Hans-Uwe Otto’s way of celebrating special commemorative occasions, including his last and 80th birthday, was always by means of challenging us to a topical, at times controversial academic debate in the broad field of social work, and always from his unique critical perspective. And so, marking also his death and his phenomenal legacy cannot be but by reflection on this unique synergy between engaging personality and penetrating intellect which he lived and radiated. What on first encounters with his combatant style of leading academic discussions to some appeared perhaps provocative soon manifested itself as his total commitment to intellectual honesty and authenticity, and this not for the sake of playing intellectual games but with a keen orientation towards enabling accountable practice in this professional field.
And Hans-Uwe shaped the academic as well as the professional status of social work nationally and to a large intent also internationally by giving this discipline, which often gets misrepresented as being amorphous and intellectually inferior, a direction in research and teaching which liberated it from dependency from ‘neighbouring’ disciplines while at the same time putting it on an equal level with them by elaborating its unique qualities. His zeal for differentiation and specification was in fact a dialectical device to connect ‘worlds’ that had unnecessarily been placed in contrast to each other.
In this regard, three such penetrations of frequently existing barriers might signpost the path he pioneered throughout his life, the barrier between theory and practice, the barrier between personal caring and political engagement, and the barrier between national specificity of discourses and international universality of epistemologies.
Hans-Uwe represented the practice field convincingly and not as a kind of condescending step down from a secure academic position, but on the basis of his direct knowledge of the field as a trained social worker, and for further biographical reasons. He occasionally, but never ostentatiously, made reference to his amputated finger, a consequence of an industrial accident, as a symbol of understanding social work also as a craft (with all its associated perils). Developing reliable theoretical foundations for this emergent profession social work, which in the formative years after the Second World War in most European countries and also in his native Germany tended to run shy of ‘too much theory’, was for him an essential contribution to practice. His early publications entitled the ‘Public perspectives of social work’ marked a decisive step beyond charity work and benevolence, which had had only limited access to empirical evidence and conceptual stringency. When he made his university of Bielefeld a radiating reference point for social work theory in Germany, he had the intention of consolidating the self-confidence of practitioners who had tended to borrow their conceptual tools from other disciplines and professions, thereby entangling themselves in feelings of inferiority and imprecision of methodology.
With this orientation, Hans-Uwe also took a liberating step beyond the division between social work and social pedagogy, a debate that still puzzles non-German observers. By locating a non-exclusive understanding of the main traditions of ‘social work’ within the discourses of ‘educational sciences’ he utilised creatively the tension which undeniably exists between both traditions in order to continuously question taken-for-granted identities of both. More important than boundary-drawing was for him the sharpening of those research instruments that gave expression to the specific mandate of both professions and thereby the setting of standards that promoted the full academic recognition of the discipline in the German university system. He founded the first doctoral programme (‘Graduiertenkolleg’) in educational science recognised and financed by the highest public funding institution, the German Research Association (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft), and pushed that organisation in the direction of taking his academic discipline seriously for the allocation of their research funds. Graduates from this programme became not only leading academics but occupied also key positions in social services generally, allowing Bielefeld university in turn to draw on collaboration in the field for their research and in the dissemination of results at conferences, at which practitioners were always active participants.
Intellectual rigour combined in Hans-Uwe with astuteness in matters of university and research governance. In 1988, nine years after having obtained the chair in Educational Science and Social Work at Bielefeld University, he was elected there as Dean of the Faculty of Educational Science and in 1990 ‘Prorector for teaching, young scientists, and further education’, while also being on the Board of the prestigious Deutsche Gesellschaft für Erziehungswissenschaft (German Association for Educational Sciences) from 1988-2000. These organisational qualities were called upon in the phase of the re-structuring of higher education in Eastern Germany after unification and he had a founding role as Acting Rector of the Teacher Training College Halle-Köthen and as chairman of the commission for the restructuring of the Faculty of Education, Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg.
The early years of Hans-Uwe’s academic career fell into a time of virulent political movements internationally. The neglect (or downright suppression) of critical political debate in the educational context at all levels in the first decades of post-war West Germany gave rise after 1968 to a stark polarisation between attempts to instrumentalise social work for (revolutionary) political ends and the withdrawal on the part of many theoreticians and practitioners to de-politicised psychological practice perspectives. Again, Hans-Uwe took on the challenges of and barriers between both sides. He promoted an approach to social work theory and practice that expressed a political commitment in the form of the constant critical analysis of societal processes as they impinge on the lives of social service clients, but also of the impact of social work practice on social transformation processes. For him, social work has its place not outside but in the midst of social processes, is shaped by and in turn has to shape social policy developments and therefore makes constant reference to the public sphere (Öffentlichkeit) while dealing with personal matters within the private sphere. He applied this orientation successfully in his capacity as Chair of the independent expert-commission of the Ninth Children and Youth Report of the German Government 1992–1994 which became a farsighted reference point for youth policies in the recently politically united but socially still deeply divided Germany.
A ‘smithy of ideas’ (‘Gedankenschmiede’) that persistently worked on enlivening this crucial interface between social work and society emerged in the form of the yearly summer academy which Hans-Uwe founded in 2002 under the programmatic title ‘The International Social Work and Society Academy’ (TISSA). It grew yearly to this day as a platform for the critical exchange of research results at this crucial interface, taking into consideration particularly in the early years the need of academic social work colleagues beyond the former Iron Curtain to have access to international discourses where they and their PhD students could engage in open debate at an equal level with colleagues from all over Europe and beyond. Everybody who participated in TISSA will fondly remember the tireless questioning which Hans-Uwe coordinated and vehemently engaged in himself after each presentation, and many were astonished that the same brilliantly sharp debater would show himself at the closing party as an equally energetic dancer who despite the late celebrations would then have perhaps revised an article by dawn the next morning. PhD candidates who participated in these intensive summer sessions frequently took not just new knowledge but a whole critical debating style back to their respective universities and carried on to work in this deeply questioning but confidence-building manner.
The third barrier for Hans-Uwe to pierce with equal vigour (and very much in line with his characteristic approach to social work) was the national self-centredness of social work debates, and this not only in Germany. While the re-construction of the entire welfare structure of the countries of Western Europe, and therefore also the training of social service personnel after the Second World War, had been guided by a spirit of internationalism, expressed largely in the form of a ‘standard model of social work’ based on the available literature in the English language, this had decades later given rise to a kind of ‘indigenisation’ of social work models in several countries. In view of the strengthening confidence of the discipline of social work in Germany a shift away from international methods discourses took place, which heralded isolation and an emphasis on literature in the German language. For Hans-Uwe this was cause for a determined engagement in social work research and education at an international level. 1990–1992 he served as a member of the programme committee of the International Association of Schools of Social Work and in 1998 he became Adjunct Professor at the School of Social Policy and Practice, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA, a responsibility which he took very seriously and through which many leading US social work academics came into contact with social work theorising in Europe. This was followed by other notable international academic appointments in South Africa (University of the Free State), Switzerland (University of Zurich) and China (University of Shanghai).
In this context, his ever-searching mind sought further challenges that would give expression to the need for renewed international exchanges, focusing on developments in Europe where the diversity of models and discourses was not an obstacle but an opportunity to continuously question any emerging national or international convergence on new standards. He saw this opening as a necessity particularly in the light of the growing transnational pressure on social services exercised by the swing to neoliberalism in social policies, a trend which he vigorously criticised on every occasion. Social workers to him were in danger of being instrumentalised as servants to punitive and excluding social policy measures under regimes of managerialism, and against this, he sought to mobilise the best in European social work research that evidenced the need for autonomous and critical position-taking. His idea of creating a European forum for such critical social work debates resulted in a successful proposal to no lesser a publishing house than Oxford University Press, already home to the British Journal of Social Work, to launch the European Journal of Social Work. The negotiations with this publishing establishment in the British tradition formed an additional test for his particular stance on the academic merits of his discipline, not easy to reconcile with a commercial orientation towards the incipient ‘impact-factor’ mania, particularly when he pushed the idea that some of the articles should occasionally be published in strange European languages other than English to stimulate an awareness of the language-dependency of discourses. It took some time for this singular voice to be established – the ups and downs of annual sales figures were reflected in the subtle British symbolism when board meetings at Oxford were held in the traditional surroundings of OUP's dining facilities or over a sandwich in one of the offices, and everybody who knew Hans-Uwe can guess the satirical remarks with which he responded to these nuances. But his foresight placed also this break-through project on a journey of success.
In so many ways, Hans-Uwe was ahead of his time, anticipated coming challenges and led discussions at the cutting edge of emergent discourses. With his field of scholars at Bielefeld, he fully launched into the debate on ‘Evidence-based Practice’, dismantling the externally erected façade of ‘scientific certainty’ over ‘what works’ with internally established arguments for alternative ways of achieving accountable practice. Likewise, he and his team identified the potential of Nussbaum’s and Sen’s ‘capability approach’ and in 2006 dedicated an entire institute at Bielefeld to research furthering the promises of this approach within the ambit of social and educational practice.
The international recognition which his work merits is reflected in the four Honorary Doctorates he received by the universities of Halle-Wittenberg and Dortmund in Germany, Ioannina in Greece and Sankt Petersburg in Russia, all awarded on the strength of his direct contribution to social work education at these universities. The entry into the status of a pensioner in 2008 meant by no means an end to his academic activities – on the contrary: as Senior Research Professor with his ‘Capability Team’ of researchers at Bielefeld he continued to successfully launch major international research projects and became scientific coordinator of the EU-Marie-Curie Training Network (for PhD students) ‘Education as Welfare – Enhancing opportunities for socially vulnerable youth in Europe’. He tirelessly facilitated yearly TISSA seminars until recently and his sharp contributions to and comments during conferences and symposia were a lasting joy – and a challenge – to participants. We can best honour his legacy by continuing his quest for solid foundations of our discipline and profession in the spirit of critical reflection.
Mit Hans-Uwe Otto verliert die Soziale Arbeit in Deutschland einen scharfsinnigen Kopf der Disziplin Sozialpädagogik, einen dynamischen Kollegen des Fachs Sozialarbeit, einen rastlosen Akteur der Wissenschafts- und Sozialpolitik, einen brillanten Redner und Diskutanten, einen herzlich seinen Kollegen und Kolleginnen zugeneigten Menschen. Für dieses Leben hat er sich verzehrt.
Hans-Uwe Otto hat die Sozialarbeit in Deutschland an einer ganz entscheidenden Stelle ihrer Nachkriegsentwicklung nicht nur „beeinflusst“, sondern maßgeblich geprägt. Sein wissenschaftliches Werk, seine akademische Ausstrahlung und sein persönlicher Einsatz haben die Sozialarbeit aus einem Status der verschämten Theorieferne und praktischen Handwerkelei in den Stand einer respektablen Wissenschaft gerückt.
Die Sozialarbeit lebte in Deutschland nach dem 2. Weltkrieg zunächst davon, dass sie rein praktisch benötigt wurde als „Nothilfe“. Ideologisch waren die Anleihen an den Schriften und Personen der Weimarer Republik wichtig, teilweise auch an dem us-amerikanischen (Re-)Import von Handlungsmodellen. Die Hilfeprogrammatik ohne Theorie konnte so leicht ein „Opfer“ der Studentenbewegung und ihrer intellektuellen Dynamik werden. Sie verstand die Sozialarbeit dagegen als Instrument revolutionärer Gesellschaftsveränderung. In der Abwehr dieser gesellschaftspolitischen Energie wiederum entstanden psychologisch angereicherte Typisierungen für das sozialarbeiterische Handeln, vor allem aber dann, mit dem Funktionszuwachs der helfenden Berufe, technokratische Muster der Modernisierung.
Es war eine der besonderen intellektuellen Leistungen Hans-Uwe Ottos, sich auf diese Bewegungen und Traditionen beziehen zu können, sie kritisch zu analysieren und in „gesellschaftlichen Perspektiven“ ein Konzept der professionellen Sozialarbeit auszuformulieren. Er hat damit der Sozialarbeit in Deutschland ein neues gedankliches Rückgrat verschafft. Die Sozialarbeit konnte ihr verschämtes Dasein in den Winkeln des akademischen Betriebs verlassen.
Die beiden von ihm mitherausgegebenen Bände „Gesellschaftliche Perspektiven der Sozialarbeit“ (1973) haben den Anschluss der Sozialarbeit an die fortgeschrittenen Sozialwissenschaften hergestellt, insbesondere an die Soziologie, in der Hans-Uwe Otto sein wissenschaftliches Handwerkszeug erworben hatte, nachdem er eine grundständige Ausbildung als Sozialarbeiter absolviert hatte. Die auf hohem Niveau der Bielefelder Universität entwickelte Theorie der Sozialarbeit wurde also nicht von außen an die Sozialarbeit herangetragen, was durchaus ein verbreiteter Umgang mit der Sozialarbeit gewesen ist, sondern aus profunder Kenntnis ihrer inneren Dynamik entwickelt. Ihre Eigenständigkeit wurde so erst begründet. Dies war auch ein Modell, wie in anderen europäischen Ländern sich die Sozialarbeit als moderne Wissenschaft aus der Obhut der Rechtwissenschaft und Kriminologie, der Medizin und der Psychologie, der Ökonomie oder der Theologie befreien konnte.
Hans-Uwe Otto hat zunächst durch seine Schriften gewirkt, in denen die Anschlussfähigkeit an die modernen Sozialwissenschaften hergestellt wurde. Vor allem aber, und dies ist ein ganz hervorragendes Merkmal seines Schaffens, hat er die empirische Forschung in der Sozialarbeit in einer qualifizierten Art zum Standard der Sozialarbeit (und der Sozialpädagogik, um einmal die deutsche Problematik der gespalteten Disziplin anzusprechen) durchgesetzt. Seine Ansprüche an Sozialforschung setzten einen Maßstab, vor dem wohl einige Sozialarbeitswissenschaftler kapitulierten, in dem viele aber die Messlatte erkannten, die einer akademischen Disziplin angemessen ist. So ist es eben kein Zufall, dass er das erste Graduiertenkolleg nach dem Muster der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft in der Erziehungswissenschaft durchsetzte und leitete und dass der erste Forschungsschwerpunkt der DFG in der Erziehungswissenschaft maßgeblich durch Hans-Uwe Otto in Bielefeld eingerichtet wurde. Seine Einwerbungen an Drittmittel aus den anspruchsvollen Institutionen der Forschungsförderung waren legendär und ließen die Vertreter der empirischen Disziplinen an seiner Universität und anderswo erblassen. Dem folgten viele seiner Schüler und Schülerinnen, die heute den größten Teil der universitären Sozialarbeit repräsentieren.
Hans-Uwe Otto war aber nicht nur als erfolgreicher Wissenschaftler und Forscher bedeutsam. Sein Engagement als führender Vertreter der Sozialpädagogik in Deutschland und, darüber hinaus, der ganzen Erziehungswissenschaft, hat Maßstäbe gesetzt, wie diese Disziplin akademisch angemessen und politisch klug vertreten wird. Seine scharfsinnige Argumentation war immer verbunden mit der Verpflichtung auf die Sache und der persönlichen Konsequenz beim Einsatz für eine menschenwürdige Gesellschaft. Das war auch sein Anspruch an die Sozialarbeit, nicht nur an sich persönlich. So wurde er zum anerkannten Repräsentanten der Sozialpädagogik in Deutschland, die er für eine lange Zeit wesentlich prägte.
Nach dem Anschluss der ostdeutschen Länder an die Bundesrepublik im Oktober 1980 war Hans-Uwe Otto verantwortlich für einen Jugendbericht, der das Zusammenwachsen der beiden Teile Deutschlands kritisch von den Voraussetzungen her analysierte und weitsichtige Perspektiven für die Entwicklung der Jugendhilfe formulierte. Wenn man die Relevanz der zentralen Jugendberichte für die Sozialpolitik in Deutschland in Rechnung stellt, dann lässt sich die besondere gesellschaftspolitische Wirkung der Tätigkeit von Hans-Uwe Otto abschätzen.
Für die Zeit ab 1970 war also Hans-Uwe Otto neben Hans Thiersch der hervorragende Vertreter der Sozialarbeit in Deutschland. Im Jahr 1970 gründeten diese beiden „Leuchttürme“ der Sozialpädagogik die Zeitschrift „neue praxis“, die von Anfang an zum Leitorgan der Sozialpädagogik wurde. Gleichzeitig hat Hans-Uwe Otto seinen Aktionsradius weit über Deutschland, später auch Europa hinaus ausgeweitet. Doch diese Tätigkeit verdient eine zusätzliche Würdigung.