Reclaiming and Reconstituting our Understanding of “Environment” in Social Work Theory

Abstract

Social work theory has had an inconsistent record in regard to adequately addressing the “environment” in all of its aspects. In the past, social work theory has focused overwhelmingly on the social environment of those whom the profession serves, and has ignored or minimized aspects of clients’ physical and natural environment. In recent decades, however, social work has more adequately theorized the importance of all aspects of environment. The “idealist” and the “structural” approaches to connecting social work and the environment have brought us closer to adequately theorizing the relationship between environmental sustainability and social justice. Social work’s theoretical perspectives on the environment can now extend their scope and usefulness if they draw insights from political economy, and deploy a range of public policy ideas to shape improved social programs and new tax and transfer mechanisms. In these ways, the discipline and profession of social work can make substantial contributions to attaining the linked goals of environmental sustainability and social justice.

Imagining the ecosocial within social work

“…Nine theoretical and 11 empirical articles, that is, in total 20 articles, have a holistic imagination of the ecosocial. The theoretical articles can be divided into themes: the first six articles address ontological and normative questions during past, present and future paradigms (Boetto, 2017, 2019; Coates & Gray, 2018; Hirvilammi & Helne, 2014; Mulvale, 2017; Norton, 2012). The seventh and eighth theoretical articles take an interest in indigenous knowledge and colonialism (Bell et al, 2019; Hiller & Carlson, 2018).…”

“…The theoretical articles state that they have a holistic ontological understanding of the ecosocial—and a number of related words reoccur, for example, interconnectedness , interdependence , complexity , symbiosis , the biotic community and holism —while rejecting dualism (Bell et al, 2019; Boetto, 2017, 2019; Coates et al, 2006; Coates & Gray, 2018; Hiller & Carlson, 2018; Hirvilammi & Helne, 2014; Mulvale, 2017; Norton, 2012). They argue that ‘[h]umans are a part of nature; we are fundamentally interconnected with ecosystems’ (Hirvilammi & Helne, 2014, p. 2164) and that ‘[t]he Universe (and the Earth) is a whole as all things interact’ (Coates & Gray, 2018, p. 61).…”

“…The theoretical articles also ascribe value to humans as well as non‐humans on an abstract level. For instance, they tend to depart from the concept of ecological rather than environmental justice, where the non‐human dimension tends to also bear intrinsic value (Boetto, 2017; Coates & Gray, 2018; Mulvale, 2017; Norton, 2012) (for the distinction between environmental and ecological justice, see Melekis & Woodhouse, 2015; Stevis, 2000). Moreover, they argue that we must work towards a ‘recognition of nature's intrinsic value independent of human interests’ (Norton, 2012, p. 302) and ensure ‘the ecological health of the biosphere so that human and all other forms of life can survive and thrive’ (Mulvale, 2017, p. 170).…”

“…For instance, they tend to depart from the concept of ecological rather than environmental justice, where the non‐human dimension tends to also bear intrinsic value (Boetto, 2017; Coates & Gray, 2018; Mulvale, 2017; Norton, 2012) (for the distinction between environmental and ecological justice, see Melekis & Woodhouse, 2015; Stevis, 2000). Moreover, they argue that we must work towards a ‘recognition of nature's intrinsic value independent of human interests’ (Norton, 2012, p. 302) and ensure ‘the ecological health of the biosphere so that human and all other forms of life can survive and thrive’ (Mulvale, 2017, p. 170). The overall position of the theoretical articles can be summarised in the following way: ‘[a]ll species are interdependent, and all living creatures are intrinsically valuable’ (Hirvilammi & Helne, 2014, p. 2164).…”

How the environment is conceptualised and represented globally in social work codes of ethics

“…Some argue (e.g. see McKinnon, 2008; Mulvale, 2017; Zapf, 2010) that the physical aspect has not only been marginalised, but sometimes intentionally avoided. As an internationally recognised profession with clear commitments to human welfare and social change (International Federation of Social Workers [IFSW], 2014a), it is timely for social workers to consider our understanding of the environment, including the physical, and its implications for social work practice and future development in a century with multifarious crises challenging human rights and social justice in various contexts.…”