As we move into a heated political season, I have been thinking about the paradigms that guide understanding and action, not only in voting and elections, but with regard to the future of social work.  Are the ideas that shape our programs and policies in touch with the perspectives of our constituencies and the broader public?  Will they tie us to the past or help us move forward with the currents of change?

It concerns me that some of our profession’s philosophical tendencies may be counterproductive in achieving the social policy and professional goals we hold dear.   There continues to be a desire to view the world in “either-or,” “good and bad” terms.   We still refer to the profession as having dichotomies opposing individual and community work, “clinical” and “concrete” service, “direct practice” and — what, exactly?  Politically, we tend to demonize most anything with a Republican or conservative label.  These predispositions, I would argue, are no longer helpful in the current climate in which greater flexibility and a “both-and” perspective may enable us to take greater advantage of changing realities and emerging opportunities, and without losing the lodestar of our values. 

We are not alone, by the way, in holding to polarities.  Viewing ones own group or community as “human” and those beyond its boundaries as the “other” may be universal, and, taken to the extreme, may explain some of the dark side of human behavior, from prejudice and bigotry to racism and genocide.  Key social institutions help exacerbate the problem.  The mainstream media, for example, continually reinforce and maximize difference and opposition.  Note the effort to place the recent budget battle between the State legislature and the Governor in total “win-lose” terms, as if the “horse race” rather than the substance of the compromise were the point. 

In fact, although the legislature’s support of hospitals and Medicaid funding has merit – we certainly don’t want patient care to be further eroded or union workers to lose decent paying jobs – so does the Governor’s effort to shift resources to community-based care and populations in greatest need.  Although the settlement reached implicitly recognized that both positions have value, what is lacking is an explicit appreciation for the other’s point of view and a willingness to regard it as a piece of the truth. 

The relevance for social work of these musings?  Our future in health care depends on our keeping abreast of current trends in health care policy and funding and, ideally, being at the table to promote social work’s ability to fill the kinds of combined community/clinical and management roles that preventive, early intervention, interdisciplinary care will require.  

Our future in general depends on our not leaving case management or community education and planning or economic security (so-called “concrete services”) or research or evidence-based treatment or non-profit leadership to other professions, eager to find a foothold in the social service arena.   Although individuals have their own strengths and preferences and clearly, can’t do it all, multiple skills and the explicit recognition of the value of each as a legitimate part of the profession are essential if social work is to grow and prosper.

Similarly, I would argue that there is value in alliances in which some goals are shared, even if all are not.  Some religious conservative groups back progressive environmental policy as well as efforts to stop the sexual exploitation of women and children, here and abroad.  Republican legislators and the State Senate have gone to bat for social work legislative priorities – like loan forgiveness, inclusion as providers in Workers’ Compensation, and mental health parity – when our natural allies, the Democrats and the State Assembly, have been unable or unwilling to rise to the challenge.  We need to get over our own limited views of others, over- or under-crediting by philosophy rather than performance, to recognize and take advantage of the strengths and opportunities that exist. 

Flexibility also requires that we begin to invest in new, untried arenas and activities that may prove productive.  Thus, for the first time, NASW-NYC, the Puerto Rican Family Institute, social service organizations and the New York City area graduate schools of social work are lobbying the New York City Council to support the Latino Social Work Development Project discussed in this issue of CURRENTS.  Seeking significant support for scholarships and recruitment and retention efforts spanning the continuum from undergraduate through professional education, licensure and employment, this collaboration is breaking new ground in its purpose and scope.   Equally important, this experience will help establish an adaptable roadmap for current and future efforts to expand the numbers of trained social workers in Asian communities, communities of African descent, with the elderly and other growth populations.   

We believe the Latino Development Project will be successful, given the undisputed need, the leadership and the political resonance that exist.  But should this or the national effort to gain congressional support for social work reinvestment not do as well as we hope this year, flexibility demands that we view our efforts as establishing the organizational infrastructure necessary to achieve our goals in the future.  As advocates for professional social work and client service, we must be prepared to build and sustain resources and leadership for the long haul. 

WEB ARCHIVES

Click Here to Read More Messages By the Chapter's Past Presidents.