CHAPTER I
What social worker has not been asked to define social work and found himself at a loss? It is easy to describe his own particular tasks but it is not easy to characterize the profession as a whole or to say why its very diverse phases are identified with one another. Why should we apply the term “social work” to hospital social service and probation, but not to nursing and interpreting, services which seem to stand in a similar relation to medicine and the courts?
Definitions of social work are not yet to be found in dictionaries or encyclopedias. A certain amount of characterization appears in current literature, by implication or by mention of one feature here and another there. Some general descriptions say of it things which, though true, do not distinguish it.[1]Probably no strict definition is possible. The field of social work is constantly extending; its functions are multiplying by geometric progression; its means are undergoing continuous adaptation and in all its phases it shades off into other kinds of work or attracts allied work to its own likeness. The inconvenience of this state of affairs is a constant subject of complaint and for at least three reasons we badly need some sort of definition.
In the first place whenever we talk without first agreeing on the meaning of terms we are wasting time and giving unnecessary opportunity for bad blood. The term “social work” is now used in several entirely different senses. One man, in using it, is referring to a characteristic technique, which to him is its distinguishing feature, such, for instance, as social case work; another is thinking of a certain function in social economy, for instance, the relief of distress; athird is designating a policy in social reform, a temporizing policy, for example. So long as this latitude of use continues we will talk at cross purposes whether in discussion of specific ways and means or in the evaluation of social work as a factor in human affairs. Any definition would make it easier for us to agree or explicitly disagree on what we mean by social work.
In the second place while the nature and purpose of a calling are perceived cloudily or not at all it does not manifest the coherence and momentum which inspire constructive work. Its followers are in danger of floundering among isolated tasks or finding their sense of continuity and purpose in the mere observation of correct procedure. Social work while feeling an implicit affinity in its many forms, often seems to suffer from lack of any essential principles or any demonstrable obligation or responsibility, other than those incumbent on the community as a whole. The process of definition offers a means of bringing to light any principles or responsibilities especially pertaining to it.
Thirdly social work now suffers unnecessarily in reputation and support (even among its own practitioners) for disappointing demands which would never have been made were its nature better understood. Every undertaking has its limitations and when known and understood they constitute no reproach. But the preoccupations and aspirations of social work are such as to tempt its proponents to enlarge on infinite possibilities, forgetting in their enthusiasm to state that these possibilities can only be realized if the ministrations and advices of social work are accepted in many places where it has no enforceable influence. The limits set to any single line of human endeavor working by itself are very narrow, and for social work, as for other things, they are in practice promptly reached. Social work when it stands thus at the end of its powers seems to have betrayed the confidence placed in it. A limiting definition would show that the fault lies not in social work but in unreasonableexpectations. Such a definition would be its best defense from antagonistic critics and disappointed followers.
Yet “social work” in spite of all uncertainty does stand for something real. Annually there meets a National Conference of Social Work with 2637 individual and group memberships representing 46 States, the District of Columbia, Cuba, Hawaii, the Philippines and Canada and 6 foreign countries.[2]There has lately been formed an American Association of Social Workers[3]composed of master workmen in its several lines, who must qualify in terms of preparation or experience and who are associated for the purpose of maintaining a high standard of work. All this indicates that there is a general concept of social work, and if there is such a thing it must be amenable to some sort of description or analysis. Though water-tight definition seems impossible it is frequently not necessary. If any characteristics can be found which appear in all the forms of social work and not in activities unrelated to it they will at least serve the three practical purposes for which definition is so urgently needed.
Materials for analysis are not wanting. Social work has had its national conference for fifty years, its magazine for thirty-six[4]and its schools for twenty-five[5]and the conference reports, the magazines and the school curricula constitute a competent body of evidence that can be consulted either in cross section or in chronological perspective. If we forego expectation of a precise and all-mentioning definition and adjust our demands to the practicabilities of the case we may hopefully challenge these compact sources of information, together with the dispersed literature of the subject, with observation and experience to stand and deliver a working definition.
FOOTNOTES:[1]For examples see Appendix I.[2]Conference Bulletin, published by the National Conference of Social Work, Nov., 1922, Vol. 26, No. 1, 25 E. 9th St., Cincinnati, Ohio.[3]130 E. 22nd Street, New York.[4]“Charities,” which has since become the “Survey,” was first published in 1887.[5]The New York School of Philanthropy opened its full term winter course in 1904; a summer school had been opened in 1898.
[1]For examples see Appendix I.
[1]For examples see Appendix I.
[2]Conference Bulletin, published by the National Conference of Social Work, Nov., 1922, Vol. 26, No. 1, 25 E. 9th St., Cincinnati, Ohio.
[2]Conference Bulletin, published by the National Conference of Social Work, Nov., 1922, Vol. 26, No. 1, 25 E. 9th St., Cincinnati, Ohio.
[3]130 E. 22nd Street, New York.
[3]130 E. 22nd Street, New York.
[4]“Charities,” which has since become the “Survey,” was first published in 1887.
[4]“Charities,” which has since become the “Survey,” was first published in 1887.
[5]The New York School of Philanthropy opened its full term winter course in 1904; a summer school had been opened in 1898.
[5]The New York School of Philanthropy opened its full term winter course in 1904; a summer school had been opened in 1898.