Radical and Critical Social Work: Response to Human Rights and Contribution to the Evolution of the Role of Social Work (UK)

Introduction

Radical and critical social work is an approach that stems largely from Marxist perspectives, focusing on the structural causes and solutions to social problems. In this essay, I will be briefly outlining some of the historical developments that led to the beginning of modern state welfare and social work. Following this, I will discuss radical and critical social work from the perspective of Wacquant and other theories surrounding the link between social inequality and crime and punishment. Then I will draw some comparisons between the radical and critical approaches and the strengths-based approach to social work. I will then apply the radical and critical approach to human rights developments and the role and function of social work, assessing how social work has developed in response to previous human rights abuses, while also tackling human rights violations today.

History of social work

Industrialisation saw a serious increase in social problems such as poor living and working conditions and diseases. Simultaneously, there was also a rise in social campaigns and charity organisations that tackled various matters. Some of these were: Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Prison Discipline Society, Anti-Slavery Society, and the Vice Society. The New Poor Law of 1834 was introduced by the government as a means of dealing with poverty, by both providing the poor with housing and work, while also functioning as a deterrent for people from seeking poverty aid. This was done by making the seeking of relief far less favourable than the lowest-earning work. A stigma was created surrounding ‘pauperism’, a new social class that was shamed for seeking aid. The type of financial aid available involved people entering workhouses which were communal living quarters that included manual labour by day.

The Charity Organisation Society (COS), is often viewed as being developed from the work of Thomas Chalmers, an economist and charismatic speaker who was critical of the concept of pauperism and had ideas about a more harmonious working-class community. Chalmers helped the Glasgow town council to create a volunteer-based scheme that would oversee and advise families on their welfare in each district. They did regular home visits and upon finding a family in poverty, they would assist with employment seeking and personal finances. The aim of this was to create an altruistic community and reject the oppressive concept ‘pauperism’. This family visiting scheme began to develop into social casework, consisting of organised home visits, interviews, investigations, and decisions by a case committee. The term ‘social work’ became prominent by the COS to describe this process. The COS was criticised by local newspapers as ‘penny-pinching’ and criticised by such as the Labour Party after it was founded in 1906, and the Fabian Society (1911) for being too intrusive in family life and too “inquisitorial and too slow and cumbersome in reaching decisions through its district committees” (Jones, 2011, p29). Post-1900, there was a progressive political climate where there was further state involvement in addressing social problems such as poverty, ‘the new liberalism’ stemming from the Liberal government at the time, introducing welfare systems such as old-age pensions, national insurance, and free school meals (Pierson, 2011). As well as the desire to fix the issues relating to poverty, the role of social work was also impacted by the late 1800s when the social construction of childhood began. Before this, children were considered economic assets and not considered any different from adults in the context of nurturing and protection. In 1878, The Factory Act prohibited children under the age of 10 from working in all trades and the 1880 Education Act introduced compulsory schooling for children up to the age of 10. This was the beginning of the government reforms put in place for the protection and development of children, and subsequently, the social worker’s role of protecting and promoting the welfare of children (Hendrick, 1997). The ‘Golden Age’ of state welfare was during the post-war era. The end of the Second World War in 1945 saw a need for economic recovery and welfare reforms. The Beveridge Report by William Beveridge laid out the grounds for welfare reform, identifying the social problems of ‘want’, ‘ignorance’, ‘squalor’, ‘idleness’, and ‘disease’ and the way to solve this by creating a universal and comprehensive welfare system. This saw the introduction of the National Health Service, the government-funded comprehensive health service that treats everyone based on need and not the means to pay (Harris, 2004). Radical social work became prominent in the 1970s, due to an increase in poverty, and the realisation that individualistic theories such as psychosocial development were not able to be applied. It was not useful to blame individuals for their situation which was being caused by structural rifts (Jones, 2011).

Radical and critical social work approach

In contrast with Durkheim — who expressed the view that crime and its punishment acts as a positive function to reinforce the collective morality in society — there are the views of Foucault, Garland, and Wacquant, which are more critical of the ways states implement punishment and deal with crime. According to Foucault (1979), prison is a point of analysis for the dynamics of power and bureaucracy in modern society. It is a method of power that is muchly hidden and creates “docile bodies” (Driver, 1984, pp427) by manipulating the time, space and bodies of criminals in prisons. Foucault emphasises the relationship created between power and bodies in the penal system (Driver, 1984). Garland (2001) argues that the labeling of criminals is a method of ‘othering’, as those convicted of a crime are often marginalised members of society such as the urban poor and ethnic minorities. Not only are offenders given an image of others, but their crime has sacrificed their liberty. Wacquant’s (2009) view is similar and is that penal action towards dealing with crime has replaced welfare as a method of controlling and regulating the poor and therefore is not a reaction to crime rates but is instead a reaction to financial and racial inequality. The rise of neoliberalism sought to create “hyper-individualism” (Wilson, 2018, p7) in which community aid and obligation to others would end. Two models of neoliberalism were identified by Wacquant (2012): The economic model which applied the marketisation to all areas of public and private life. This materialised as state assets being privatised. During Thatcher’s government, this model was applied to housing, public utilities such as education, welfare, and parts of the NHS, amongst other things. The other model was the decentralisation of power, the value placed on self-governing, and a drastic change in the relationship between individuals and the state. This also led to growth in the penal system, seen by Wacquant (2012) as a means of cutting welfare spending. This expansion of crime provisions continued into the Blair government in 1997. Stigmas became attached to marginalised areas such as ‘ghettos’, meaning communities within urban areas that are dominated by economically deprived ethnic minorities, which is seen as a form of racial segregation. The stigma that became attached to the ‘underclass’ also contributed to this othering and un-deservingness of deprived communities and corroding social ties. This has had an impact on social work as it is focused mostly on these areas. Wacquant (2012) emphasises that this shift is not only about cultural attitudes but serves to establish dominance of the principles and agents of neoliberalism. Jones (2010) argues that Wacquant relies too heavily on bureaucracy as an analytical device. Wacquant is commonly criticised for the application of the US system to other democratic states. However, it can be seen in both the US and UK that the increase of neoliberalism has seen an expansion of the penal system and equally, an increase in both poverty and crime. Wacquant’s work can be criticised for ignoring the areas of resistance and gender — the principle of the argument being that gender politics is pushed aside in the analysis, focusing solely on the experience of men, which is vastly different from that of women in this context. This can be evidenced by looking at the statistics that prisons hold more men than women, however, women can be argued to suffer more under the lack of social welfare, due to factors such as being more likely to be responsible for childcare (Measor, 2013., Cummins, 2016). Linking these ideas to the role of social work, the impact that the penal system has is that it maintains poverty rates due to convicts finding it more difficult to find jobs when released from prison. There is also likely to be a role for social workers needed for the rehabilitation of convicts. An additional conclusion to this is that these coercive practices by the state need to be recognised by social workers and not taken at face value. Radical social work requires social workers to think critically about the way the state acts and recognise the background and struggles faced by marginalised groups of people (Cummins, 2016, 2020).

To compare radical and critical social work with other approaches, I will be drawing in the strengths-based social work approach. The strengths-based approach aims at utilising people’s strengths, such as their abilities, resources, social networks, knowledge, and skills, to improve their wellbeing and opportunities. The most obvious difference between this approach and radical social work is that the strengths-based approach has its focus on the individual, instead of the larger social structures. It is a more common and classical approach to social work, as it has roots in classical theory such as Maslow’s theory of self-actualisation (1943) and Roger’s theory of fully functioning person (1961). One of the aims of the strengths-based approach is empowerment, which holds the most similarity to the radical and critical approach, as the latter approach looks at how the structure dis-empowers people through oppression, one of the root causes of the social problems. The strengths-based approach is an important and effective approach to social work, however, it cannot be used on its own it does not solve the issue that the social structure is designed in a way that it thrives off of inequality (Coady and Lehmann, 2016).

Human rights and the social work role

The precariat is the term used for individuals in positions relating to the reduction of employment rights, such as flexible working, living wages, and hour contracts is linked with the changes in public service provisions during the neoliberal government. This development of the precariat has impacted the role of social work due to social workers having to respond to the agenda of risk management, in the areas of child protection, mental health, and adult social work. Social workers have a constant battle to act in the interest of morality and this can mean they are acting in contrast with the government provisions that are contributing to the structural issues, and they feel their professional autonomy is restricted by bureaucracy. The theories of radical social work that outline the links between welfare and inequality with crime and punishment, are extremely important to help social workers understand this link, rather than considering them to be isolated issues (Cummins, 2016). It is important that social workers are aware of the structural causes of poverty and are not simply responding to people’s needs as they appear on the surface. In the UK, as well as neoliberalism being prominent in the 1980s onwards, there have also been government developments in the enforcement of human rights and anti-oppressive practice, and it has become within the role of social workers to uphold and enforce anti-oppressive practice. Throughout the 20th century, certain rights have appeared to come in waves, the first being civil and political rights, such as freedom of speech and freedom from torture. The second was socio-economic rights such as education and healthcare. The third set is rights regarding human relations, the natural world, and solidarity. These will have had an impact on the role of social workers as social work as a progressive role both influences and follows positive social change. This also shows how what is considered an issue of importance changes over time. For example, race politics may not have been a widely discussed issue and important within social work in 1900 as it has been in the last 50 years (The Race Relations Act of 1965), and environmental politics and the lgbtq+ politics were not as importantly discussed 20 years ago as they are today — for example, homosexuality was regarded as a mental illness until 1994 and lgbtq+ empowerment is largely implemented in social work today (Miles, 2011). There are constant and drastic changes in the collective perception of morality. Examples of this within the social work profession can be seen. As recent as the 1970s, doctors and social workers were complicit in the coerced separation of children from unwed mothers in Australia, according to a memoir by Noble (2020). There is an area of critical social work devoted to looking at the past misconduct within the profession, through the lens of remorse. An extremely important part of the profession is to be able to recognise and learn from the mistakes of the past, to improve (Healy, 2012).

Human rights activism has been globally prominent in social work and movements throughout the 20th century, such as during the civil rights movement, anti-apartheid in South Africa, and campaigns for indigenous people’s rights. Western social work has a particular emphasis on legalism-based human rights, understanding of human rights is based on civil and political rights, as outlined in the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), and the Equality and Human Rights Commission of the United Kingdom (EHRC), which defines human rights as “not just abstract concepts — they are defined and protected by law” (Martinez Herrero and Nicholls, 2017, p77). The contrast between legalistic human rights and radical and critical social work is that radical and critical social work of course implements human rights legislation, but also looks at human rights with a critical view on the state and system, and how human rights abuses are covered up by the veil of racial prejudice, economic inequality, and criminality. A considerably basic example of how criminality is used to cover up human rights violations is that prisoners serving sentences of over 12 months are not entitled to voting rights. Pairing this with the radical theories of crime and social inequality, that those serving prison sentences are largely from ethnic minorities and economically deprived backgrounds, the law surrounding prisoner voting rights can be seen as a way to silence the political voice of marginalised groups and to strip them of a fundamental human right (Williams et al, 2012). This is important for the role of social work, as it is important for social workers to be critical of how the state and law cover up human rights violations.

Social work is argued to have developed the way it has, partially as a result of the past human rights atrocities both inside and outside the profession. Provisions and legislation have been put in place over time, such as the BASW, the professional capabilities framework, the Human Rights Act 1998, and the Equality Act 2010 to name a few. These have been written to ensure social workers, along with other care professions, are following a certain standard to promote fairness and prevent discrimination (Harms-Smith et al, 2019). Radical and critical social work is not only a framework for enforcing human rights and fairness, it is a response to past misconduct and encourages the positive development for the present and future. However, there is a debate on whether it is necessary to refer to radical social work as ‘radical’. The term ‘radical’ has connotations that consider it to be ‘extremist’ or an extreme contrast from the norm. If radical social work is designed to enforce basic rights and fairness, it is not radical, but simply just social work. There have been various names radical social work has been referred to as: namely ‘structural’ social work, and ‘critical’ social work. The linking of social work and the word ‘radical’ comes from its Marxist approaches which to many of the general population still are considered radical (Gray and Webb, 2013).

Conclusion

The overall takeaway from this evaluation is that historical evidence such as the early developments of the welfare state in the UK, and in crime and punishment in the UK and US and other democratic states, there is a large amount of structural influence on inequality. As well as this, there are constant developments in the standards of human rights, as seen by previous ways in which human rights have been violated. Human rights developments have been instigated by social workers, as well as used to improve social work practice through frameworks such as BASW, and human rights legislation.

References

Coady, N and Peter, L. (2016) Theoretical Perspectives for Social Work Practice. Third Edition. New York: Springer Publishing Company.

Cummins, I. (2016) Reading Wacquant: Social Work And Advanced Marginality: European Journal Of Social Work: Vol 19, No 2.

Cummins, I. (2016) Wacquant, urban marginality, territorial stigmatization and social work. AOTEAROA New Zealand SOCIAL WORK 28(2), 75–83.

Cummins, I. (2020) Mass incarceration and neoliberal penalty: A response to Lloyd and Whitehead’s Kicked to the Curb. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice 62.

Driver, F. (1984) Power, space, and the body: a critical assessment of Foucault’s Discipline and Punish. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 1985, volume 3, pages 425–446.

Foucault, M. (1979). Discipline and punish. New York: Vintage Books.

Garland, D. (2001) Mass Imprisonment: Social Causes and Consequences. London: Sage Publications

Grey, M., Webb S A. (2013) The New Politics of Social Work. London: Red Globe Press.

Harris, B. (2004) The Origins of the British Welfare State: Society, State and Social Welfare in England and Wales 1800–1945. Basingstoke.

Harms-Smith L and Martinez-Herrero MI, Arnell P, Bolger J, Butler-Warke A, Cook W, Downie M, Farmer N, Nicholls J and MacDermott D (2019) Social Work and Human Rights: A Practice Guide. BASW: Birmingham.

Healy, K. (2012) Remembering, Apologies, and Truth: Challenges for Social Work Today. Australian Social Work, 65:3, 288–294

Hendrick, H. (1997) Constructions and Reconstructions of British Childhood: An Interpretive Survey, 1800 to the Present. Construction and Reconstructing Childhood, Ed: James, A., Prout, A. (1997). London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Jones, C. (2011) The best and worst of times: reflections on the impact of radicalism on British social work education in the 1970s. Chapter from Radical Social Work Today: Social Work at the Crossroads. Ed: Michael Lavalette. Bristol: Polity Press.

Legislation.gov.uk. (2020) Human Rights Act 1998. [Online] Available at https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/contents . Accessed 16/12/2020.

Miles, L. (2011) LGBT oppressions, sexualities and radical social work today. Chapter from Radical Social Work Today: Social Work at the Crossroads. Ed: Michael Lavalette. Bristol: Polity Press.

Noble, C. (2020) The age of apology — the challenge for social work continues. Social Dialogue, Issue 22.

Pierson, J. (2011) Understanding Social Work: History and Context. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Wacquant, L. (2008). Urban outcasts: A comparative sociology of advanced marginality. Cambridge: Polity Press. Wacquant, L. (2009a). Prisons of poverty. Minneapolis, MN: UM Press.

Wacquant, L. (2009b). Punishing the poor: The neoliberal government of social insecurity. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Wacquant, L. (2010). Urban desolation and symbolic denigration in the hyperghetto. Social Psychology Quarterly, 20(2) (Summer 2010), 1–5.

Wacquant, L. (2012). Probing the meta-prison. In Preface to J. I. Ross (Ed.), The globalization of supermax prisons. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

Wilson, J A. (2018) Neoliberalism. New York: Routledge

Williams, K., Papadopoulou, V., Booth, N. (2012) Prisoners’ childhood and family backgrounds Results from the Surveying Prisoner Crime Reduction (SPCR) longitudinal cohort study of prisoners. Ministry of Justice Analytical Services. Ministry of Justice Research Series 4/12