imminent, ‘natural’ to everyday reasoning and ordinary (pre—or non-scientific) knowledge, but also to comprehensive sciences like anthropology, social work, management sciences.[1] As platforms of action the reductive explanations foster separation, competition and dominance of a particular explanation in a particular academic, professional, or sectorial (health, justice) milieus or even in society at large. The transversal synthetic explanations encourage interdisciplinary cooperation, pluralism of ideas and approaches, their complementarity based on ethical consistency, thus positioning humanism as a leading idea.

Treatment[2] models, we can divide into corrective and enabling approaches. Corrective approaches are based on the supremacy of the professionals, which draw their mandate to act upon a person on the supposed deficit, inadequacy or failure of the person, for which there is a special competency (or more truly a social authorisation) to deal with by special means – medication, psychotherapy or other psycho-pedagogical intervention, or administrative measures. These approaches are imminently disempowering and disabling. Their opposite are enabling approaches, in principle they are based on the general human rights and seek many ways to empower people in need. This can be done only through non-conditional inclusion and by sponsoring and supporting people in a variety of everyday life activities (thus enabling people to take risks instead of avoiding them).

Two dominant organisation models in care provision can be distinguished. One is institutional based on segregation, innate hierarchy (staff – residents, but also within the staff and residents groups), collective living and provision and providing ‘care’ in totality – one authority providing and regimenting everything that a person needs.[3] Community model, as an alternative to the institutional, is not only community-based but is oriented to community participation, thus creating new connections not only from services users to community member, but also in the community itself. The relationships in community provision tend to be egalitarian and while inclusive, person centred.

On the whole, the ‘medical’ model is reductive in explanation, reducing the disability to one dimension; it is corrective in its approach to the people – adapting them to the society; and it is institutional in the way it organises the services. Social model on other hand is transversal in explanations taking into account diverse plateaux of human existence, enabling in its approach to the people in need and community based in organisation of the service provision. The distinctions into explanatory, treatment and organisation models are important (apart from fending off sloganizing the issue of models) to note the diverse planes of modelling and, on the other hand to make distinctions between certain ways of sub-modelling and existence of mixed models.

For example, community psychiatry still to great extent adheres to medical explanation of the mental distress, however, it is abandoning hospital as it organisational base and is by necessity using a mixed approach (medication and inclusion). On the other hand, a psychotherapist may not have a narrow medical explanation, but the explanation may be as reductive as the medical one and his or her approach will be corrective, but he or she will not be practising in an institution, however, the practice could be supporting, be complementary to institutions. Conversely, there can exist a transversal understanding of human need or misery, but if there is a lack of skill in approach or organisational framework that would allow the transversal syntheses to become active, a knowledge remains impotent.  Or, services can be translocated into the community – but if the approach and understanding remain solely correcting and reductive, the community provision will be inadequate, in fact more alike to institutional care than what is considered a truly community-based service.

The paradigm shift entails two similar, complementary and yet opposite processes. First, there is a transition period characterised by a ‘mixed regime’ of various models. Second, the new paradigm needs to subsume and incorporate the old paradigm into the new one. There is a space for medical, juridical or other reductive knowledge in social model, corrective devices and intervention such as medication, psychotherapy etc. can be used to empower people, yield inclusion or support people in their activities; collective provision such as camps, work-cooperatives etc. can be a potent part of community services, if limited in time and scope.

These transitory phenomena are very conspicuous in Macedonian present-day practice. The ‘social model’ was introduced and is known. However, in practice ‘medical’ model still prevails (not only in health care). An obvious reason for such state of the art is that a lack of opportunity to practice new models since the services, which provide a space to practice them, are not developed as is the case with skills and approaches. However, also on the level of knowledge in terms of explanation and understanding there are inconsistencies not only in medicine and nursing, but also in special education (defectology!) and even social work. E.g., there is still strong adherence to the diagnostics and diagnostic labels. This in itself would not be a problem if it would not cement the disabling beliefs and prevent affirmative, enabling action. For example, during the student camp there were students and professionals who deemed efforts to enable residents to participate in the activities like assemblies as futile by saying: “Can’t you see – they are severely disabled!” One would be tempted to postulate that there should be conceptual purity in order to implement changes on the practical level. Even if this may be true on the strategical level, it does not seem to be spot-on on the practical level. There the logic might be inverse that we need to get rid of institutional spaces and organisational models in order to practice and understand in the new – enabling and transversal ways.

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.



References:

Flaker, V. (2006) 'Social work as a science of doing: in the praise of a minor profession' in Von der Idee zur Forschungsarbeit: Forschen in Sozialarbeit und Sozialwissenschaft, V. Flaker & T. Schmid, T. eds Böhlau Verlag, Wien.

Oliver, M. (1990). The Politics of Disablement. London: Macmillan.




[1] A significant difference between anthropology and social work in their respective transversalities is that anthropology is an explanatory science, while social work is a science of doing (Flaker, 2006) and is transversal not only in knowing but also in acting – on various registers of social intervention.

[2] Treatment should be understood in this context wider than its narrow meaning – as an approach to people in need and not treating 'somebody' or 'something' – this is the characteristic of the corrective approach.


[3] As such a total institution is deeply rooted in feudal (guardian) patterns of relationships.

ponedeljek, 25. april 2016

Social Work Mitigates Between the Life-World and Institutional Spheres


By Mohol Nagy

 

Methods and procedures


Methods and procedures are the shapes of actual social work being done. Social work should be empowering, based in people’s reality and allowing them access to resources – (public) goods, however, the crisis pushed it to retreat into counselling, bureaucracy and ‘workshops’ – i.e. psychological, administrative and pedagogical mouldering of people’s subjectivities Flaker, 2016a). And, along with their users social workers are scapegoated for the failures of the society.

Renewal of social work ethics on the stratum of methods and procedure should be built on imperative of assuring access to resources or possibilities of generating them. This should be considered as one of human rights, which is ever so important in changing, precarious society.

Social work should be always considered as action, as doing, work – not merely listening, talking, assessing, testing. It should embody the spirit of social work in action. It should avoid various fundamentalisms (religious, therapeutic, political, and others) since they disable social work. It should in practise appreciate differences and become a signposts for a new way of appreciative transcultural citizenship (Napan, 2011).

Social work is always participatory, partisan in its method and approach, however, needs to be objective (not neutral) provide not only evidence but also demonstrate of what really works.
Procedures should be about securing people’s rights and not about legitimating their denial. There are many procedures where social work is closely involved that are dealing with denial of rights to certain groups of people (children, mental disabilities and distress, criminal justice, more and more old people). In the procedures curtailing children’s freedom of expression or contrary – stealing away their childhood when treating them as criminally responsible adults, as well as in the procedures of restraining, taking away or diminishing ‘mental’ or ‘legal’ capacity’, instituting guardianship and in the issues of criminal responsibility and insanity, there should be strong maxims of ‘no closure’ and no restraint, strife for freedom and inventing how to deconstruct the this thorough de-humanisation and construct or even intent of how the free will can be reassumed, expressed and supported by and for the community. Instead of retributive, punitive justice – restorative, transformative social justice should be championed by social work (Case & Yates, 2016; Flaker, 2016a).

For this participatory, engaging approaches are needed, which will assert the central role of users in decisions regarding their futures (involving care, rehabilitation, etc.). Social work cannot be done without the person, nor without the community – it has to be personalised – personal care planning, assistance, personal projects, recovery etc. – and it has to become a common ground for action. Person is a starting point and end of the work, so is the community. It is matter of pragmatic convenience where to start, but the end is a ethical imperative in itself (Flaker, 2015b).

This should be true also for ‘involuntary’ users (court orders) and those whose difficulties are the toughest. Social work should be transforming life-world by engaging people in changes, connecting to local and deterritorialised social movements. And above all, even when social work is partly embedded in the virtual realities of institutional world it should be in its action connecting its methods with everyday life (Flaker, 2015a).

Power of the life-world


Crisis by invention of new mechanisms of control, by pushing social workers in the role of defending the state and not championing the users, by lack of users’ involvement and participation, as well as by the persistence of alienating, poisonous ideologies, people in need are transformed into institutional objects to be managed – thus taking away their self-determination and even their own life world (Flaker, 2015a) (refuges are a clear example of such a metamorphosis).

Life world is being by post-fordist production transformed in to a commodity – life is not something that we create with other people, it is now a commodity to consume (if not to buy) (Jordan, 2012) – if we do not do this the fate is of becoming the object of technological control; excluded from everyday life and not with even this kind of control over life.  (Neo)Robinson rules again. Now on the island of himself. The way old people are being abused and stigmatised is our common destiny. The life world is being increasingly characterised by loss of social guarantees, ‘stable instability’ (the individual‘s experience of social and cultural uncertainty), marginalisation¸ exclusion and disaffiliation of social groups, ‘social vulnerability’.

In the power relationships, social work is always taking side of the weak. Although risking its own disempowerment, the power invested in social work must be used to assure the access to resources, to create alliances of solidarity – connect various groups and modalities of work and not to reduce them to only one dimension (Flaker, 2016a). Empowerment, justice, and autonomy should become community resources and common ownership of them a guarantee to be able to influence over future. Power can be generated only collectively – even when it is expressed in personal contractual capacity. People with little such power experience both need for participation and protection. Both can be achieved through common effort – one has to have right to be mad, deviant, old, but also right to be supported in one’s recovery journey, in creativity when old in loyalty conflicts (e.g. children and parents). Recovery is both individual and collective responsibility (Flaker, 2016b).

One of social works main goals is producing a better life, many times it simply means reappropriation of one’s own. It supposed taking risks, but also fulfilling need and safeguarding rights.
Social work must replenish its power to act in actual world and change it to a better with others with the mandate (alliance) with the movements and communities. Part of the past, but also the future of social work, is an activist one, and lively communities need activism of their own (e.g. old age activism), securing participation of the people concerned. Participation and empowerment are the strategies to foster social cohesion and sustainability, common welfare – reclaiming community as source of identity, of resilience, also common enterprise, and a way of getting out of the clinches of economism – with a modest goal to live the life of our own!


Life-world is what counts and where sovereignty matters – and is only possible for everybody – in a praxis of dialogue common can be constructed.

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. (2015) 'Impact of social movements on deinstitutionalisation: case of Slovenia and a case for social cooperatives', in 1914–2014 from the Europe of World War 1 to Social Europe: report, Social Firms Europe, . Gorizia; Nova Gorica, pp. 10–22.
Flaker, V. (2016a) ' 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).
Flaker, V. (2016b) ‘Social matrix of the recovery and empowerment’, in Aufbruch / Ausbruch: Baustellen der Gleichstellung: Fachsymposium von DAS BAND – gemeinsam vielfältig, (Sozialpädagogik, 28), J. Erkinger, Richter, V. & T. Schmid eds, LIT Verlag, Vienna, pp. 66—80.
Jordan B. (2012) Individualisation, liberal freedom, and social work in Europe, Dialogue in Praxis: A Social Work International Journal, Volume 1 (14) Issue 1–2 (22–23), 2012, pp. 7–25, [On line] Available at: http://dialogueinpraxis.fsd.uni-lj.si/index.php?id=5&a=article&aid=10
Napan, K.  (2011) 'An inquiry into scarcity, mutuality, social justice and what can social work offer to the changing world', Dialogue in Praxis, vol. 0 (13), no. 0 (21), pp. 23–34. [Online] Available at: http://dialogueinpraxis.fsd.uni-lj.si/index.php?id=5&a=article&aid=3