Thatcherite and Reaganomic Practices, Essay Example

Since the 1980s, the legacy of Thatcherite and Reaganomic practices of economic rationalism marked the emergence of globalization in response to evolution in the market and the impact of those forces on the social welfare state. How Social Work as a field of practice was being thought about and put into formative models of service delivery by the late 1990s says much about the discursive forces promulgating theory. Major reassessments in how social work was administered and advocated for in policy from that point forward transformed the image and systems of the “welfare state” as a link between personal and political practice. Non-profit organizations (NPO) and non-governmental organizations (NGO) redirected our ideas about the appropriate relationship between the public-private intervention, and from the perspectives of that era instigated critical dialogue over the role of social work in reference to building policy, and toward iterative practices of ‘total’ inclusion.

Despite the subtle shift from a pure welfare state model to charitable public-private partnership, critiques leveraged in commentary about inequitable distribution, with priority to evidence based practices edifies the research based rather than practice based foci of much of the funding. Enforcement of complex managerialism was instilled in social work in response to the dual parity of legal application in social work with parental and child care as a ‘right’ of citizenship and family. My particular specialization, social work involving substance and alcohol abuse, may be preventive and/or managerial and provides the middle ground.

Ideological constraints were also transformed into the ‘duty to a standard of care’ as it is understood in common law nations and moved from moral proscription and responsibility of parents, to a focus on the individual rights of the child. So too, in the context of precipitous yet indecisive application of children’s rights in different national common law contexts, provision for human rights much less children’s rights as statutory codification varied, as the distinction between  control and care shifted accordingly.  It is not surprising, then, that in a time of abundant economic rationalism, where allocations for care became synonymous with ways of substantiating and reporting control the boundaries between rights and obligations to a standard of care became blurred, as clients were told to participate, self-report, and to wait in line for services. Realistically speaking, if they are dedicated enough to self-report than it would seem that they have more care for the child than the welfare system. In what Jim Ife (1997) calls the ‘wrath of the market,’ those discussions articulate dissent toward what came to overrule what they saw as all sense and sensibility toward real people and their human rights seemingly overnight.

Although thinkers like Fook and Ife have forged seminal paths in theoretical consideration of the field and linked spheres of ideological dissemination linked to both critical theory and economics where globalization and the attendant forces of an international human rights regime finds connection in market practices, since 2007 role perceptions have changed. The devolution of the world economy much has changed in regard to perceptions of the role and the limitations of the welfare state in common law countries, and particularly in neighboring United States, which does not retain benefit of the commonwealth as the other national social welfare sectors reviewed in Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom.  Even with the election of Democrat Barack Obama to the U.S. Presidency, the United States- with its market driven principles of governance, deep class-gender-race social stratification, and over one hundred trillion in national debt- remains a lacuna to both those within the country and to observers outside. The concept of equitable distribution and the need for better funding of the welfare state escapes all rationalism indeed.

In the post-Modernist mess of legacies, rationalism and theory must diverge as seamlessly and successfully as possible for the sake of all persons involved. This essay reflects on the evolution of social work praxis, with theoretical consideration to the history of critical theory in contemporary social work, and in continuum toward new models of applied practice with emphases on: 1) Social and Community Development in relation to NPO agency public partnerships; and 2) Empowerment and Advocacy theories to advance the brilliance of legislative social policy and family law as it is exercised by social workers and colleagues on behalf of clients (Payne, 2005).

Theories of Practice

Capacity building sits at the nexus of my query into theories of social work practice. A common directive within both funding and policy mandates, capacity building models foreground my decision to look at Social and Community Development as an apt vehicle toward interpretation of the relationship between the macro and micro, or global and local channels afforded by way of partnered inclusion of government and private monies, legal advocacy, knowledge sharing and service delivery within the NPO and NGO social work network. America is called a melting pot for good reason.

According to Malcom Payne (2005) in his work, Modern Social Work Theory, social and community practice theory as attributed to “the wider development of localities, areas, regions and countries.” Social and community practice theory is very exclusionary and type-casted in a way that the world is not. Even to focus on a specific government type is to separate groups and make unity more difficult. When I think of the “wider development of localities”, I am reminded that the government is always closely tied to its history and religion- both of which can be very much at odds with persons from different backgrounds. Even native-born citizens cannot fulfill every group and will be either formally or informally excluded from certain services and events at some point during their lives. For example, despite the fact that single parenthood is becoming more and more common, there can often be more unspoken social sanctions prohibiting a person from choosing to be a single parent than there are toward single mothers whose partner left. While Social and Community development theories are admirable in theory, they assume a state of isolationism and clarity. Despite having intimate knowledge of the problems within your own community, each district, county, state, etc. cannot always fend for itself. The famous words, “Surely we should all hang together, or we will all hang separately”, come to mind.

Current approaches to capacity building focus on issues of poverty, employment and enterprise, and sustainable social formations that count to disadvantaged or ‘underserved’ (i.e. women and children) populations. For instance, microloan projects promote self-sustaining objectives through small business enterprises. The range of human welfare achieved through decentralized project implementation and distributive resource allocations has come to characterize the evolution of social work theory from “critical” objectives in the 1990s to “sustainable” goals in the twenty first century.

Once again, good intentions go awry. When economically-trying times creep up on the people, socioeconomic status is a larger barrier than it is recognized to be. Furthermore, these sustainable social formations cannot be explicitly designated as benefits for a certain income level. Where jobs are created, the more experienced and better-dressed will often still gain the employment. Informally, many companies have taken a silent stand and chosen to only fulfill the statistical ratios required of them. Simply put, preference should be given to the economically disadvantaged citizens- not to the exclusion of any other options.

Intervention strategies and economic planning designated by NPO and NGO social service organizations now forge programmatic statements for inclusion of broader ideological interests into targeted outreach projects, as in the case of environmental health platforms funded by states toward mitigation of environmental risks to infant health. On the ground community deployment of those fund mandated programs is typically based on recommended, replicable models which concede to the directive of evidence based practices, yet with nuanced decision making and highly localized provision to clients. Instrumental reporting on such projects definitely offers smaller agencies a vehicle for iterative contribution to policy, as even mere statistical outcomes might be rendered in evidence of the success of one factor over another.

The intervention strategies adhere to Midgley’s (1995) framework to social development where three types of intervention strategies might be present: 1) Individualistic; 2) Collectivist; and 3) Populist, notwithstanding that development accords inference to an “ideological commitment to progress,” and to “intervention” how those economic factors, ideological constraints, and goals are integrated into those decision models within a given organization will vary, says Payne.   To this end, and especially in the case of resource poor agencies, reform rather than total elimination of institutional bureaucracies dedicated to social welfare practice is the most prudent, and inevitability the most effective.

Not only is this approach more cost-effective, pragmatic, and theoretically-promising, to me it is a mirror image of the American government itself– a favorable, real-world presentation where each individual has a voice of their own and in the Senate and the House of Representatives. As a social work professional, public perception is a bittersweet factor in the overall success of outreach. For recent immigrants especially, working in the typical American business is graduation day for the process of acculturation.

This brings us to the second theoretical consideration of Empowerment and Advocacy as defined by Payne (2005), or practices responsive to the critical assertions posited by Ife and like minded scholars toward removal of barriers to achievement of human rights as an actual legal mechanism on behalf and in cooperation with clients. I am interested in what Payne articulates as a politics of “representation” through what Freddolino et al. (2004) defines as a structure of intervention meant to: 1) protect vulnerable people; 2) function of support; 3) protect and advance claims of appeals; and 4) foster identity and control. As special-interest groups and public activists gain increasing influence, I am concerned by the disproportionate amount of power that they wield and their figurative distance from those whom they claim to represent. Furthermore, I believe that not all agencies of social work are created equal, nor do I find all social work agendas to be worth fostering merely for the sake of identity.

Although I find “cause advocacy” and of course, “welfare rights” of universal importance, my investigation into case work in the United States led me to discretionary interest in “case advocacy” and its real potential for social justice. The interdependency of client empowerment with the practice of case management is well defined in Payne’s discussion of Rees’ (1991) theory on the politics of social work practice through five essential practices: 1) Biography; 2) Power; 3) Political understanding; 4) Skills; and 5) Interdependence of Policy and Practice (Payne, 2005, 303).

Incorporation of social work cases into legal case work, I would argue, furthers the theoretical advancement of advocacy as more than policy interjection, as those cases inform judicial opinion in the application and enforcement statutory code in common law court decisions. In the United States for example, custodial cases surrounding parental negligence and temporary mental incompetency often incorporate factors from divorce to drug addiction. Subpoena of social worker case record is standard in determination of parental proprietary rights of supervision over a child and may serve to inform court ordered placement of the child to foster care. It is quite typical that there is an ethical dilemma if not further adversarial legal dispute, over the duty to a standard of care as determined by the particular jurisdiction of that state. From an ethical perspective, family law is a ‘rule based’ framework, and one that asserts authority over individual rights, toward protection of minors  whom are confronted with insufficient capacity of a parent(s) to provide adequate care (Woody, 2000).

As a substance and alcohol abuse specialist in social work, many of the ethical dilemmas which I will directly confront will involve a parent’s struggle to overcome their addictions and win custody of their children. They may plead or even become violent towards me as a representative of an industry which is often viewed by parents as an interference in their rights, asserting that care of their own child is a parent’s responsibility and right. In any event, the restoration of full custody to a parent is a gamble which each social worker must live with. Being up to date with psychological warning signs and the case are a small part of the large field of social work and the professional’s duty to perpetually strive to exceed their ‘duty to a reasonable standard of care’. In some cases, I will decide which cases appear to be the most urgent and face dire consequences and guilt if my observations are incorrect.

The blueprint for the common law tradition, civil law and its system of legal classification distinguishes the heterosexual family unit as a primary basis for all subsequent legal formations (Merryman, 1969). Moreover, the judicial preference to award custody to a mother is still present and represents the extent to which tradition still affects decisions of child welfare. In the United States, ethical assumption within law’s exercise is distinct, and best seen in the procedural framework of family law custody cases, where moral correctives continue beyond litigation. ‘Corrections’ to parental incapacity might be achieved are quite visible within the practice of foster care provision, and subsequent return of the child post intervention. This is less practiced in civil law countries, where rule application is subject to strict interpretation of code. If family law is intended to protect the ‘rights’ of the child, and the child and the parents of the child are both deemed to be without capacity to act, the court may intercede that there is no other option. Blood relations and approved temporary foster parents have custodial preference in cases where temporary care is required. I believe that the exclusion of a stable, caring partner of the child’s parent or close family friends of the family should be considered in the absence of family interest in temporary custody.

Since the 1980s, the emergence of children’s rights as human rights has had some influence on national statutes in across the board in the North, and also in key countries where significant policy work has been done by social worker advocates in response to unwanted state interventions, as in the case of Argentina, Chile, Brazil and Uruguay. In the North, statute is articulated to include children’s rights as human rights, seen particularly in the EU whereby most states have incorporated international human rights legislation into national law. U.S. laws hold precise recommendation and legal preemption over state jurisdictions where custody decisions are made. They often include stipulation that the child cannot be moved outside the jurisdiction of the state without court permission while under state custodial care. However, the wants of the child must be superseded by what is the perceived best course of action. They do not have the necessary life experience or legal expertise of social workers, so- while their wishes may be recorded and taken into account- their right to some freedoms may be rescinded.

Theoretical queries into contemporary children’s rights discourses look to the meaning of displaced or “missing” child in late-capitalist modernity. At least partial truths are elucidated in this scholarship. As Scheper-Hughes (1989, 12) argues, “the instrumental value of children has been largely replaced by their expressive value. Children have become relatively worthless (economically) to their parents, but priceless in terms of their psychological worth.”  In Marilyn Ivy’s (1995) work, Have You Seen Me? Recovering the Inner Child in Late Twentieth-Century America she argues that the pervasive interest in “missing and abused children and their recovery” is contemporaneous in focus to therapeutic interventions emphasizing adult addictive behaviors. She suggests that the individuated basis of addiction analysis, where the addict is believed to be in a “state of infantile dependency” relies on the assumption that “recovering the so-called inner child through the [evocation] of repressed memories, lead[s to the] subsequent ‘recovery’ from addiction, [the subject will ‘recover’] from all ails” (Ivy, 1995, 82).

Every individual has their childish turns, but some addicts have been known to live in residences in abominable disrepair and abhorrent health conditions- even infestation. Violent parents aside, the dangers of entering such an environment are many. Although, social work is generally met with strong resistance, the recovered addict may retrospectively appreciate that social work saved both the parent and the child(ren). My analysis of the above assumptions concludes with a simple point: children should not raise children.

Noting that the majority of displaced children abducted or abandoned by family members  reiterates the child’s identity as site of sacrifice and regeneration for social welfare intervention through administration of legal advocacy, case work, therapeutic treatments, the proposition of a coherent, late-capitalist theory is somewhat advanced in recognition that NGO and NPO social worker administrators denote that children are not only at risk, they are a risk– precious commodities on the futures market of humanity (Stephens, 1995). It is in this scope of foster care advocacy that we perhaps seen the almost seamless erudition of Ife’s contention that social justice and its attendant legal forms, especially in  the protracted development of children’s rights as human rights comes into direct confrontation with late-capitalist market incentives (Ife, 2000). Children from other countries and in our country will have a wider range of experiences than we would assume as an outsider, such as in service to the market in free trade zones, prostitution, sweatshops etc., and situations of direct violence in service to the state (i.e. child soldiers).

In the introduction to the essay, I reach back in time to an era when academics assigned the role of explicating the occurrences and phenomena of globalization and the relationship between the market, governance, and questions of consumer-citizenship. The general climate within academia mirrored transformations in high brow philosophy which became, at least for a short while, the over-determined producer to the innovation within material production – something not foreseen within preceding decades since the 19th century and the proliferation of historical materialism as core framework for all thought to follow. Indeed, deconstructionism found its way into Modernism and its ‘right’ as ideological interpretation, and now  this is very evident in the softer realms dedicated to policy based interests, and especially social welfare allocations. By the end of the 1990s, the current of what Deconstruction’s moniker became, Post-modernism and its ‘refracted’ and ‘situated’ logics—mirroring flexible capital flows of late-capitalist market contractions – collected seemingly everyone who passed through the corridors of those intellectual institutions. To me, situated logic is a slippery slope of unsure footing built upon ever-shifting standards. There will be extenuating circumstances, but one exception means another. According to the late-capitalist view of children as commodities, the more affluent parents fighting for custody will have a drastically higher chance of exploiting the gray areas of the laws over social work than lower-class parents who have worked just as hard to recover.

For Ife and other like him, the search for objectivity, then, had to be moved beyond Modernist considerations toward new measurement of ‘value.’ I agree, that “it is certainly true that the current context of practice has shown up the inadequacies of the theory and knowledge bases of social work” (Ife, 1999). Perhaps optimized knowledge sharing made available by way of IT systems integration will offer NPO social workers and their public-private partnership with government, family law attorneys and healthcare professionals a viable network of inclusion toward reconfiguration of the field of practice. To be sure, the hardships of custodial separation are not what they once were; stabilized inmates may even chat with their children via the internet. I personally do not object to monitored web chats during custodial separation, as the parent’s recovery is often the greatest good for both the parent and the child. That is what we work for.

Conclusion

In 2008, Jim Ife published a commentary on John Solas’ “social justice” critique of the Australian Association of Social Workers (AASW) Code of Ethics (AASW, 2002). In his discussion, he outlines what he perceives to be the sheer dominance of utilitarianism as a foundation to in social and political discourse, and so too to social work practice. Reeling against the influence of economic rationalism and crude empiricism in the field, Ife rightly argues that “utilitarianism forms the basis of many of the policies, practice manuals, and managerial practices that form the context within which social workers work” and that philosophical conjecture finds its salt in the AASW Code of Ethics not by error. He goes on to argue that the adherence to utilitarianism is in the last instance a detriment to those it serves. With all due respect to his righteous indignation, the world we live in does often dictate a choice which assumes the greatest good. However, I do agree that utilitarianism does not belong in social work practice- except as a last resort.

In response to the “radical equality” perspective put forth by social work theorists of this camp, I argue throughout the aforementioned essay on theory that there is substantial truth behind the assertions made by critical theorists on traditional social policy, in that equity of opportunity and equity of outcome are not evidentiary in opposition but that the benefits of the latter stand as in the face of social justice critique – even if unattainable in instances where  neoliberal economics and neoconservative politics preclude that reality.

What Ife has brought to the fore within social work theory is the reminder of what he calls a “pernicious legacy of modernity and the Enlightenment,” rife with an ontology of order in a single, unitary system. In this light, and especially when we think of the implications of utilitarianism in case work and in law, it is difficult to reconcile the idea of ‘‘equal yet different’’ as equity is an economic principle and equa-liberty a juridical one, and difference stands apart as an existential reality.

References

Aríes, P. (1962). Centuries of Childhood: A Social History of Family Life. New York, NY: Vintage Books.

Allan, J. et al. (2003). Critical social work – an introduction to theories and practices. Crows Nest: Allen.

Alston, M. & McKinnon, J., eds. (2005). Social work fields of practice (2nd ed.). South Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Becvar, D.S. &  Becvar, R.J. (1996). Family therapy a systemic integration (3rd ed.).Boston, MA: Bacon.

Berman, Y. (1995). Knowledge transfer in social work – the role of grey documentation. International Information & Library Review, 27(2), 143-154.

Brookfield, S.D. (1987). Developing critical thinkers – Challenging to explore alternative ways of thinking and acting.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Brown, K. & Rutter, L. (2006). Critical thinking for social workers. Essex, UK: Learning Matters Ltd.

Chenoweth, L. & McAuliffe, D. (2005). The road to social work and human service practice: An Introductory text. Victoria: Thomson.

Dwyer D.C., et al. (1995). Domestic violence research – theoretical and practice implications for social work. Clinical Social Work Journal, 23(2), 185-198.

Fook, J. (2002). Social work critical theory and practice. London: Sage.

(1996). The reflective researcher: Social workers’ theories of practice research. North Sydney: Allen.

(1993). Radical casework: A theory of practice. North Sydney: Allen.

Forsythe B. (1995). Discrimination in social work – an historical note. British Journal of Social Work, 25(1),116.

Freedman, J. et al. (1996). Narrative therapy: The social construction of preferred realities. New York, NY: Warton.

Gardner, F. (2006). Working with human service organisations creating connections for practice. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Gilligan, S. & Price, R. (eds.) (1993). Therapeutic conversations. New York, NY: W.W.Norton & Co.

Gutierrez, L.M. (1995). Understanding the empowerment process – does consciousness make a difference? Social Work Research,19 (4), 229-237.

Healy, K. (2005). Social work theories in context – Creating frameworks for practice. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.

Hick, S. et al., eds. (2004). Social work: A critical turn. New York, NY: Thompson Educational Publishing Inc.

Ife, J. (2001). Human rights and social work: Towards rights-based practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

(2000). Local and global practice: relocating social work as a human rights profession in the new global order. Eileen Younghusband Memorial Lecture, ISFW/IASWW, Biennial Conference, Montreal, 31 July 2000.

(1999). Postmodernism, critical theory and social work. Fook, J. & Pease, B. eds. Transforming social work practice: postmodern critical perspectives. London, UK: Routledge.

(1997). Rethinking social work: Towards critical practice. Melbourne: Longman.

(1995). Community development: Creating community alternatives – vision, analysis and practice. Melbourne: Longman.

Ife, J. & Tesoriero, F. (2006). Community development: Community-based alternatives in an age of globalisation (3rd ed.). Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Education Australia.

Ivy, M. (1995). Have You Seen Me? Recovering the Inner Child in Late Twentieth-Century America. In: Stephens, S. Children and the Politics of Culture. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Klein, W.C. & et al. (1995). Practice Wisdom. Social Work, 40 (6), 799-807.

Jones, E. (1993). Family systems therapy: Developments in the Milan-Systemic therapies. Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential learning experience as the source of learning and development. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Kolb, D.A., et al. (1995). Organizational behaviour an experiential approach (6th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

McDonald, C. (2006). Challenging social work: The context of practice. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Merryman, J.H. (1969). The Civil Law Tradition: An Introduction to the Legal Systems of Western Europe and Latin America. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Miermont, J. & Jenkins H. (1995). A dictionary of family therapy. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Miller, S.D., et al., eds. (1996). Handbook of solution-focused brief therapy. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Morgan, A. (2000). What is narrating therapy: an easy to read introduction. Adelaide: Dulwich Centre.

Mullaly, R.P. (1997). Structural social work: Ideology, theory, and practice (2nd ed.). Toronto: McClelland &Stewart.

Mulligan, J. et al., eds. (1992). Empowerment through experiential learning explorations of good practice. London: Kogan Page.

Parton, N. (1994). Problematics of government,(post)modernity and social work. British Journal of Social Work, 24 (1), 932.

Payne, M. (2005). Modern social work theory (3rd ed.). London: Palgrave.

Peile, C. (1994). The creative paradigm. Aldershot, UK: Avebury.

Piercy, F.P., et al., eds. (1996). Family therapy sourcebook (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.

Roberts, R. (1990). Lessons from the past: Issues for social work theory. London, UK: Routledge.

Saleebey, D. (1994). Culture, theory and narrative – the intersection of meanings in practice. Social Work, 39(4), 351-359.

Scheper-Hughes, N., ed. (1987). Child Survival Anthropological Perspectives on the Treatment and Maltreatment of Children .  Boston, MA: D. Reidel Publishing Company.

Schön, D.A. (1995). Reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Aldershot: Arena.

(1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

(1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Stephens, S. (1995). Children and the Politics of Culture. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Swigonski M.E. (1994). The logic of feminist standpoint theory for social work research. Social Work, 39 (4), 387-393.

Woody, R.H. (2000). Child Custody: Practice Standards, Ethical Issues, and Legal Safeguards for Mental Healthprofessionals. Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Press.