Читать книгу The Sage Handbook of Social Constructionist Practice - Группа авторов - Страница 152

Similar to the question, ‘What is social construction?’, social work resists a simple, straightforward definition. Social work's contextual inclusiveness of persons and environments, its myriad practices, ranging from psychotherapy to social advocacy, its strong foundation of values and ethics, and its pluralist theoretical base, eludes succinct definition. Every such effort is inevitably partial, underrepresenting the complexity and comprehensiveness of social work practice.

As social constructionists know, a case can be made for not having an authoritative definition; for example, its static nature and the dangers of calcification, over-simplification, and the silencing of alternative viewpoints (Witkin, 2012). On the other hand, such definitional vagueness for a profession like social work leaves it vulnerable to misunderstanding and stereotypes such as the portrayal of social workers as altruistic do-gooders without expert knowledge or skills. Such representations generate a climate in which it is difficult for social work to establish its professional legitimacy.

A question that arises in relation to the ‘What is …?’ question is whether social work practices differ from practices of other professions. To put it another way, does ‘social work’ function as an adjective when placed (grammatically) in front of practice or research (Witkin, 1998)?¹ The answer, from our perspective, is yes and no. There are some practices such as therapy, group work, or research that can look very similar. Sometimes however, the use of a common language for practices can conceal features that differentiate them. For instance, social work's person and environment orientation leads practitioners to address social issues even when engaged in individual-oriented practice like therapy. A good example of this is provided by Wulff and St. George (2012), who in the context of family therapy, address social issues of violence and feminism. While practitioners in other fields (e.g., psychology) might do something similar, for social workers this is more a professional mandate than a supererogatory act. A similar argument could be made for social workers’ mandate to serve marginalized populations rather than a focus on the ‘worried well’ (Specht and Courtney, 1995). Of course, this does not mean that all social workers actually practice in these ways; however, it is how the profession represents itself.

We turn now to an exploration of the congruencies and incongruencies between social work practice and social construction. We also point out how social work might benefit from a more social constructionist perspective.