The problem with ‘social problems’ as domain of social work: a critical approach to the Melbourne ‘global definition of social work’ of 2014 and constructivist theories of social problems

ABSTRACT

After 14 years of debate, a new ‘Global Definition of Social Work’ has been ratified at the World Conference by the International Organisations IASSW/IFSW in Melbourne in 2004. Looking at it, it shows different problems: (1) the ‘domain’ of social work is very vaguely defined as ‘life challenges’; (2) there is a ‘moral-overload’ of partially contradictory values underlying a profession as an example of ‘moral-entrepreneurship’, which is always on the ‘right’ and the ‘good’ side of history. (3) Human Rights and Social Justice are just value items on the same level as all other values and cannot offer anymore the possibility to articulate discrepancies between legality, indigenous knowledge and ethical legitimacy according to more general values and norms such as Human Dignity and Human Rights. The article offers explanations referring especially to a mainly Western/European tradition of epistemological constructivism and corresponding idealistic ontology, which dispossess the clients from their real distress and social workers from their disciplinary and professional domain and mandate.

ABSTRAKT

Nach einem 14-jährigen Prozess auf internationaler Ebene zur Revision der Global Definition of Social Work wurde sie 2004 von den Organisationen IASSW/IFSW in Melbourne verabschiedet. Bei genauerer Lektüre zeigen sich bei dieser neuen Version im Vergleich zur Montréal-Definition von 2000 folgende Probleme: (1) der Gegenstand Sozialer Arbeit ist äusserst vage als ‘Herausforderungen’ definiert, so dass nicht klar wird, wofür Soziale Arbeit als Disziplin und Profession Zuständigkeit beanspruchen kann; (2) diese Vagheit korrespondiert mit einer mehrheitlich westlichen Theorietradition in zwei wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaften, deren Mainstream wirklichkeitstheoretische Fragen auf erkenntnistheoretische Fragen reduzieren (repräsentativ für die USA ist Herbert Blumer, für Deutschland Michael Schetsche). Mit diesen metatheoretischen Positionen werden die KlientInnen Sozialer Arbeit von ihrem ‘Leiden an der Gesellschaft’ sowie die Professionellen von ihrem Mandat enteignet. Paradox ist dabei, dass die IASSW/IFSW-Mitglieder des Südens wie Asiens sich von westlichen Vorstellungen in der Theoriebildung befreien wollten; (3) Es besteht überdies ein Überhang an Werten, was die Profession in die Nähe ‘moralischen Unternehmertums’ rückt; das heisst, dass sie sich unbesehen und selbstverständlich immer auf der richtigen Seite der Geschichte befindet; (4) Menschenrechte und Soziale Gerechtigkeit sind in dieser Definition Werte auf der gleichen Ebene wie andere Werte, was möglicherweise verhindert, dass man Diskrepanzen zwischen Legalität, Moralität, indigenem Wissen und ethischer Legitimität aufgrund allgemeinerer Werte und Normen wie Menschenwürde und Menschenrechte kritisieren kann.

KEYWORDS:

• The Melbourne ‘Global definition of social work’
• domain of social work
• social problems
• power and empowerment: constructivism
• the difference between facts and subjective opinions and idealistic ontology

KEYWORDS:

• Die Melbourne-Definition Sozialer Arbeit von 2014
• ‘Herausforderungen’ als Allerweltsgegenstand Sozialer Arbeit
• Soziale Probleme und (radikaler) Konstruktivismus
• Macht und Empowerment
• Relativierung der Menschenrechte
• Soziale Arbeit als unkritisches moralisches Unternehmertum?

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on contributor

Prof.em. Dr. Silvia Staub-Bernasconi, Zurich & Berlin. Professor of Social Work Theories, Social Problems and Human Rights at the Zurich School of Social Work, University of Fribourg/CH, the Technical University Berlin (Institute of Social Pedagogy) and the Alice Salomon University of Applied Sciences Berlin; founder and director of the Master of Social Work ‘Social Work as a Human Rights Profession’ Berlin (2002–2012); Katherine Kendall Awardee 2010.

Notes

1. There seems to be a consensus in the social work community that neither ‘client’ nor ‘user’ is an optimal concept. Dealing with this dilemma, I prefer to use the concept of ‘client’ which has from its origin an emancipatory dimension which replaces the old, partial hegemonial concepts which point to a tutelage-relationship. ‘User’ is, as I see it, too close to a functionalist, utilitaristic philosophy.

2. A recent example which stands for countless similar ones concerns the actual negotiations around the Free Trade Agreement between USA and Europe (TTIP): A representative of the European Union was asked who will be the winners and losers of this treaty. The answer was: ‘Oh, there will be great challenges for all of us!’ All big players in politics, economy, financial industry which produce money out of money, will never speak of ‘problems’: They work on challenges!

3. Although Makau Mutuas book is one huge accusation of the West, in particular also of South Africa after apartheid which left the economic hierarchies of the apartheid regime and many other institutions undisturbed in the hands of the whites. (152) (see also Sewpaul, 2016), he writes:

If human rights are to represent a higher human intelligence – which I believe they should – they must overcome the seemingly incurable virus to universalise Eurocentric norms and values by demonizing, repudiating, and re-creating that which is different and non-European. … The universalization of human rights cannot succeed unless the corpus is moored in all the cultures of the world. Ideas do not become universal merely because powerful interests declare them to be so. Inclusion – not exclusion – is the key to legitimacy. (156)

His goal is a ‘more inclusive doctrine of human rights’ (157) as worldwide ‘overarching vision’.