Professionalizing across borders: The dilemma of social work as a democratic occupation

Professionalizing Across Borders:  The Dilemma of Social Work as a Democratic Occupation

Social work as a public service occupation, separate from beneficence began in the United States at the turn of the 19^th Century.  The “democratic experiment” of the U.S sought to distance itself from the constraints of the church-based charities that had offered moral control as a condition for material aid.  The principle of egalitarian help was disseminated through the efforts of the Settlement Houses, which, by the way, the U.S. had imported from Britain.  Social Workers, led by Jane Adams and other “not professionally trained figures” devoted themselves to addressing poverty and operationalizing principles of self-help, particularly in relation to immigrant populations.  But soon, such democratic efforts were left behind by the professionalizing ethos of the Charity Organization Society, which sought to develop discerning skills for service through “professional “schools” of social work. The old volunteers, who reigned with empathy and “friendly visiting”, rapidly disappeared to become “caseworkers”, who ruled with “scientific principles” engrained in a developing bureaucracy.

This paper will address the distancing of social work from its original egalitarian commitments to social justice to secure a monopoly of knowledge, prestige within the universities, recognition by the bureaucracy and other professions.  Finally and quite recently, social work sought to expand its professional hegemony beyond the borders of the U.S.  Seizing the globalizing currents, it often denies the local and culturally based roots of helping, believing that the standardization offered by professional principles is appropriate throughout the world.  While this paper does not propose the eradication of professional efforts for such things as quality control and accountability, it does suggest that the principles of professionalization must be cautiously applied to avoid devaluing vernacular and culturally rooted wisdom. The implied standardization of global efforts can become dangerously undemocratic.