Why is the radical social work perspective rarely used at this time?

One reason is that within the field there is, and has been, a compelling force of self-censorship. This self-censorship includes a commitment (by and large) to moderate liberal politics. Safely, most social workers remain committed to a belief in the system we have, not only at the ballot box, in the street and in conversation, but most importantly by working their practice as part of the system and supporting it by doing so. This difference is crucial but not discussed in most social work circles. The difference can be more aptly understood by realizing the dichotomy between social change and social service. The commitment to social justice, social change, is not upheld by enmeshing oneself in moderate liberal political struggles that will never change the situation some clients fall into one iota. Radical social work provides clients a chance to understand social and personal problems in another light; i.e. through realizing that the system we have in place, at times, does cause many problems. Radical social work provides a forum to enable people in social work care to make changes for themselves and others, to attempt to be a part of the decisions made about the things that matter to them in their lives, to take the power back from those who often covertly are seeking to exploit a client.

Here is a brief literature review of radical social work articles and organizations. There are plenty of great books out there on the topic of radical social work, many with practical application suggestions. I encourage everyone to look around, consider the possiblilities and embrace the strengths in the field of social work such as these. Another world is possible.

Barefoot Social Worker: the voice of radical social work in Britain
http://www.radical.org.uk/barefoot/


The Twin Cities Radical Social Work Study Group
http://www.geocities.com/rswsg/


The legacy of 'radical social work'How contemporary social work theory nurtured the new authoritarianism.
by Ken McLaughlin
http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/0000000CAD15.htm


What is radical social work?
http://radicalreference.info/node/1164

What is Anti-oppressive Social Work?
http://aosw.socialwork.dal.ca/whatisaosw.html

Mental Health After Capitalism
http://www.zmag.org/martinezhealth.htm

Building a Foundation

The mainstream social work practice does not often include the main elements of radical social work. To understand how radical social work separates from the mainstream the operational definition given by Barbara Loundes Joseph (1975) which is “that practice which attempts to be of maximum service to people experiencing problems in their daily lives and at the same time are informed a commitment to radical social change.” Joseph goes on to expound on the definition that radical social work is about “defin[ing] those small and simple changes we can make- not as marking time- but a seeding, a building of a foundation by our daily work. Such a practice is based upon an understanding of the nature of capitalism, its racism and imperialism and the pejorative theories of human nature which underlie and perpetuate these (Ibid).” There is a more philosophical definition provided by social worker John F. Longres in regard to social work casework which he states that “radical casework is consonant with Marxist social vision. The starting point is historical materialism or the transcendence of the economic order over social behavior… The development of class consciousness or the desire to work collectively toward altering alienating conditions is the socio-psychological process to be encouraged. The ideals of socialism are offered as an alternative to the ideals of capitalism.” (Longres, 1977). These two parallel definitions sum up, in my estimation, the basics of radical social work practice. The perspective is analogous to reading the daily news in, on the handling of Hurricane Katrina for instance, the New York Times, juxtaposed with the reading of the weekly Socialist Worker (socialist newspaper) the difference in the perspective is obvious, one is seeking to tow a capitalist party line of blaming hierarchical social agencies, the other is looking through the socialist lens and seeking to report the root causes of the tragedy which include class inequality, racism and oppression.

Random Thoughts on Substance Abuse Services.

As one who has worked in the substance abuse field, I have observed a sort of sub-culture that includes the workers, the staff and the clients. This population or sub-culture is unique in that the entire dynamic is sort of underground. The substance abuse field operates much like the registry, the unemployment office, the courts etc. It is in fact an isolated system with similar characteristics. This said, I feel that this system is also antithetical to any ideals that have to do with equality both between worker and client and in regard to society at large. Overwhelmingly clients who seek substance abuse counseling are deemed unsafe to themselves and others and unfit to work in the field for usually two years of documented sobriety. I have no issue with that concept because often clients are subject to relapse and the issues related to substance abuse pervade client’s lives typically for the rest of their lives. Although, this does not imply that the introduction of radical values should be avoided, on the contrary, the population of "substance abusers" is ripe for such political action because substance abuse is a socio-political issue first and foremost. Many people do not trace how drugs get into their neighborhoods, how drugs have been implemented at times into neighborhoods for social control (e.g. heroin in the 60’s to diffuse the Black Panthers, methamphetamine from the 50s- present that criminalizes neighborhoods developed by the military) .

The discussion and empowerment clients in the substance abuse field need, in my estimation, have very much to do with socialist values. If we take a look, the time tested program almost every "substance abuser" is encouraged to attend are NA (Narcotics Anonymous) meetings which are highly socialist in their structure. Self-help groups are in fact based on the principle of cooperation rather than competition, using Marxist principles of collective power and equal standing within the group to achieve individual goals, and devotion to the group in the way of dues, attendance, maintenance of public space and rejection of Capitalist marketing of the NA name all employ Socialist or Radical principles in their application.

A very important element of being a radical social worker has to do with shining light on the radical elements already in our society with clients rather than ignoring them, rather than creating new forms per se. The radical perspective is equally present in individual therapy if the clinician chooses to use that in his or her repertoire of skills. It is in fact clinicians' themselves who need simple Cognitive Behavioral Therapy to re-frame issues clients present and accept that often these problems stem directly from social injustice that, if we are honest we could see, need, necessarily, revolutionary solutions rather than business as usual liberalism.

It Says “Social Justice”

According to the National Association of Social Worker’s Code of Ethics, social workers have ethical responsibilities to the broader society. For instance, Code 6.01 states, “Social workers should promote the general welfare of society, from local to global levels, and the development of people, their communities, and their environments. Social workers should advocate for living conditions conducive to the fulfillment of basic human needs and should promote social, economic, political, and cultural values and institutions that are compatible with the realization of social justice.” I have observed in my time in the field of social work very little educational opportunities, practical applications, or structural training that is acting in accord with this ethical standard of the Code as a guide. I suppose it is mentioned, but what I feel, what I believe is encouraged, and what I hear many colleagues express as their ethics, is the opposite. Once people reach a Masters level of education (or achieve licensure by other means), it is my belief that we are endowed with a certain privilege in society. What should have been imparted on us is the ability to use such privileges as: access to the facts, the training to make sense and interpret the facts, and the resources to communicate the facts to others. Instead, I observe the majority of my colleagues using their given privilege to concentrate primarily on advancment of their careers, on speaking in elevated language that people cannot understand, on building disciplinary walls so that nobody other than those in our field (and even our chosen focus within the field) are allowed in. We should have no time for that.
In addition to all these internal issues, from a strengths-based perspective, the field has major challenges in matters of social justice. Talk about bourgeoisie! There are very few participants on any level that have even the basic understanding of Marxism, of the legacy of world-wide struggle, the legacy of unionism, class, in the United States. There is subtle mention of identity politics; I credit the field with that. Feminism is mentioned but the radical elements of feminism are lost, in my opinion. Race is mentioned, but we are not using the language of racial equality and the population in the field is skewed heavily, cultural diversity is often last on the list of priorities when it should be the first I believe. This is all caused by a lack on part of the field to take a stand politically and define what it is we stand for, without vision we have what we have now, an apolitical bunch of social workers who have zero class consciousness and little interest in real political action i.e. social justice achieved by social change. It is fraudulent to engage clients' within a bourgeois framework. Liberal social work values dictate that the issues of class, race and gender cannot be anything more than status quo because within that framework it is necessarily impossible to be other than the status quo. A commitment to social justice requires stepping out of that framework and at least learning the theory of struggle that can possibly achieve such social change; by this I mean: Luxemburg, Kropotkin, Marx, Engels, Rocker, Lenin, Trotsky, Proudhon, De Cleyre, Bookchin, Chomsky, Meltzer, King, Albert on and on. I am not saying you have to be a Socialist or a radical or a Leftist or a Progressive or any tag/title, but at least understand the tradition and the lessons inherent in their works. I fear that the field has capitulated to external pressures and is so married to the State that the aforementioned ethical guidelines cannot be upheld. The outcome of such fence-sitting on part of social workers is inconsistent with the actions of those freedom fighters in the past, the Howard Zinns’ of the world, the soldiers for social justice, we should be honest enough to admit we are not anywhere close to that. We need more people who have the bullhorn in hand, more who take to the street to confront social injustices. The influence of such individuals would make it possible to maintain all of our ethical standards and might encourage action in the face of injustice rather than hoping problems will go away quietly.

What is Radical Social Work?

Radical social work is an extension of politics into the field of social work. The theory of radical social work aims directly at the nature of inequality in our society. Radical social work can be used by a social worker at the policy level as well as the clinical level. Radical ideals can also be incorporated into the framework of management in the social work setting. At times radical social work is a critique of status-quo social structures that espouse authoritarian power dynamics; on the other hand, radical social work heavily leans toward what in all honesty can be best described loosely as 'socialism' as far as what has already been done in the field so far. Some prevalent themes that are explored through the radical perspective are: oppression, class, unjustifiable authority, hierarchy, and an equal socio-political representation in the field of all members of a given population. Most often a radical perspective pin-points the strengths of a client (be it an individual, a family, an organization) in accord with the eco-systems approach, and works in addition to typical interventions, breaking only with tradition when topics (or problems) have elements of directly with, or are possible to be seen through the lens of, socio-economic, political, struggle. At the heart of socialist ideals, which have been at the fore of radical social work practice, lies the strong commitment to revolutionary ideals. Some find it difficult to fathom revolution and fail to make the connection with social work as a profession. My belief is that these folks (often practitioners in the field) do not realize the rich history of the radical perspective and furthermore see the application of radical frameworks to be outside of the field of social work, which historically they have not. Although there are contemporary instances where radical questions have been somewhat buried in the last ten or so years, many positive alternatives are re-surfacing again. The radical perspective is rich in theory, adds wonderful skills to a social worker’s cannon of knowledge, and maintains a strong commitment to social justice in real terms. Radical social work addresses the challenges of society from below.

Remembering the Case Con Manifesto

The Case Con Manifesto was written by a group of radical social workers who published Case Con magazine in the early 1970’s. The Manifesto served as a critique of the place of social work in society and also an optimism of a more civilized time where prospects for social justice were possible. The entire text is available at the following website - http://www.radical.org.uk/barefoot/casecon.htm.

It is important to consider the points the Case Con Manifesto raises in our time in regard to social work practice in 2006; how far we have drifted from social justice… Here is an excerpt, “Every day of the week, every week of the year, social workers (including probation officers, educational social workers, hospital social workers, community workers and local authority social workers) see the utter failure of social work to meet the real needs of the people it purports to help. Faced with this failure, some social workers despair and leave to do other jobs, some hide behind the facade of professionalism and scramble up the social work ladder regardless; and some grit their teeth and just get on with the job, remaining helplessly aware of the dismal reality. Of course, some do not see anything wrong in the first place.”

The Manifesto addresses the historical context of the atmosphere necessary for real social change. It explains that “[t]he welfare state was set up partly in response to working-class agitation and mainly to stabilize the upheavals generated by wartime conditions. It was recognized that improvements in the living conditions of workers helped provide capitalism with a more efficient work force and could nip militancy in the bud. Furthermore, the threat of withdrawal of benefits under certain conditions (being on strike or cohabiting, for example) could be a useful technique of social control, During the post-war boom, wage rises came fairly easily: in the euphoria about the supposed end of inequality, means tests were gradually reintroduced and the principle of universal entitlement to social, educational and health services gradually eroded. As the boom subsided, cuts in welfare expenditure were justified in the attempt to control inflation and are now used ideologically to create an impression of scarcity as an explanation for the crisis of capitalism.”

One aspect of social work practice still under debate in 2006 is the issue of “professionalism” especially in light of the persistent capitulation to the conservative ideals destroying social services and their successes in conquering the welfare state i.e the people’s state. The Manifesto speaks to this phenomenon with clarity and strength in the section that states, “One important tool of professional social work has been casework - a pseudo-science - that blames individual inadequacies for poverty and so mystifies and diverts attention from the real causes - slums, homelessness and economic exploitation. The casework ideology forces clients to be seen as needing to be changed to fit society. Social work has now expanded to include new (and not so new) tricks, such as community work, group work, welfare rights work, etc., which, when professionalized, end up by becoming the same sort of mechanism of control as traditional casework, often with the additional merit of being less expensive for the ruling class. Professionalism is a particularly dangerous development specifically because social workers look to it for an answer to many of the problems and contradictions of the job itself - i.e. being unable to solve the basic inadequacy of society through social work. It must be fought at every opportunity.” Unlike many social work texts (Unfaithful Angels by Harry Specht and Mark Courtney comes to mind) that criticize the field but offer no viable alternative. The Case Con Manifesto devotes an entire section to “How We Must Organize” which explores other options to conservative values such as the bigoted meaning of “personal responsibility” when they write “We are supposed to 'help' our 'clients' by making them 'accept responsibility' - in other words, come to terms as individuals with basically unacceptable situations. We must counter-pose this to the possibility of changing their situation by collective action.” This speaks to the power of cooperation rather than competition to meet challenges.

Case Con Manifesto comes to a solution that all social workers should consider; a “Socialist conclusion”. “Case Con believes that the problems of our 'clients' are rooted in the society in which we live, not in supposed individual inadequacies. Until this society, based on private ownership, profit and the needs of the minority ruling class, is replaced by a workers' state, based on the interests of the vast majority of the population, the fundamental causes of social problems will remain.” The value of this document is in its relevance to today’s field of social work, to all: social workers, clinicians, policy, administration, case managers and activists alike.