A False Dichotomy and a Failure to Hold Both
Johannes Kieding
Professor Everett
Social Welfare Policy
Smith SSW
Summer 2012, part 1
A False Dichotomy and a Failure to Hold Both
Through Mimi Abramovitz and Yoosun Park put forward two very different visions of social work. Both authors use historical evidence to support their perspectives, and each perspective contains valid points. Abramovitz argues that the social work profession does not engage enough in social reform efforts, and Park uncovers a dark side in the history of the profession, and concludes that social work may be well intentioned but may cause more harm than good. To Abramovitz's point: social workers that only help clients become better “adjusted” to society and therefore accept the status quo, do indeed not contribute towards social reforms. The author makes a good point here, and from this perspective, there is a dichotomy, a struggle, between focussing on the individual and focusing on bringing about societal change and activism. However, where social workers help liberate and empower their clients by helping them sort out personal issues and take charge of their lives, as opposed to helping them to merely conform to social norms, social workers help create people that are very much equipped and able to engage in the business of social reforms. The essential point here is whether or not the social worker is merely helping clients conform and become “well adjusted,” or if they are truly liberating clients, healing clients, which will make the clients want to heal the world. The liberated client, then, becomes an activist, to one degree or another. When social workers engage in the work of truly liberating the client from her own crippling patterns, there is no dichotomy or struggle between a focus on the individual and a focus on social reforms. I was also convinced by Abramovitz's explanation of how support for social reform efforts reach historical highs and lows depending on whether liberal or conservative forces reign. As for
Professor Everett
Social Welfare Policy
Smith SSW
Summer 2012, part 1
A False Dichotomy and a Failure to Hold Both
Through Mimi Abramovitz and Yoosun Park put forward two very different visions of social work. Both authors use historical evidence to support their perspectives, and each perspective contains valid points. Abramovitz argues that the social work profession does not engage enough in social reform efforts, and Park uncovers a dark side in the history of the profession, and concludes that social work may be well intentioned but may cause more harm than good. To Abramovitz's point: social workers that only help clients become better “adjusted” to society and therefore accept the status quo, do indeed not contribute towards social reforms. The author makes a good point here, and from this perspective, there is a dichotomy, a struggle, between focussing on the individual and focusing on bringing about societal change and activism. However, where social workers help liberate and empower their clients by helping them sort out personal issues and take charge of their lives, as opposed to helping them to merely conform to social norms, social workers help create people that are very much equipped and able to engage in the business of social reforms. The essential point here is whether or not the social worker is merely helping clients conform and become “well adjusted,” or if they are truly liberating clients, healing clients, which will make the clients want to heal the world. The liberated client, then, becomes an activist, to one degree or another. When social workers engage in the work of truly liberating the client from her own crippling patterns, there is no dichotomy or struggle between a focus on the individual and a focus on social reforms. I was also convinced by Abramovitz's explanation of how support for social reform efforts reach historical highs and lows depending on whether liberal or conservative forces reign. As for