Amid Social Contradictions. Towards a History of Social Work in Europe
Amid Social Contradictions. Towards a History of Social Work in Europe
复制标题
在社会矛盾中。
DOI：
10.1080/02615479.2010.491310
复制
发表时间：
2011
影响因子：
1.8
通讯作者：
K. Brown
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
K. Brown
《在社会矛盾中》反映了社会工作和社会工作者自成立以来在欧洲国家中的地位。在三个部分，本书试图提供一个不同的社会政策和社会福利背景下的社会工作的成长和发展的意义。它包括一些西欧和东欧国家的资料，这些资料考虑到不同的时代（从世纪初到第二次世界大战后）。前两部分分别关注社会工作和国家的专业化，以及整合，选择和排斥的问题。第三部分包括四个例子，在母亲政策和儿童保护的背景下，社会工作。副标题是贴切的，这本书是非常初步的尝试，提供一些历史的观点，从一些欧洲国家。因此，它提供了在英语世界（特别是东欧）基本上没有的经验和做法的见解。另一方面，该项目很容易受到批评，因为历史时期通常不具有可比性，并且在英国方面存在重大遗漏（特别是激进和反压迫社会工作的发展历史）。因此，读者将无法认识到欧洲社会工作历史对社会工作和道德规范的当前IFSW定义以及IASSW社会工作教育标准的贡献。尽管编辑们曾经提到社会工作的多重任务，但出于比较的目的，他们似乎鼓励贡献者在照顾和控制的双重任务框架内阐述他们的社会工作历史。这种特殊的双重任务在许多国家是虚假的（在一些国家，它将更好地呈现为控制和社会变革-参见Sunday对“红色艾滋病”的描述-或关怀和社会变革）;或者确实是错误的-社会工作的矛盾在其他地方被描述为三重任务（Payne，2005; Lorrenz，2006; Staub-Bernasconi，2007）。此外，不能简单地假定委托人和国家是委托人和国家的委托人（最明显和最相关的例子是欧洲国家制定了家庭和儿童保护法，这些法律本身包含了相互矛盾的照顾和控制双重委托）。事实上，必须考虑到本书某些章节中提出的专业本身的任务。本书介绍的一些国家（如匈牙利、奥地利、瑞士、苏联）说明了社会工作者实施国家支持的歧视和压迫性做法（反犹太主义、优生学、性别歧视、残疾歧视等）。与此同时，在其他欧洲国家（包括苏格兰，国家立法也包括对社会工作的授权），
Amid Social Contradictions reflects the position of social work and social workers within European states since its inception. In three sections this book attempts to provide a sense of social work’s growth and development within different social policy and social welfare contexts. It includes contributions from a number of Western and Eastern European countries, the contributions considering different epochs (from the early nineteenth century to post-Second World War). The first two sections focus respectively on professionalization of social work and the state, and the fraught issues of integration, selection and exclusion. The third section comprises four examples on social work in the context of motherhood policy and child protection.The subtitle is apposite—this book is very much a provisional attempt at providing some historical perspectives from some European countries. As such, it gives insights into experiences and practices that have been largely unavailable in the Englishspeaking world (particularly from Eastern Europe). On the other hand, the project is easy to criticize as the historical periods are generally not comparable and there is a major omission in terms of the UK (and in particular the history of the development of radical and anti-oppressive social work). Readers would therefore fail to recognize the contribution of European social work history to the current IFSW definition of social work and code of ethics, as well as the IASSW standards for social work education. Although the editors once refer to social work’s manifold mandates, for comparative purposes they appear to have encouraged contributors to articulate their social work histories within a framework of a double mandate of care and control. This particular double mandate is in many countries spurious (in some countries it would be better presented as control and social change—see Schilde’s account of ‘Red Aid’—or care and social change); or indeed just wrong—the contradictions for social work have elsewhere been described as a triple mandate (Payne, 2005; Lorrenz, 2006; Staub-Bernasconi, 2007). Further, the mandates cannot simply be presumed as coming from clients on the one side and the state on the other (the obvious and most pertinent example being states in Europe which have devised family and child protection laws which themselves contain a contradictory double mandate of care and control). Indeed, the mandate from the profession itself, as presented in some of the chapters in the book, must be taken into account. A number of the countries featured in this book (eg Hungary, Austria, Switzerland, the Soviet Union) illustrate social workers in implementing state-sponsored discriminatory and oppressive practices (anti-semitism, eugenics, sexism, ableism, etc.). Meanwhile, the radical social work role that was adopted in other European countries (including Scotland, where the state legislation also included the mandate of