Direct Practice - Direct Action
On the level of direct practice in the clinical setting the radical perspective is also applicable. One former professor and social worker Jeffry Galper, who wrote probably the most comprehensive book on radical social work titled Social Work Practice: A Radical Perspective, states “Workers may also find a variety of ways to encourage people to engage in collective political activity through existing political organizations.” Many such organizations exist, for instance, DARE (Direct Action for Rights and Equality) whose mission statement says “DARE's mission is to organize low income families in communities of color to win economic, social and political justice. A key to DARE's success is the understanding these campaigns built of the ways racism and sexism are a fundamental part of oppression in low income communities.” (DARE website, 2005). Much like the Black Panthers in the 1970’s, DARE has set up grassroots organizing campaigns, public day care facilities, youth programs, environmental empowerment projects and police accountability actions. The work of this organization is often seen by those in social work as being a fringe element and often not embraced as a viable referral in regard to solutions for inequality and oppression problems that clients indeed face on a daily basis. I believe the reason is another failure to adhere to the NASW Code of Ethics in good faith, i.e. that “Social workers continually strive to increase their professional knowledge and skills and to apply them in practice. Social workers should aspire to contribute to the knowledge base of the profession.” (NASW Code of Ethics). This does not mean exclusivity to CEU seeking cruises or seminars that are primarily skills based (not knowledge based) that the typical concept of fulfilling this obligation entails. Rather, the outreach to such organizations seems reasonable, consistent if viewed through a radical perspective, to be the appropriate action for a social worker to approach with many clients. It is part of the aforementioned spiritual transformation that must occur, which in my opinion, entails changing one’s reality in a way that sees social justice clearly, honestly, practically and seriously. This includes policy, clinical, management and even research interpretations.
Sunday, August 06, 2006
An Example of a Radical Perspective -
One example of research that can be interpreted many ways, least of which by the radical perspective is the current diagnosis of O.D.D. (Oppositional Defiant Disorder). This diagnosis is a subject of debate that stems mostly from the operational definition of the subjective term “defiant”. Clinical psychologist Bruce Levine writes, “In 1980 the American Psychiatric Association (APA), in step with the election of Ronald Reagan and the U.S. right-wing shift, proclaimed a new mental illness: oppositional defiant disorder (ODD). Today ODD has become an increasingly popular diagnosis for a young person who “actively defies or refuses to comply with adult requests or rules” and “argues with adults” – symptoms according to the DSM IV, the APA’s official diagnostic manual (Levine, 2005).” The undertones of what Levine is describing, the mention of Reagan, I believe indicates that he believes that the field of social services, counseling etc. performs a function aligned with status-quo ideals rather than challenges them. Levine goes on to explain that “[y]oung people often ask me why psychiatrists and psychologists don’t understand that it is normal for kids to rebel against being controlled. The answer, I believe, is that many psychiatrists and psychologists are not in touch with how extremely obedient they are. Acceptance into graduate school requires lots of As and jumping through many hoops, all of which require much behavioral and attentional compliance. When compliant PhDs, begin seeing non-compliant patients, many of these doctors get uptight. (Levine, 2005). I would argue that there are significant “use of self” issues to examine if one agrees with Levine’s hypothesis. How could it be otherwise? Admittedly, many people diagnosed with O.D.D. are in fact anti-social far more than Levine claims. However, he cites the first 50 pages of the famous anarchist Emma Goldman’s 993 page Living My Life as homework he assigns his clients (within a psycho-educational framework presumably). “I am happy to report that Living My Life provided instant self-help for one middle-aged, female client of mine, an anti-authoritarian previously diagnosed with substance abuse, depression, and several personality disorders. She has a passion now for reading and forgoes booze when captivated by a good book, Goldman’s epic provided a longer detox treatment that that provided by many insurance companies. She had a cause and a community, and she has become energized by her search (Ibid.). The radical perspective, I would argue, is the skill and knowledge that Bruce Levine possessed and then empowered his client with. The spiritual transformation that Levine had gone through, the education on such matters as radical social work practice, the application, is what he claims empowered his client.
“The radical view leads to an analysis of the class origins and class functions of social work. The conservative or traditional view does not acknowledge or minimizes the role and impact of class struggle and leads to a perspective which sees social work as a manifestation of society’s growing concern for human welfare (Galper, 1980).” This problematic revelation also indicates as Langan and Lee (1989) claim that “In the 1980s, mirroring the fragmentation of the political left, the radical social work movement lost its class focus and embraced other factors such as sexuality, race and gender as areas where oppression occurred, either in association with, or irrespective of social class.” This viewpoint is accurate. The historical record shows that this metamorphosis engulfed all of the movements of the time, new movements arose phoenix-like from the ashes of the Civil Rights Movement and the Anti-war movement to other issues, possibly from the apparent negative prospects for radical change, possibly from the weight of the burden of true radical social change.
One example of research that can be interpreted many ways, least of which by the radical perspective is the current diagnosis of O.D.D. (Oppositional Defiant Disorder). This diagnosis is a subject of debate that stems mostly from the operational definition of the subjective term “defiant”. Clinical psychologist Bruce Levine writes, “In 1980 the American Psychiatric Association (APA), in step with the election of Ronald Reagan and the U.S. right-wing shift, proclaimed a new mental illness: oppositional defiant disorder (ODD). Today ODD has become an increasingly popular diagnosis for a young person who “actively defies or refuses to comply with adult requests or rules” and “argues with adults” – symptoms according to the DSM IV, the APA’s official diagnostic manual (Levine, 2005).” The undertones of what Levine is describing, the mention of Reagan, I believe indicates that he believes that the field of social services, counseling etc. performs a function aligned with status-quo ideals rather than challenges them. Levine goes on to explain that “[y]oung people often ask me why psychiatrists and psychologists don’t understand that it is normal for kids to rebel against being controlled. The answer, I believe, is that many psychiatrists and psychologists are not in touch with how extremely obedient they are. Acceptance into graduate school requires lots of As and jumping through many hoops, all of which require much behavioral and attentional compliance. When compliant PhDs, begin seeing non-compliant patients, many of these doctors get uptight. (Levine, 2005). I would argue that there are significant “use of self” issues to examine if one agrees with Levine’s hypothesis. How could it be otherwise? Admittedly, many people diagnosed with O.D.D. are in fact anti-social far more than Levine claims. However, he cites the first 50 pages of the famous anarchist Emma Goldman’s 993 page Living My Life as homework he assigns his clients (within a psycho-educational framework presumably). “I am happy to report that Living My Life provided instant self-help for one middle-aged, female client of mine, an anti-authoritarian previously diagnosed with substance abuse, depression, and several personality disorders. She has a passion now for reading and forgoes booze when captivated by a good book, Goldman’s epic provided a longer detox treatment that that provided by many insurance companies. She had a cause and a community, and she has become energized by her search (Ibid.). The radical perspective, I would argue, is the skill and knowledge that Bruce Levine possessed and then empowered his client with. The spiritual transformation that Levine had gone through, the education on such matters as radical social work practice, the application, is what he claims empowered his client.
“The radical view leads to an analysis of the class origins and class functions of social work. The conservative or traditional view does not acknowledge or minimizes the role and impact of class struggle and leads to a perspective which sees social work as a manifestation of society’s growing concern for human welfare (Galper, 1980).” This problematic revelation also indicates as Langan and Lee (1989) claim that “In the 1980s, mirroring the fragmentation of the political left, the radical social work movement lost its class focus and embraced other factors such as sexuality, race and gender as areas where oppression occurred, either in association with, or irrespective of social class.” This viewpoint is accurate. The historical record shows that this metamorphosis engulfed all of the movements of the time, new movements arose phoenix-like from the ashes of the Civil Rights Movement and the Anti-war movement to other issues, possibly from the apparent negative prospects for radical change, possibly from the weight of the burden of true radical social change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)