Governing Risk

Care and Control in Contemporary Social Work

M. Hardy

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2015
• Print ISBN: 9780230364158
• eBook ISBN: 9781137313515
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Financial Risk Management
• Index: Social Sciences

Drawing on Foucault's later work on governmentality, this book traces the effects of 'the rise of risk' on contemporary social work practice. Focusing on two 'domains' of practice – mental health social work and probation work – it analyses the ways in which risk thinking has affected social work's aims and objectives, methods and approaches.

1

Enduring Debates in Social Work

Social work is a broad church, encompassing a wide variety of specialist domains brought together – at least in principle – by a shared understanding of the broadly defined social roots of social problems and the attendant need to intervene socially to alleviate their impact, whether at the level of the individual or the collective. So far, so straightforward. In this scenesetting chapter, I review a number of enduring debates in the history and development of social work which, to some extent, complicate but also define what social work is and how it should be done. In doing so, two particular themes are highlighted: firstly, the contested nature of social work; and secondly, the potential challenge that the rise of risk poses to the nature and function of practice. I begin by focusing on the nature of the relationship between individual and state, as it applies in social work; how different formulations of this relationship have impacted on the theory/practice dynamic in social work; whether the aims and objectives of social work, and means of achieving these, are best understood as care or control; and finally whether social work ought best to be understood as ‘art’ or ‘science’. These latter two controversies are particularly relevant to my concern with the effects of risk in social work: the former because risk is directly implicated in a shift from care to control as the dominant objective and method of social work; the latter because it is concerned with the extent to which the knowledge upon which social workers act can and should be broadly intuitive, informal and subjective rather than systematic, formal and objective. Though longstanding, these debates remain useful and relevant as fundamentally they concern the nature, objectives, theories and methods of practice. In relation to a number of dynamics, the rise of risk can be seen as shifting the position of social work – away from art, the individual and care, towards science, the state and control. This is potentially problematic in that these shifts may impact on practice in a detrimental fashion, challenge aspects of social work’s preferred self-identity and arguably undermine the ability of practitioners to achieve the aims and objectives they entered social work to achieve.

In this chapter, then, I review how these enduring debates relate to contemporary approaches to thinking about and doing social work, and make some tentative suggestions regarding the ways in which the rise of risk, as part of a broader shift from art to science, may be impacting on practice and practitioners. This ‘generic’ account represents a backdrop for the more detailed investigation, later in the book, of how these related debates have developed in mainstream and more specialist areas of social work – in particular mental health social work and work with offenders in the probation service. The approach taken is broadly historical. Foucault makes clear that the purpose of historical analysis ‘is not to think historically about the past but rather to use that history to rethink the present’ (1977, p. 31). Less prosaically, Horner suggests that ‘an understanding of the profession’s past is a necessary prerequisite to being able to engage in the current debates about the role and purpose of social work’ (2009, p. 7). That is my aim in writing this book, and so that is the approach I have taken.

Enduring debates in the history of social work

There is a lack of consensus regarding both how social work should be understood and how it should be undertaken. This reflects disagreement about the underlying function of social work, and is evident in various controversies which have characterised its history and development. Firstly, there are disagreements regarding the nature and objectives of practice (the ‘what is social work?’ debate), which includes attention to how the history and development of social work has been informed by disputes regarding the aims and objectives of its practitioners (see, for example, Cree 1995, Raynor 1985). A key theme here is the nature of the relationship between the individual and the state. There is also a lack of consensus regarding whether practice should be individualised or ‘social’, which relates to how the causes of the problems which social work is mandated to intervene in are theorised, in particular whether these are the consequence of social factors, individual functioning or some combination of the two. Relatedly, there is disagreement about whether these aims are best achieved via voluntary engagement or directive intervention and the extent to which social work should be seen as a form of care, primarily concerned with individual well-being, or a form of control, or regulation, contributing to the maintenance of social order. Finally, there is a concern with whether social work should be best conceived of as a form of art or science. I will touch on each of these in what follows, as they closely relate, although it is worth stressing that the substantive foci of the book mean that my primary concern is to illuminate the lack of consensus that characterises these controversies, which remain ongoing and unresolved.

The origins of social work

Although core social work activities such as the protection of the vulnerable, caring for those in distress and seeking to alleviate need are arguably fundamental to the nature of collective life (Clarke 2004), as formalised, organised activities, their origins are often traced to nineteenth century developments associated with the increasing rate of urbanisation resulting from industrialisation. Poverty in the countryside meant that the expanding towns and cities attracted large numbers away from rural areas with the potential of earning a wage. Conditions in many urban areas were poor and so many people lived in overcrowded, insanitary conditions which were not conducive to health and well-being (Pierson 2011). At the same time, the informal communal support which had characterised long-established rural community living was absent in many areas of urban life as long-term relations of kith and kin could not be straightforwardly replicated in these newly established urban centres. Consequently, forms of informal reliance diminished. For the urban poor, reliance on charitable giving, or the workhouse, came to represent necessary alternatives to homelessness and starvation.

Although at this time there was some consensus that ‘something’ ought to be done, there was also divergence regarding what should be done, depending on underlying assumptions concerning the responsibility that individuals play for their own misfortune. On the one hand, particularly in a context in which religious influence held considerable sway, there was concern that many of the poor were simply idle and that they should not be rewarded for their idleness via material assistance, as this would merely encourage dependency. On the other hand, experience and observation suggested that destitution mirrored economic and class arrangements, and so others were swayed by the view that the wider social environment impacted on individual behaviour.

Concurrently, concerns were expressed that the undoubted successes associated with post Enlightenment scientific advances, including the industrial revolution itself, came at a cost for some. Social problems, such as increasing levels of crime and alcohol misuse, were coming to be seen as related to the conditions in which the urban poor were residing. More privileged sections of the community began to regard these as presaging wider social unrest. The solution that emerged entailed the confluence of the emerging modern state with the expert knowledge of its institutions and the nascent social sciences. Knowledge would provide the basis for positive social change, and it is in its practical application that the profession of social work emerged, as the means via which the knowledge that the social sciences were producing about the origins and nature of social problems could be utilised in addressing these issues in a practically meaningful manner.

The individual, society and the state

From the outset, however, the social sciences were not characterised by cosy consensus. Howe (1987) highlights the (now obvious, but very significant) cleavage between sociological and psychological perspectives, which had major implications for both the nature and methods of social work. Whereas sociology seeks to understand the effects of social change upon society and the institutions and individuals of which it is comprised, psychology takes the individual themselves as its principal focus. Sociology has an allegiance to social reform as the principal medium for change while psychology is concerned with individual functioning. The different emphasis within these perspectives helps to some extent to explain various aspects of and positions taken within debates regarding the methods social workers might utilise in practice.

Different versions of social work therefore emerged which reflected different poles in this debate, utilising different methods that reflected their underlying beliefs concerning the causes of the issues they were seeking to remedy. The traditional casework method which has been so significant in the heritage of social work can be traced to the practice of Charities Organisation Service (COS) workers. Over the course of the nineteenth century, various philanthropically funded charitable bodies developed which sought to remedy the ills associated with poverty. However, the rationale for the organisation and provision of assistance was somewhat haphazard – to use contemporary parlance, eligibility criteria were unclear – with no formal means of differentiating the deserving from the undeserving poor. The COS was established in 1869 so as to offer a mechanism via which this could be organised. However, it was underpinned by a particular perspective regarding poverty, whereby a distinction was drawn between those individuals who were willfully poor and those whose position reflected circumstances beyond their control – the ‘undeserving’ and the ‘deserving’. Only those who were deserving would be provided with assistance, which would be geared towards the development of certain habits that would strengthen the capacity for work, while the undeserving would be left with only residual Poor Law provision. Independence and hard work were the means via which the poor could escape poverty, within the context of strong commitments to the stable family unit as the bedrock of society. In order to be able to make a distinction between the categories of deserving and undeserving, COS caseworkers undertook an ‘investigation’, in which both moral character and material circumstances were considered. Rather than seeking to understand the interplay between wider social factors and individual situations, the emphasis here was on individualised characteristics (Cree 2002a). Caseworkers were required to establish how likely to benefit from support and assistance an individual might be – in essence, whether intervention would be fruitful, encouraging independence, or merely perpetuate dependency. Where deserving, forms of assistance might be via a financial loan or alternatively officers would provide advice and support, particularly regarding employment possibilities.

By undertaking investigations of individuals’ circumstances and character via interviews and home visits, as a basis for analysis of their status, as well as the keeping of case records, COS officers were laying the foundations for forms of assessment practice which would remain influential throughout social work’s development. The assumption that social problems reflected individual failings and choices opened up a space for forms of knowledge which shared these individualised assumptions. It is notable that psychological theory, with its focus on understanding human behaviour, has been as, if not more, influential in particular periods of social work’s history than ‘social’ theories.

Contrasting with this individualising tendency was the countervailing influence of sociology, with its emphasis on the constraining and determining effects of social structure and disadvantage. Here, social change is privileged as the means of alleviating social problems. There was confluence of ethos and intent between those involved in the production of social knowledge and those seeking to bring about progress in society. Whereas the COS was concerned that state provision of assistance beyond that offered by the Poor Law and the workhouses would be counterproductive because it would increase dependency, in line with its underpinning individualising assumptions, and so favoured charitable giving, here the emphasis was on the potential that state intervention, in the form of ‘welfare’ provision had for the alleviation of the suffering of the poor and destitute. Instead of psychology being viewed as the closest matching knowledge base on which practice might draw, close links were established between sociology and social policy and the practice of those varieties of social work informed by collectivist assumptions.

The Settlement movement is the principal example (Wilson et al. 2008). The rationale underpinning this movement was that the actual causes of social problems lay beyond the motivation and temperament of the individual concerned and in their wider social environment. It was therefore theorised that if these issues were to be addressed, social circumstances would have to change. One means of achieving this end would be for educated volunteers to live within (‘settle’) afflicted communities, as a focal point for local development and action, with the benefits of an ‘educated outlook’ dispersing amongst these communities. Settlers offered potential as leaders and educators. They would immerse themselves within communities, and facilitate collective action to develop and implement solutions to problems. Here then we see the origins of community work, which has been a strand of social work ever since.

These two exemplars represent different approaches to dealing with social problems. While the COS accepted society as it was, and sought to bring about a better fit between the individual and society by changing the individual, the Settlement movement was concerned with improving the lot of individuals via social change. These two approaches have vied for prominence throughout the history and development of social work, and arguably draw upon alternative knowledge bases and skills, with the ‘clinical’ approaches of psychology affiliated with the former and the ‘critical’ approaches of sociology affiliated with the latter.

Theory and method in social work

These distinctions should not be overstated. Some theorists recognised the advantages of integrating aspects of supposedly competing approaches, pointing to the need for ‘psychosocial’ approaches to practice. Mary Richmond’s (1917) highly influential work on the skills required to work with individuals and families has come to be regarded as a defining influence on the development of social work theory and method. Richmond saw no necessary contradiction in combining the idealist motivation of social activists with the applied investigation of COS caseworkers. Indeed, in her insistence that it is the intersection between society and the individual that represents the foci of social work practice, the need for forms of practice which might facilitate both individual and environmental adjustment was highlighted. The model which she developed conceived of such change as following a gradual and progressive process and comprising a number of related components – investigation, case formulation (diagnosis), planning, identification of resources and intervention – basic elements of a process which arguably still characterises the majority of social work practices. It is notable however that her concern was with formulating the problem, rather than the person, and thus although significant in the development of social casework as a method, its theoretical significance was more limited. This theoretical lacuna meant that social work lacked an explicit theory base for making sense of the relationship between the problem and the person, a gap which came to be filled by psychological understanding.

The emergence of the mind

The influence of both psychology and psychiatry on social work was particularly evident between the 1920s and the 1960s; it significantly affected the nature of professional social work by reorienting its focus away from the Settlement movement’s concern with the impact of social and economic circumstances to the psychological needs of the individual. Indeed, a causal relationship was posited whereby social problems came to be seen as being underlain by the psychological needs of the individual concerned. Freudian ideas about the role of the unconscious mind, conflicts in the interaction between id, ego and superego, and the impact of past experiences on current, seemingly irrational, often counterproductive, behaviour offered both answers and, potentially, remedies to these questions. The emphasis on early relationships between infants and caregivers as the situation in which such patterns are initially established (Bowlby 1979) added weight to models of practice which emphasised the potential of a positive relationship between client and practitioner to counteract the effects of less than ideal precursors. Central to this was the notion of a therapeutic relationship as a ‘safe space’ in which clients were able to talk about issues and problems that were concerning them. By articulating their thoughts and feelings they could be enabled to make links between past experiences and current actions, gaining insight into how assumptions and patterns established in early life impacted unconsciously in the ‘here and now’ in symptomatic behaviour. The practitioner’s role was to facilitate expression of, and reflection upon, emotions and anxieties, and to offer their own interpretations, so as to enable clients to develop insight, or an understanding of the relationship between the past and the present as it applied in their own particular case based upon bringing unconscious patterns to conscious awareness. Only then could attempts to limit the effects of symptoms of damaged and disturbing previous experiences be successfully undertaken, via analysis and interpretation.

The turn to behaviour

Both psychoanalytic and attachment theory have been significant in the historical development of social work theory and practice, and remain significant, not least in ‘relational’ approaches to social work (Ruch 2005). However, their dominance in the mid twentieth century was increasingly challenged by the rise of behavioural approaches in psychology. Criticism of psychoanalytic models reflected a lack of empirically derived evidence supporting claims to effectiveness. Indeed, from the 1960s onwards, a number of studies were published which challenged the assumption that open ended, insight oriented casework was of value to social work clients. Partly, this challenge was based on evaluative research (Fischer 1973, 1976), partly on the views of social work clients (Mayer and Timms 1970), and partly critique from proponents of alternative theoretical perspectives (Skinner 1953, 1969). Behavioural – and subsequently, cognitive – approaches also took the individual as their focus, but moved away from a concern with untestable propositions concerning the relationship between unconscious motivations and behaviour, instead privileging approaches to intervention which were rationally oriented, with empirically validated effects. Insight oriented approaches had attracted significant criticism because of their open ended nature, and lack of outcome based research evidence testifying to their actual effectiveness. Psychologists – and subsequently, social workers (Hudson and Macdonald 1986) – who were concerned at this lack of empirical support sought to develop and implement alternative approaches.

Behaviourism, though a branch of psychology, represented a significant departure from the assumptions, precepts and concepts of Freud and Bowlby. Its principal concern was with current behaviour, irrespective of the underlying psychological issue which this might be a manifestation of. As Howe puts it, ‘The interest is in what people do, not why they do it’ (2009, p. 50). It stresses the role played by environmental (that is, social) influences on learning. Learning is seen as a form of conditioning, which may be either positive or negative, and is used to establish and modify – enhance, reduce or eliminate – specific behaviours. Practitioners seek to alter the relationship between the individual and their social environment by acting upon the variables concerned – the client or the reactions of others to them – with a view to increasing desirable and decreasing problematic behaviour. In contrast to preceding approaches, however, behaviourists insist that it is observed behaviour which should be the focus of intervention, rather than unconscious processes, or ‘surface’ rather than ‘depth’ (Howe 1996). Past experiences are deemed of little consequence in the here and now. Thus, the behaviour which is to be targeted in intervention should be very specific, thereby enabling comparison of ‘pre’ and ‘post’ intervention levels of problematic behaviour. There was, however, fierce criticism of behaviour modification techniques as unethical and incompatible with social work’s commitment to self-determination, which ensured that although influential, behaviourism did not become the orthodoxy within social work agencies.

Complex social systems

If by the late 1970s behaviourism represented the ascendant model of individual treatment, what of the social? At this time, systems theory also rose to prominence. In contrast with the individualised analysis of the relationship between cause and remedy within psychological models, systems theory broadened out this concern to accommodate the wider context within which individuals make decisions and act. General systems theory was developed within biology in the early twentieth century (Koprowska 2005) but was applied by family therapists as a means of understanding problematic relationships within families, before having an effect on wider social wo...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction
• 1. Enduring Debates in Social Work
• 2. Accounting for the Rise of Risk
• 3. Mental Health Social Work – A Case in Point
• 4. The Probation Service – Pragmatism in Practice?
• 5. ‘An Analytics of Social Work’
• 6. A Technical Identity?
• 7. Risk, Uncertainty and Blame in Contemporary Practice
• 8. Conclusion – Doing Justice to Social Work
• Bibliography
• Index