Making Sense of Social Work’s Troubled Past: Professional Identity, Collective Memory and the Quest for Historical Justice

Abstract

Social work historiography has neglected to engage meaningfully with the most troubling aspects of the profession’s past: the histories of complicity, or at least acquiescence, in acts of state violence and institutionalised oppression. Through the exploration of historical case studies, this article provides a tentative typology of social work’s ‘horrible histories’ focusing on the project of engineering the ideal-type family, in colonial and oppressive socio-political contexts. The authors argue that practices of oppression and complicity can neither be reduced to the ‘few bad apples’ approach nor judged through the individualising prism of moralism, prevalent in Kantian Ethics. Instead, they propose an ethics of transformative reconciliation which is based on the principles of apology, respect for victims and collective action for—professional and social—change.

Habitar el hospital en tiempos de pandemia. Historias profesionales de trabajadoras/es sociales en la primera línea de intervención en salud

“…En este sentido, recomponer una mirada que incorpore los avances que hemos desarrollado como profesión y que, a la vez, nos ayuden a mirar críticamente nuestro ejercicio de manera continua (Gray y Webb, 2020), es fundamental. Esto implica asumir que el trabajo social, desde sus orígenes, no solo ha desarrollado un cuerpo de conocimientos que le han permitido construir una mirada integral y defensora de los derechos humanos, sino que también ha colaborado directa o indirectamente en actos de injusticia y discriminación a través de su historia (Ioakimidis & Trimikliniotis, 2020). Esto es lo que entendemos por asumir una mirada 'crítica': ni condescendiente, ni heroica, ni autoflagelante, sino capaz de comprender que el ejercicio profesional, por definición, encierra contradicciones que sitúan el lugar profesional en una encrucijada, que se expresa día a día en tensiones, incomodidades y dilemas éticos que se resuelven -o se naturalizan-de diversas maneras (Weinberg & Banks, 2019).…”

Guest Editorial—Social Justice and an Ethic of Care

“…In the tradition of critical reflexivity that is central to our discipline (Morley, 2016, 2020), when social work looks back over many years of social justice research and education, we have many things to be proud of, but we also can identify instances where we failed to embrace a sufficiently critical and in-depth analysis and, unintentionally, ended up standing on the wrong side of history. Ioakimidis and Trimikliniotis (2020) argue that the prevailing approach in social work history is to ignore the profession’s “complicity, or at least acquiescence, in acts of state violence and institutionalised oppression” (p. 2). As Ioakimidis and Trimikliniotis (2020) note further, “One side of social work’s history inflicted unspeakable damage to some of the most vulnerable people in society” (p. 13).…”

“…Ioakimidis and Trimikliniotis (2020) argue that the prevailing approach in social work history is to ignore the profession’s “complicity, or at least acquiescence, in acts of state violence and institutionalised oppression” (p. 2). As Ioakimidis and Trimikliniotis (2020) note further, “One side of social work’s history inflicted unspeakable damage to some of the most vulnerable people in society” (p. 13).…”

“…Ioakimidis and Trimikliniotis (2020) argue that the prevailing approach in social work history is to ignore the profession's "complicity, or at least acquiescence, in acts of state violence and institutionalised oppression" (p. 2). As Ioakimidis and Trimikliniotis (2020) note further, "One side of social work's history inflicted unspeakable damage to some of the most vulnerable people in society" (p. 13). Ioakimidis and Trimikliniotis (2020) argue that three broad factors facilitated the profession's involvement in activities on the wrong side of history: (1) a focus on social work as a purely technical and apolitical activity; (2) prioritizing the self-image and status of the profession over commitment to equity and the human rights of the communities served sometimes leading to participation in pseudoscience including eugenics, rigid positivism particularly psychiatric and biomedical models, and the uncritical involvement in government projects including the Nazi government in Germany and the Franco fascist government in Spain; and (3) individualizing ethical dilemmas by reducing complex political debates to questions of individual skill and responsibility.…”

“…As Ioakimidis and Trimikliniotis (2020) note further, "One side of social work's history inflicted unspeakable damage to some of the most vulnerable people in society" (p. 13). Ioakimidis and Trimikliniotis (2020) argue that three broad factors facilitated the profession's involvement in activities on the wrong side of history: (1) a focus on social work as a purely technical and apolitical activity; (2) prioritizing the self-image and status of the profession over commitment to equity and the human rights of the communities served sometimes leading to participation in pseudoscience including eugenics, rigid positivism particularly psychiatric and biomedical models, and the uncritical involvement in government projects including the Nazi government in Germany and the Franco fascist government in Spain; and (3) individualizing ethical dilemmas by reducing complex political debates to questions of individual skill and responsibility.…”