This fourth and final issue of the year comes during the latest outbreak of hostilities in the Middle East, and it will be going through the publication process in all probability before there is any ceasefire, and certainly well before there is any resolution to the very long-standing underlying political disputes. It is a reminder of practical and philosophical problems in ethics and social welfare that have been discussed in the journal from time to time over the years since it began: how ethics and values can be consistently understood and applied where there are massive ideological, religious and political differences that can lead to oppression and violence. Indeed the social professions, especially social and community work have always had a focus on this arguably central question: social divisions of all kinds can prevent social welfare through systemic and institutional means, but they can also erupt into individual and group conflict, with potentially deadly consequences for the most vulnerable – those whom social professionals then strive to support. Papers in this issue grapple with some of the problems that can arise.
One aspect of this continuing global phenomenon that has been discussed in the journal is the extent to which the social profession’s own values are appropriate to the task, and conversely the degree to which they already reflect a partial – ‘Western’ or ‘colonial’ perspective, and are thus unable to reflect or represent the values and interests of some of the most deprived and under-resourced areas of the world. In addition, global concerns about climate change reinforce suspicions that these long-standing values are too anthropocentric, again with implications for vulnerable peoples, especially indigenous peoples whose relationship with nature is less premised on its thoughtless exploitation. The promotion of universalism in values, traditionally part of the social professions’ commitment to respect for all humanity has thus come under fire for neglecting the reality of radically different cultures. The journal has no monopoly on wisdom nor agreed doctrine but it is hard not to feel, in the light of continuing slaughter both in the Middle East and elsewhere, that some form of ‘universal’ respect for all the individuals on the planet, and for the earth and non-human life that exists on it, needs to be a starting point for any professional intervention that aims to support social welfare.
In the first paper in this issue by Raewyn Tudor, entitled: ‘“Making cuts that matter” in social work: A diffractive experiment with trauma informed practice’, the author’s aim is to re-configure trauma-informed social work, using ‘New Feminist Materialism’. The latter perspective is a recent development that exemplifies current trends towards positions critical of anthropocentric values. Drawing on Karen Barad, one of the leading figures of New Feminist Materialism, the author makes substantial use of the latter’s concept of ‘Diffraction’. The contention is that diffraction is a superior concept to reflection or reflexivity in understanding how ‘reality’ is interpreted and acted upon. The author’s conclusion is that its application to the specific area of trauma informed social work serves to demonstrate that diffraction is ‘..an ethical mode of criticality for provoking inventive knowledge practices’, and thus a relevant tool for social professionals.
The next two papers in this issue grapple with the kinds of radical differences in perspective that can lead to discrimination, and in some contexts to oppression and regrettably in more extreme environments even violence. The first paper is set in an English milieu, but raises questions about secular and faith perspectives that are echoed in a variety of ways around the globe. Naomi Thompson and Lucie Shuker question ‘The secular culture’ of youth work training in England, asking whether English universities are equipping youth workers to work with diverse religious communities. They point out that most professionally-qualifying youth work programmes in all UK nations are secular university courses. By contrast, the largest sector of the UK youth work field is constituted by various faith organisations. Furthermore, in a multi-cultural society youth workers need to be equipped to work inclusively with diverse communities – whether working in either a particular faith organisation, or in a secular youth work context. The authors used a semi-structured survey sent to programme leaders to obtain information about how these issues were incorporated into youth work education. Perhaps not surprisingly their analysis uncovers a great deal of variation in how courses cope with the challenges arising from major differences between faiths and between secular and faith perspectives. They conclude that the curricula of secular courses need to make more space for the study of the place of faith organisations, values and perspectives in youth work education and practice.
The third paper in this issue is also concerned with a major difference in social perspectives that occurs in a particular form in the context they have studied, but is reflected in multiple and very serious ways in different parts of the world. This paper focuses on a single case study, as explicit in the title: ‘“He’s a gay, he’s going to go to Hell.”: Negative nurse attitudes towards LGBTQ people on a UK hospital ward: A single case study analysed in regulatory contexts’. The authors, Sue Westwood, Jemma James and Trish Hafford-Letchfield, assert that Lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and/or queer (LGBTQ) people experience profound health and social care inequalities, and that this is often associated with traditional religious beliefs – as commonly seen across the world. In the environment of an English hospital ward caring for older age people, the experience of a particular staff member is explored for evidence of what can happen. Taken from a larger study of religious freedoms, sexual orientation and gender identity rights in older age care, this paper considers the evidence of practice set against the regulations which are supposed to influence practice. The details of practice are revealing of how a perspective, narrowly based on traditional values, are experienced as oppressive. The authors’ conclusion is to stress the importance of addressing the needs and circumstances of LGBTQ people in nursing curricula and how this can be translated into effective professional practice,
The fourth and final paper in the main section of this issue of the journal deals with actual violence between people and its aftermath in an American city. The paper by Monte-Angel Richardson, is a ‘mixed methods study of post-traumatic growth, collective efficacy, and agency among survivors of mass violence in Isla Vista, California’. The author’s aims were not to focus on the trauma itself and its causes, but to look at the way survivors of mass killing are able to not merely adjust to life after the event, but are able to grow personally and collectively. Interviews were conducted with survivors, and themes that emerged from these interviews included evidence of growth in personal agency, and the ability to participate positively in collective action. In the context of current war and mass killing it may be a very small light at the end of a dark tunnel – the evidence that humans can sometimes adapt and grow their sense of moral agency both personally and collectively after surviving terrifying experiences and irretrievable loss.
There are two very interesting papers in our Ethics in Practice section in this issue. The first, by Mig Burgess Walsh chose a title which is self-explanatory: ‘The vicious circle of asking for help – the perspective of a mental health patient’. The author says simply that she is reflecting on ‘asking for help’ as a mental health patient. She uses her own experience to reflect on the ethical failures, especially of communication, and what might be done to improve the situation for others. She currently works at the Guilford School of Acting, University of Surrey in theatre production and from the wealth of her experience she writes intelligently and effectively, challenging social professionals with regard to their duty of care and their practice skills, and offering concrete advice.
The second practice paper is based on qualitative research with children conducted in Delhi, India, in 2019 The author, Yukti Lamba, is completing a PhD at the University of Edinburgh, and uses this paper to reflect on some of the ethical issues that have arisen in the course of interviewing migrant street children. The author gives an account of her determined efforts to research ethically; keenly aware of the vulnerability of the group of children she is researching. This paper offers an insight into one researcher’s practical experience and is thoroughly explained. She reaches conclusions about how the research design itself could have assisted a more ethical and effective approach.