Transnational histories of social work and social welfare – An introduction

Social work and social welfare emerged as institutions of modern nation-states, circumscribed by nation-state borders and inscribed in specific local and regional contexts; as such they have been examined traditionally as institutions confined to nation-state borders. While social work has constantly been searching for its domain and identity (Dominelli, 2007), more recently social work has been facing a number of new challenges on a national and global scale. First, the collapse of state socialism in the 1990s, interpreted as proof of the singularity of modernization and development, facilitated the dismantling of socialist welfare systems and the emergence of social work as a post-socialist welfare institution (Beblavý, 2008; Iarskaia-Smirnova, 2011). Second, the neoliberal logic continues to shape the ongoing restructuring and downsizing of Western welfare states, increasing the burden for social work (Baines, 2010). Third, welfare institutions of nation-states appear to be inadequate when dealing with global and transnational issues and processes (Chambon, Schröer, & Schweppe, 2012). Fourth, national welfare institutions are becoming increasingly interconnected and influenced by global policy actors (Deacon, 2007) and by cross-border processes of policy translation (Good Gingrich & Köngeter, in press; Lendvai & Stubbs, 2007).

While these transnational developments have multiple and profound effects on social work, they have been only tangentially addressed by social science and historical research. Much of the conventional research into social work and social policy has suffered from “methodological nationalism” – the implicit assumption of nation-states as natural entities of investigation bounded by territorial borders (Wimmer & Glick Schiller, 2002). Nation-state-centric perspectives fall short in examining the dynamic and intrinsically transnational welfare institutions and processes (Kettunen & Petersen, 2011). Moreover, “methodological nationalism” built in social policy analysis has been intertwined with nationalism underlying the practice of designing social policies and contributes to the growing disjuncture between sedentary welfare systems and transnational citizens (Baines & Sharma, 2002).

Similarly to contemporary analyses, historical accounts of social work and social welfare often exhibit methodological nationalism. Kettunen and Petersen’s (2011) critique of nation-centric historical analyses pointed to three common types of historical research on welfare states: (1) history as national specificities, when welfare institutions are studied as formations bearing nation-specific and intrinsic characteristics; (2) history as origins, exemplified by research concerned with identifying the origin of welfare states; and (3) history as path dependencies, referring to linear and simplistic interpretations of institutional change (p. 3). In other words, these historical analyses of welfare institutions implicitly or explicitly reinforce the assumptions of their inherent “nation state-ness.” Alternative studies of early histories of social work in the West and of recent histories of social work in post-Soviet states point to the cross-fertilization of ideas underlying the formation of national welfare institutions (An & Chambon, in press; Köngeter, 2012).

Challenging the dominance of nation-state centered analyses, transnational studies explore social welfare institutions as dynamic transnational fields shaped by the flows of ideas, people, and resources across nation-state borders (Levitt & Glick Schiller, 2004). The transnational lens applied to social policy analyses demands that scholars re-think a number of social policy concepts traditionally bound to nation-states, such as social rights and citizenship, welfare states and welfare regimes, agency and structure, institutions and discourses. Further, transnational social policy points to new research questions and research areas, such as transnational policy actors and global governance, transnational policy networks and epistemic communities, traveling policy ideas and policy translation, transnational social support and global care (Chambon et al., 2012; Deacon, 2007; Haas, 1992; Stone, 2012; Lendvai & Stubbs, 2007; Yeates, 2011). A growing body of research that examines social work and social policy as historically contingent and intrinsically transnational fields offers illuminating insights into the role of cross-border movements of ideas, people, and resources in shaping welfare institutions (Chambon, Johnstone, & Köngeter, 2015; Bryce, 2015; Fox, 2010). Moreover, transnational perspectives have been instrumental in developing powerful critique of the shortcomings of social work and welfare provisions of nation-states (Baines & Sharma, 2002).

In this special issue of the journal, we recognize the value of engaging with historicity and transnationality of social work and social welfare institutions. Beyond illuminating the past, these theoretical lenses enable us to uncover, in the words of Michel Foucault (1977), “a history of the present,” or to understand how contemporary welfare institutions came to be. Such analyses problematize the simplistic notions of modernization and of progress (Webb, 2007) as applied to social welfare (An & Chambon, in press; Johnstone, 2015). Moreover, historiographies as collective memories are essential elements of identity and representation of individuals and social groups (Hutton, 2012; Liu & Hilton, 2005). Transnational histories of social work and social welfare not only challenge dominant nation-centric narratives – they can also become part of our perpetual attempts to re-imagine and re-make the constantly shifting institutions of social work and welfare (Maurer, 2011). An understanding of transnational processes as intrinsic elements of nations’ welfare institutions in the distant and recent past can be instrumental for rethinking social policies for the age of globalization. We argue that transnational historiographies are fundamentally, if not explicitly, political: they offer points of reference that have immediate relevance to the contemporary debate about the place and role of social work and social policy in the increasingly complex and interconnected world of today.

While interdisciplinary perspectives can generate new understandings at the intersection of different fields, there are also unavoidable challenges arising from different epistemologies, methodologies, and discipline-specific assumptions (Morawska, 2003). Historical research of welfare institutions emphasizes their temporal and societal embeddedness and may be less concerned with theoretical underpinnings, while social scientists tend to look for “atemporal” aspects of social welfare processes and rely on more abstract and general concepts and frameworks. This journal issue does not intend to resolve these questions and challenges. Rather, it moves these questions into the spotlight by giving voice to a stream of research located at the intersection of transnational studies and historical analyses of social work and social welfare, representing both approaches and thus strengthening a strongly needed transdisciplinary dialog on this topic.

As this journal issue shows, transnational history of social work and social welfare is not a single approach or perspective. The contributors to this issue represent a range and a mixture of approaches, such as Foucauldian genealogy, discourse analysis, biographical research, historical institutionalist analysis, and comparisons across time and space. The studies are concerned with transnationality of organizations and institutions, circulation and translation of ideas, individuals who transmit ideas, conferences as social sites where ideas are exchanged and shared, as well as colonial and post-colonial power relations and nation-building projects shaping policy processes. The topics presented in this issue include child welfare and international adoption (Xiaobei Chen), social insurance and social security (Aiqun Hu), social housing (Carmen van Praet), and some of the principles behind settlement houses (Vadim Moldovan, Eugeniu Rotari, & Alina Zagorodniuc) and social work education models (John Gal & Stefan Köngeter). Not surprisingly, transnational histories illuminate different time periods and geographies, taking us from nineteenth-century France, Belgium, the United States, Russia, and China to pre-WWII Palestine, to contemporary Canada and China. What these transnational historical studies have in common is that they draw upon multiple sources and tend to stay close to the data, thus offering the reader an opportunity not only to follow the analytical process, but also to take part in the search for alternative explanations.

Carmen Van Praet’s article, entitled “The Opposite of Dante’s Hell? The Transfer of Ideas for Social Housing at International Congresses in the 1850s–1860s,” examines the role of international congresses in the circulation of ideas and social policies in nineteenth-century Europe. More specifically, her paper focuses on the origins of the Mulhouse social housing model in France and its transnational transmission and institutionalization in Belgian cities. Social housing is a topic that has been taken up by social work from its beginning. Drawing upon substantial amounts of archival research, Van Praet offers a discussion of the circumstances and motives that shape social policies (and the translation and adaptation of social policies) differentially across sites and national contexts (i.e., economic, political, social, ideational factors). The paper, somewhat implicitly, presents a comparative historical account of policy institutionalization, which compares the implementation of the Mulhouse model in France and in Belgium. The historical approach applied here offers a nuanced and rich account of the transmission of social policy ideas. While being grounded in data, this discussion is theoretically informed, from the rise of the scientific hygiene approach, the establishment of an entrepreneur class, the motive of profit and labor incentives, social protection alongside social control, and the sidelining of the state in the provision of social protections.

The transnational transmission of ideas is the focus of John Gal and Stefan Köngeter’s article, entitled “Exploring the Transnational Translation of Ideas: German Social Work Education in Palestine in the 1930s and 1940s,” a historical case study of transnational knowledge translation. This is an account of Weimar Germany’s model of social work and social work education and its importation into Jewish Palestine by German social workers under the British Mandate and thereafter. The study looks into a variety of factors surrounding this attempt of policy transmission, such as the national and transnational sociopolitical context, the dominant ideologies, and individuals who were the bearers of ideas. It is argued that the lack of legitimacy of this knowledge, as perceived by the key stakeholders in the context of the Zionist nation-building project, was the reason that this attempt to institutionalize the German model of social work training in Palestine was only partially successful. Counteracting the existing explanation that attributes the success and failure of knowledge transfer to the (un)fitness of the German model of social work education, this study offers an alternative narrative that places social work simultaneously within a nation-building project and a global, transnational system of colonial relations.

The embeddedness of social work and welfare in colonial and post-colonial power structures is an underlying theme in Xiaobei Chen’s article, “Nation, Culture, and Identity in Transnational Child Welfare Practices: Reflection on History to Understand the Present.” This study brings together two historical instances of transnational social work and child welfare: Christian missionary philanthropy in China (1880s–1950s) and international adoption of children from China by families in Canada (1990s–present). Employing Foucauldian genealogy as a critical history approach and looking into discourses surrounding these transnational processes, the paper seeks to counteract the dominant narratives of a radical discontinuity between past and present and to create an alternative history. The author engages with transnationalism as a critical theory approach. While Chen’s immediate interest is how culture and identity are constructed through transnational discursive practices about child welfare at two different points in time, she links these practices to hegemonic nation-building projects within the colonial and post-colonial global world hierarchy. A combination of a historical and transnational lens reveals the political underpinnings of seemingly “apolitical” social work practices throughout the history, and its associated effect of foreclosing collective memory. Chen calls for a critical reassessment of the role of social work within the global structures of power in the past and present and points to implications for the practice of social work with children and young people.

While also focusing on China as the geographical site for her study, Aiqun Hu brings a different perspective on transnational history in her article, “Social Insurance Ideas in the People’s Republic of China: A Historical and Transnational Analysis.” This article depicts the evolution and the transnational shaping of dominant principles underlying social insurance provisions in China from 1949 to the present time. The author shows that major shifts in China’s social insurance schemes were simultaneously a part of nation-building developments in China and the country’s engagement with transnational ideas and actors at different historical periods. Aiqun Hu argues that, over the past 65 years, China’s social insurance policies, influenced by transnational ideas, dominant transnational policy actors, and shifting ideologies in China, have evolved through several types: from the traditional Chinese value-based family type of social security to the Soviet-type social security, to the dismantling of social security under Mao’s rule, to the ILO-influenced social insurance, to the World Bank’s neoliberal three-pillar scheme, and currently to the new ILO universal basic social security principles. While the article is concerned with identifying the different types of social insurance schemes China adopted at different points in history, one surprising finding that comes out of this study is the transnational dialog and fusion of ideas that can be found within and across each type of social policy.

The last article in this issue seeks to bridge transnational histories of social work with contemporary debate about the core values and duties of social work. Vadim Moldovan, Eugeniu Rotari, and Alina Zagorodniuc offer a position paper which invites us to revisit the philosophy and social work of Jane Addams – a feminist and pacifist thinker, sociologist, social activist, and one of the founders of American social work. While Jane Addams’ contribution to the development of social work in the United States is “common knowledge” for social work researchers and practitioners, this analysis focuses on what has been known but appears to be placed on the periphery of the dominant narrative of US social work: the influence of Russian thinkers of that time on Addams’ thought and work. Focusing on several threads in Addams’ work, the authors argue that Leo Tolstoy’s philosophy of rural community life and non-violence, along with Pyotr Kropotkin’s ideas of mutual aid and cooperation, shaped Jane Addams’ philosophy which was translated into the Hull house model and the settlement house movement, an early example of modern social work. Showing how the dialog between an American thinker and Russian philosophers in the late nineteenth century was translated into ideas and models of social work in the United States, this analysis challenges the assumption of a clear distinction between “socialist,” “capitalist,” and “post-socialist” social policy and social work. Drawing upon the historical study of the transnational circulation of ideas that shaped social work more than a century ago, the authors point to what they see as a departure of social work from its core values and call for their critical re-examination to meet the challenges of the modern world.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.