Contemporary Social Work Theory and Issues Essay

Assign ment TitleTo what purpose can well-disposed determine be adequately planu tout ensembley still in cost of a position at the interface betwixt tender censure and hearty inclusion?To what extent can affable make be adequately creationually understood in terms of a position at the interface between genial animadversion and amicable inclusion? gibe to the International conspiracy of brotherly Workers (IFSW) the neighborly work profession promotes the em proponentment and liberation of peck to enhance wellbeing. Utilising theories of homosexual behaviour and social strategys, social work intervenes at the points where people interact with their environments (IFSW, 2000). up to now the social work role is questi superstard, in both its workings(a) access, and in terms of where it is positioned at the interface of individuals that argon excluded and included deep down todays federation. This essay volition aim, using relevant theories and concepts, to fo rk up the opinion of the author, regarding their notion of how the social work role is delivered, and muchover, grasp an instinct of where this role is located, either working with the socially excluded or leaning towards the concept of inclusion.The term social expulsion was coined in France by Rene Lenoir in 1974, (Gore, 1995, Silver, 1995, Haan, 1998, cited in Islam, 2005 4) and, in his opinion, referred to people who were omitted from employment-based social security systems. His reference to the excluded consisted of the mentally and physically handicapped, suicidal people, aged individuals, abused children, drug addicts, delinquents, single pargonnts, multi-problem households, marginal unsocial persons and other social misfits (Silver, 1994-95 532). affable excision did not replace impoverishment as a concept besides referred to the broader process of social confusion an increasing rupture of the bond between the individual and nightspot (Islam, 2005 4). As Lenoir s uggests, social exclusion transpires in m either make ups race, poverty and deprivation, employment, and class, and retains varied definitions. tally to Sheppard (2006), the best definition that provides an understanding of all the dimensions of social exclusion was submitted by the Child Poverty Action Group (Walker and Walker, 1997, cited in Sheppard, 2006) social exclusion refers to the dynamic process of being shut out, fully or partially, from any of the social, economic, political and cultural systems which determine the social integration of society. However, the forge of social exclusion has unaccompanied been in use in the UK for a comparatively short time, and its extensive practice could indicate that it describes a phenomenon that already existed, but lacked a suitable name (Page 2000 4). Marx, for example, refers to the underclasses in contemporary capitalistic society. According to Marx members of the proletariat are compelled to sell their labour former to the bo urgeoisie in order to attain for themselves the means to their own subsistence (Ashley and Orenstein, 1998).Marx was aware of the step-up of the middle classes, situated at the interface of proletariat on the one side and the bourgeoisie on the other, thus increasing the security and power of the upper class. Subsequently this produced a different division of the working class, Marxs lumpenproletariat, for example the migrant population, the indigents, the unemployed and those in poverty and deprivation, individuals that today would be the termed socially excluded. According to Marx, class structures are primary in find the main social classes, the focal forms of struggle within societies, and the life experiences of people in these classes. However, secondary forms of inequality and oppression occur within distributively class, and these may take the form of racial and ethnic inequalities, or grammatical gender inequalities. Marxist feminists argue that, within any class, women are less advantaged than men in their access to material goods, power, status, and possibilities for self-actualisation and the causes of this inequality lie in the governance of capitalism itself (Ritzier, 1992 468-9)., However, as Marxist theory distillates on class division, and is surd on the large level only, this view of hearty Works position at the interface of exclusion and inclusion is not conclusive. The amicable Worker would be seen as working more in knobele with the lumpenproletariat and not providing services to the proletariat and certainly not the bourgeoisie, and then places social work at the heart of the excluded and not the included. Moreover as social work from the Marxist perspective, is placed firmly within the macro level, the individualism and person centred approach that the social thespian aims to provide the lymph gland cannot be fulfilled, as to do so would mean to be working at the micro level which the Marxist view discounts. The Functionali st stance referencing the concept of social exclusion is to describe a group, or groups, of people who are excluded from the normal activities of their society in multiple government agencys, thus deviating from their societies norms of behaviour (Sheppard, 2006).A functionalist perspective of social exclusion is, because, focussed upon the excluded persons being deviant and non- conforming to social norms. However, unlike the Marxist perspective, the Functionalist would concentrate on the social histrion operational on the macro and the micro level, working with the individual, and also fetching the guests wider social systems in to account, for example family, friends, school and working environment. Emile Durkheim (1858-1917), and later Talcott Parsons (1951), suggests that societies were social systems, made up of interrelated social elements, and that these systems were moral entities. Durkheim and Parsons argue that all human associations give rise to expectations in patt erns of conduct, therefore producing restrictions on how a person should or shouldnt behave. Hence emerges collective consciousness which, in turn, constrains an individual and obliges them to act in particular ways (Cuff, Sharrock and Francis, 1992).One way is that norms efficaciously discipline individuals above all through their moral license, relatively independent of any instrumentally significant consequences of conformity with them (Parsons 1951, p. 37). The other is that there is a tendency for individuals to develop and maintain attachment to the same integrated system of norms and to find solidarity in the pursuit of shared goals (Parsons 1934 295, Peacock 1976 265). The Functionalist, therefore, would suggest that social work is very much concerned with the deviants in society, the individuals that do not conform to societys norms. However this notion too could be contested, as, if the social work profession concerns itself with the deviants of society, the lymph node could be at find from labelling and of being further excluded by the social worker themselves.Sheppard (2006), asserts that social work is, in fact, exclusionary and that social workers cannot engage in integration and inclusion because its ignorant functions involve labelling and marginalising people ( Sheppard, 2006). Functionalism also neglects the negative functions of an event, such as divorce, and does not encourage people to take an active role in changing their social environment, even when such change may benefit them. departure Theory also sees society as a social system, but unlike Functionalism who perceives society held together by social consensus or cohesion, battle Theory interprets society as held together through conflict and obsession. From this perspective, society is made up by competing interest groups, some more puissant than others (Andersen and Taylor, 2008). When Conflict Theorists look at society, they see the social domination of qualified groups through the power, authority, and coercion of dominant groups. Randall Collins (1941) suggests that power and status are fundamental relational dimensions at the micro level of social interaction and perhaps at the macro level as well.Collins concludes that coercion and the ability to force others to behave a certain way are the primary basis of conflict in society (Turner, 2000). Therefore in the conflict view, the elite members of the dominant groups create the rules for success and opportunity in society, often denying subordinate groups such success and opportunities, thus generating social division, and creating social exclusion, at the macro and the micro levels of society. In contrast to the conflict perspective, the strengths approach concentrates on building clients strong points in order for them to become sceptred and initiate social change. Cowger and Snively (2001) favour the potency perspective as primaeval to social work practice, and see client strengths as provid ing the fuel and ability for that empowerment (Miley et al, 200491).Empowerment can be defined as a construct that links individual strengths and competencies, natural helping systems, and proactive behaviours to social policy and social change (Rappaport, 1981, cited in Zimmerman, 1995 569). However if the social worker is operational more within the context of empowering the socially excluded, quite a than the included, what of the power and authority that a social worker holds over the client as an agent of social control? Moreover, if a social workers role involves empowering the client to take control of their own lives, how does the power transfer from the authoritative name of the social worker, to the deprived, socially excluded client? Indeed, would the client want to be empowered, or be able to hold rational thought, capacity, to be open to empowerment? Rojek (1989) argues that empowering clients to focus on capacity building and not in qualification changes directly t o the oppressive social structures affecting the client, places responsibility on the client to change whilst still facing social obstacles.Therefore, for the social worker to effectively practice empowerment, the client is presumed to have adequate rational capacity, and have only one risk factor influencing their lives. This is difficult, as, from researching this essay, it has become apparent, that the socially excluded individuals that social work operates with, has more than one disadvantage, problem, or need that they require support to dispense with. Perhaps the term enablement would be more fitting than the harsh, power/ uneffective concept of empowerment and subsequently, that the social workers role should concentrate on maintaining the client According to Davies (1994 58) the social worker is contributing to the maintenance of society, by utilisation control over deviant members, whilst allocating resources according to policies laid down by the produce, on an individu al basis. This consensus approach analyses structural inequalities in society and the role of social work in relation to such inequalities (Lishman, 2005 70).Davies fancy of maintenance of the individual, and, therefore society, is simplistic, and, by using the term maintain rather than change, dominates a proper conception of social work (Sheppard, 2006). However the radical social worker would discount Davies notion of maintenance as they perceive the state as serving particular dominant interests and therefore cannot play a neutral, humanitarian role in respect to vulnerable, disadvantaged, socially excluded people. They would argue that social workers using the maintenance role, with respect to state policies, will perpetrate inequality and its associated oppressions, disadvantages and stigma. Radicalists distinguish that social workers need to understand the temper of state power, and the role of social work as an element of state control and oppression (Lishman, 2005).If thi s is the case, and the social worker is operational in the form of an agent of social control, whilst holding the power and control over the client, may actually be alienating them further from society. Additionally, as the radical perspective, on board Marxism, focusses on the class differences in society, it fails to take into account the multiple and change oppression and disadvantage which operate in British Contemporary Society. According to Langham and Lee (1989 9) radical social work texts and practice led to the misery to manage the systematic denial of power to women and black people and failed to recognise inequality arising from sexuality, disability or age.There is much compete and confusion in reference to the definition of social work, and even more deliberation concerning the role of the social worker and of its operational position in todays society. Taking into account, views from the Marxist, Radical and Functionalist perspectives, it has been the focus of this essay to go down upon the position of social work at the interface of social exclusion and social inclusion. It is of the authors opinion, that social work should perform a maintenance role, working with socially excluded individuals. The notion of being an agent of social control is not very appealing, as it makes the social worker an authority figure, which clients would find oppressive. It doesnt matter if the client is deviant or a conformist, the social worker should remain non-judgemental and focus on enabling and maintaining them to sort out independence and improve their lives.ReferencesAndersen, M. Taylor, H. (2008), Sociology, Understanding a Diverse Society, quaternate edn. the States Thomson Higher Education. Ashley, D. Orenstein, D. (1998), sociological Theory, Classical Statements. 4th edn. USA Allyn and Bacon. Cuff, E. Sharrock, W. Francis, D. (1992), Perspectives in Sociology, 4th edn. London Routledge. Davies, M. (1994), the Essential Social Worker, 3rd edn. Ald ershot Ashgate Publishing Ltd. International Federation of Social Workers, 2000, Definition of Social Work, Online Available at http//www.ifsw.org/f38000138.html (Accessed on 19/12/2011). Islam, A, (2005), Sociology of Poverty Quest for a New Horizon, Bangladesh e-Journal of Sociology. 2, pp. 1. Lisman, J. (2005), enchiridion of theory forpractice teachers in social work, 10th edn. London Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Miley, K. DuBois, B. (2004), Social work an empowering profession, 5th edn. Boston Pearson Publishers. Page, D. (2000), Communities in Balance, the reality of social exclusion on housing estates, York Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Parsons, T. (1934), the Place of Ultimate Values in sociological Theory, International Journal of Ethics, 45(3), pp. 282-316. Parsons, T. (1951), the Social System, New York Free Press. Ritzier, G, (1992), Sociological Theory, 3rd edn. New York McGraw-Hill. Rojek, C. Peacock, G. Collins, S. (1989) Social Work and Received Ideas, London Routledge . Sheppard, M. (2006), Social Work and Social Exclusion, the Idea of Practice, Hampshire Ashgate Publishing Ltd. Silver, H. (1994-95), Social Exclusion and Social Solidarity Three Paradigms, International Labour Review, (133), pp. 531-578. Turner, J. (2000), Handbook of Sociological Theory, USA springing cow Press. Zimmerman, M. Perkins, D. (1995), Empowerment Theory Research and Application, American Journal of company Psychology, 23(5), pp. 569 579.