Social Work and History (Again) [ 11 Oct 1994 ]
Dear Professor Carp:
The original question, as I recall, and the one you replied to, based in part so I gather, on your own research, was: why is social work without any history of its work? I may have understated the question or left out some of the important nuance stuff, but for the moment let me work with this.
I think there are really two questions. The first question has to do with the history of social welfare in the US. The second question is why is there so little history on social work as a profesion. My own experience is that these two questions are often conflated. For example, if one looks at the history of social work, the litle that is taught, it usually is tangled up with the history of social welfare. In other words, it seems as though no one has yet picked up the idea of writing a history of social work independent of certain major institutions, i.e. the welfare system with it many attendent sub-parts, e.g. child welfare, adoption. With respect to the former, I am not surprised that what is written is pronbably wrong, but I would be interested to know if this stuff is written by social workers, economists, historians or political scientists. I would be surprised if anything very interesting about social work as a profession shows up much in the history of social welfare as written by non-social workers. This doesn't of course mean that if social workers write a history of social welfare it is necessarily more reputable, I doubt that it is.
The other piece about social work as a profesion I find quite puzzling too. I suspect that the reason historians haven't paid much attention to social work as a profession is that it isn't very interesting and perhaps a more significant reason is that social work is still somewhat short of being a real profession at least it doesn't yet qualify in terms of folk science as having made it.
Both questions are important for a similar reason and that is the question posed as to why it isn't taught more. I think one of the reasons is that social workers have not made the distinction in their own minds as to whether they are a profession quite independent of the welfare system and also because historians simply haven't found much to offer. I think the latter is not acceptable and is perhaps borne out of ignorance. Which is to say that it has an enormous amount to offer depending on the question the historian puts forth. For example, I think there is much to learn if an analytic historian were to look at the intellectual development of the profession and perhaps draw out those parts of social work that are genuinely affected by scientific and intellectual developments and those aspects of the professions' work that are really quite political. For example, I suspect we really know little more now then we did ten years ago about the nature og homosexuality, yet social workers have entered into the political aspects of this much discussed topic and have insisted that issues of gender and orientation be included in the curiculum, i..e. essentially political issue have become a sort of intellectual dogma. I am not cheering for either side, I only offer this up as an example poiticallly inspired education and ultimately practice.
I have said quite enough, do let me hear your thoughts. Thanks for the forum. The questions raised are important and my thanks for the chance to respond.
With every good wish,
Dale Albers