CONFERENCE:
NASW Social Work ‘90,
Pre-Conference Institute, Boston, Mass.
November 14, 1990.
TITLE:
Visions: Clinical Practice
in Relation to Global Commitment.
SPEAKERS
Richard Ramsay,
Faculty of Social Work,
University of Calgary;
Dorothy Van Soest,
School of Social Work,
College of St. Thomas, St. Paul, MN.
CONTENT
This session will provide social workers with
utilitarian theory and clinical examples that will enable them to incorporate
personal, political, global and spiritual issues in their social work teaching
and practice. The presenters will provide a prism through which social work
professionals can envision a positive future for the planet.
PAPER
Global Commitment and Clinical Social Work: A Time to Realign Social Work’s
Traditional Value and Practice Foundations with Societal Models of Peace and
Nonviolence.
By
Richard Ramsay & Dorothy
Van Soest
Global Commitment and Clinical Social Work: A Time to Realign
Social Work’s Traditional Value and Practice Foundations
with Societal Models of Peace and Nonviolence.
As we enter the last decade of this century, the timing seems right to
re-examine the value and practice foundations of North American social work.
The need for this examination is based on two observations. One comes from our
conclusion that existing value foundations have been influenced by an
underlying societal model of reality, which for centuries has perpetuated
conditions of violence and injustice in human societies. Replacing this form of
reality with a different model of reality may provide social work professionals
with a better value base to envision and shape nonviolent, mutually sustainable
(co-evolutionary) relationships between our planet and the human societies that
coexist with it. The other comes from our view that the theory and practice
foundations of social work, after almost one hundred years of development, are
still tied too tightly to machine metaphor determinism of pre-20th century
science. By re-examining the limitations of over identifying with this empiric-sensory
perspective, coupled with a full exploration of 20th century science support
for whole system perspectives, a model may emerge to give the profession a
practice based infrastructure grounded to a more dynamical perspective, which
can be used to universally depict what social workers do, globally and locally.
This paper invites social workers to 1) explore the emerging new theory of
Cultural Transformation, developed by Riane Eisler (1987), as a theoretical
base to anchor the value foundations of the profession to a societal model of
reality that is not embedded with traditions of violence and injustice; 2)
consider adopting the holistic model proposed in this paper as a universal
infrastructure, useable anywhere in the world to depict the simple or complex
realities of social work practice within specified political-cultural contexts
and; 3) think of the proposed models as non-violent approaches that can be used
to dissolve into co-operative partnership the harmful conflicts between
empiric-sensory purists and other legitimate methods of scientific practice. We
are quite convinced that both models (a new societal model and a new practice
model) can be supported by “new science” discoveries in mathematics, physics
and biology, including new theories related to the Gaia hypothesis, fractal
geometry and chaos (Zukav, 1978; Hayward, 1984; Capra, 1985; Augros and
Stanciu, 1987; Lovelock, 1988; Sahtouris, 1989; Briggs and Peat, 1989;
Prigogine and Stengers, 1985; Laszlo, 1987; Margulis, 1987; Gleick,
1988).
Eisler’s work will help us look through the prism of history in an entirely new
way, giving most of us a first time look at the deep traditions of holism and
mutual cooperation that operated in ancient Neolithic civilizations several
millennia (thousands of years) ago. We believe that her work and the scientific
works of others (Lovelock, Margulis, Sahtouris and Laszlo, for example) will
encourage the profession to more directly align its value foundations to a
societal model of reality’ that has the mutually cooperative traditions of
these ancient civilizations and tie its theory and practice foundations more
specifically to this century’s emerging new sciences of wholeness. The
consequences of not making these new alignments could keep the profession confined
inside a counterproductive model of reality based on assumptions of male
superiority and the mechanical nature of all science; the supremacy of a
monoscientific method (objective, empiric, reductionistic); and the absolute
correctness of economic (Malthusian), biological (Darwinian), and social
(Spencerian) theories of evolution by natural selection. Simply stated, social
work would continue to be influenced by domination models of reality based on
notions of hierarchic evolution, aggressive competition and man’s natural
domain over nature.
The presence of a domination model in generations of human societies dates back
many centuries to the first evidence of invasion-minded nomadic tribes. These
warrior-led tribes are said to have acted as “peripheral isolates” and started
the transformation of Neolithic civilizations from mutually cooperative
“partnership” models to hierarchic “dominator” models (Eisler, 1987). According
to Eisler (1987) and Sahtouris (1989), evidence of dominance, destruction and oppression
based traditions are easily found in both ancient and modern history. Their
sources include ancient Greek writings on the philosophies of materialism and
idealism; early records on the emergence of male-god religions; modern
science’s belief in man’s right to exploit nature with impunity; the purges of
evil women and other heretics during the Inquisition period; Cartesian theories
about mind-body separations; reported observations of the natural selection
mechanism in evolution; and the moral certainty proclamations of reformist
religions.
How much has social work been affected by the traditions of dominance and
pre-20th century science? Quite a lot, as we shall see. The mind-body
separations of Cartesian dualism for example, are still real enough in social
work that some NASW ‘90 conference organizers worried that a pre-conference
Institute on peace and global commitment issues might not interest clinical and
mental health social workers - the two largest membership groupings in NASW.
The concern was that clinical social workers would see their work with
individual and family systems to be separate from global issues tied to
starving children or the “peacekeeping” policies of nation-states stockpiling
mass destruction armaments. If this kind of Cartesian mindset is still
operative in our profession, clinically minded social workers may be hard to
convince that global and domestic issues are now known to be co evolutionarily
coupled in a way that their domestic separateness might be implicated in the perpetuation
of the highly dangerous war and armament model of reality, currently present in
virtually all human societies. By way of brief explanation, ‘co-evolution
couples large-scale and small-scale in a seamless cycle of mutual causality”
(Briggs & Peat, 1989: 164). In this context, the macro and micro sides of
social work cannot evolve independent of each other. New scientific evidence
proves that minor fluctuations occurring at one point in a system can in time
trigger major non-predictable changes in other places (Glieck, 1988). In a
positive sense, it is nice to know that that the actions of one or two people
can make a large-scale difference in the policies of a much bigger system. On
the negative side, failure by social workers to take seriously the evidence of
this co-evolutionary link could blind them to the evidence that dominator model
influences in their domains of practice contribute to the war and armament
mentality, which fuels so much of modem day “progress.” This type of progress,
as social workers around the world will tell anyone who cares to listen, has a
not so hidden underbelly of discrimination, hatred, poverty, inequalities,
violence and a wanton disregard for the “life” of the planetary environment in
which we live. Ironically, these co-evolutionary couplings trap North American
social work into being shaped by the very’ macro-level philosophies and ground
rules that its micro-level methods of clinical practice have sought to
eliminate in individual and family relationships. If it’s true that social work
is caught in this interconnected trap, all of us, individually and
collectively, face the challenge of how to help the profession extricate its
value and practice foundations from the limitations of destruction dominated
models of society and machine models of scientific determinism.
Under the general heading of social workers and global commitment, we will
share some ways we think the foundations of social work can transform away from
dominator models without discarding the deeper meanings and intentions of long
held practice values that have evolved and matured over the past one hundred
years. The whole systems model we plan to introduce may give our profession a
preferred way to pursue wholeness and global commitment without sacrificing the
need or the opportunity for a diversity of indigenous local applications. As
already mentioned, we will make several references to 20th century’ scientific
developments, especially in physics, biology, feminism, fractal geometry and
geophysiology which provide “solid” documentation about the limitations of
scientific determinism and amplify the advantages of adding more nonlinear
views of science to our practice foundations. We will also try to show you that
intuitive methods of problem-solving, often denigrated in social work for their
lack of empiric-sensory rigor, are recognized as legitimate methods of
scientific inquiry in some of the “hard” sciences (Watson, 1968). We will
caution you, however, that an exaggerated emphasis on intuition will deny
differences and reality testing, creating practice efforts that lack clarity
and precision. On the other hand, if we exaggerate intellect an imbalance is
created in the direction of “quantity, separation, analysis and abstraction”
(Hayward, 1984: 30). Overall, we will advocate that all social workers,
practitioners and educators combined, should begin the process of openly
“retooling” the value and practice foundations of the profession to more
closely fit with ancient societal models of mutual cooperation and the new
nonlinear findings being generated by 20th century science. In doing so, we are
hopeful that our discipline will prepare itself to enter the 21st century as a
leading edge “design science-profession” - giving it a more comprehensive base
than the narrow base constraints that characterized its evolution from a 19th
century “friendly” visiting vocation to a 20th century “scientific” treatment
profession.
The first part of the paper will focus on evidence that links social work’s
method- bound traditions to the mainstream tenets of pre-20th century sciences
and philosophies. Second, we will introduce some of the basic tenets of ancient
Neolithic societies, as well as some new science discoveries, and positively
link this information to the value foundations of cooperation and mutual
harmony found in almost all social work literature. From this, we will describe
the whole systems perspective that we believe can accommodate both linear and
nonlinear features of our discipline and give the profession a common
conceptual infrastructure. We will close with some thoughts about how social
workers can use these models to help promote in others global and local
commitments to problem-solve conflicting interests through cooperative actions.
Quick Review of Social Work’s Beginnings
Eisler tells us the rise of the 19th century women’s liberation movement helped
to pave the way for the emergence of new professions like nursing and social
work. Our own literature tells us that early practice methods were rooted to
Charity Organization Societies (COS) and the university settlement house
movement, both of which had their beginnings in the United Kingdom (Franklin,
1986). The COS organizations were known for their “friendly” visiting methods
linked to the practice wisdom of moral certainists. The settlement house
volunteers were known best for their “live-in” advocacy methods linked to the
practice wisdom of grass-roots mutual aid and champions of social justice. In
North America, Mary Richmond is our most recognized pioneer associated with the
COS movement and the
person most credited with changing friendly visiting casework to a more
scientific form of social casework based on the fact finding investigative
methods of law and medicine. Richmond was one of the first to call for formal
training in social work at the turn of the century, but stopped short of
recommending full integration into university programs. She maintained a strong
belief in the importance of apprenticeship training in social service agencies,
a legacy that has survived to this day. Jane Addams, as we know, pioneered the
settlement house movement on this side of the Atlantic, which spawned the
beginnings of our recreational group work method and eventually our community
organization method.
If the women’s liberation movement helped give birth to social work, medicine
had a great influence on its formative years. At the turn of the century,
medicine faced considerable criticism for its longstanding links to an
apprenticeship model of education. In 1910, the recommendations of a national
survey, designed to put medical education on a sound scientific foundation, was
published (Capra, 1983: 159). The
report, written by Abraham Flexner the guru of American medical education in
his day, set down strict guidelines to make sure medical schools were in
universities and committed to teaching and research. The study of disease, not
the care of the sick was to receive priority. In his recommendations, he made
it quite clear that physical examinations were more relevant to a diagnosis
than other assessment variables, such as the emotional state, family history or
social situation of the patient. Recent findings reveal that Flexner’s total
commitment to sound research was compromised by his personal attitudes about
the research work of black scientists. We are given a shocking glimpse of these
attitudes by Stephen J. Gould (1987: 176), who documents several occasions
where Flexner’s “crushing paternalism towards blacks” was used to prevent
Ernest J. Just, a brilliant young research biologist, from receiving
financial support for his work. This is the same person, who in 1915 gave an
invited keynote address, Is Social Work a Profession? to American social
workers that probably did more to shape (or, should we say mis-shape) the
direction of social work in this century than any other single event (Austin,
1983).
In his address to the National Conference on Charities and Corrections, Flexner
repeated his paternalism toward the lesser ranked and marginalized in society by
concluding that the emerging female-led discipline of social work did not
qualify as a profession. It was too mediative (focused on relationships instead
of things); it was too broad based (not specialized enough), and it lacked a
clearly defined and teachable method of practice (its procedures weren’t
scientific enough) (Austin, 1983). So, what else should we have expected from a
hierarchic-minded male grounded to a 19th century machine metaphor model of
science? As an aside for those interested in what else might have influenced
our history in 1915, this was the year Einstein published his theory of general
relativity, the second of his two breakthrough theories, confirming the flaws
of Newtonian science. Where might social work be today if it had developed
problem-solving methods based on a model of nonlinear relativity instead of a
linear model of verifiable fact-finding?
Flexner’s address appears to have significantly influenced both the direct and
indirect practice foundations of our profession. Our two most heralded
pioneers, Mary Richmond and Jane Addams, were in the midd1eof a ten year
competition for the leadership of our young profession (Franklin, 1986). Addams
was heavily into partisan politics, chairing the policy platform for Teddy
Roosevelt’s unsuccessful Presidential bid. She was an active anti-war lobbyist
and peace advocate for which she later received a Nobel Peace prize. Richmond
was not into partisan politics, but did support American involvement in the war
effort.
Richmond, however, was the first “off-the-block” to remedy Flexner’s criticism
that we lacked a teachable scientific method when she published her classic Social Diagnosis (1917).
Social casework with a heavy emphasis on investigative fact -finding quickly
became social work’s teachable treatment method and soon established a dominant
foothold among all practicing social workers. The specialization criticism was
addressed with the growth of specialized casework methods in specialty fields
of practice, along with, in some cases the formation of separate professional
associations.
What could have been a crippling blow to the new profession occurred in the
early 1920s when the American Red Cross, which had recently endorsed the hiring
of social workers as a major part of its staffing policies, reacted negatively
to Addams’ high profile in politics and decided to remove all social
caseworkers from its employment, rationalizing its actions on the primacy of
its policy on neutrality. Social casework suffered a major setback, but didn’t
die. The social justice “stuffing,” however, was likely scared out of the
average social worker for quite awhile, along with any collective commitment to
ground our profession on the peace and nonviolence principles of Jane Addams.
Once the dominance of social casework methods took hold, the similarity of
Richmond’s social diagnosis method to Flexner’s physical examination priorities
for medicine was striking. This similarity is vividly described in Helen Harris
Perlman‘s account of her first job as a social worker in the 1920s:
“Get the factual
data” was the guiding principle. And “data” were, the stripped-down facts of
the so-called objective reality. Only short shrift was give to the facts
of the client’s feelings, his hurts, his fears, his embarrassments, the facts
in short, of his subjective reality and its involvement as cause or
effect, of the presented problem (Perlman, 1989: 213).
The profession’s concern about the over proliferation of specialist
casework methods surfaced in the mid 1920s, resulting in the Milford
Conference, a group of agency leaders meeting annually over a five year period.
Their 1929 report states the case for a generic social casework method.
Although fields of practice and other specializations continued to develop,
this group stopped the expansion of casework specialties. Even though these
early leaders alerted the profession to the dangers of over specializing, their
report did support “scientism” as the way to achieve professional respectability
(Zimmerman, 1989: 59).
During the years of the Milford conference meetings, the popularity of
Freudian psychology swept North America. Social workers were in the forefront
of accepting this new science of human development. Penman gives a good account
of why social workers were so quick to buy into developmental psychology: “This
swing to psychodynamics was in part due to the caseworkers own need to find
some escape, some surcease from a long involvement in battering socioeconomic
conditions that keep us anxious, often despairing, continuously fatigued”
(1989: 218). By 1930, social casework was the “in” method of social work and
clearly linked to a reductionist biomedical framework; developmental psychology
was the “in” theory of human behavior and fully incorporated into the curricula
of schools of social work. Social work as a young profession was well underway,
fully tied into theory and practice methods drawn from the worldview of
Newtonian mechanics that had dominated the core development of all natural
sciences throughout the 18th and 19th centuries.
In these same 30 years, however, the science of physics announced several
breakthrough discoveries, which documented the limitations of the Newtonian
worldview (especially assumptions that the laws of Nature were identical to the
laws of mechanics) and launched physics into a century of exciting findings
about relativity, uncertainty, complementarity, wave-particle movements,
chaotic strange attractors, etc. To pause on these findings for a moment,
Heisenberg’s principles of uncertainty showed the scientific world that you
can’t accurately determine where something is at and where it is going at the
same time; accurate knowledge of the parts at a given point in time will not
predict the actual outcome at another point in time. Bohr’s principle of
complementarity provides an appreciation of the impossibility of dealing with
certain aspects (usually opposites) of reality simultaneously. The psychosocial
manifestation in his own life was the experience of not being able to punish
his child for an inexcusable act; he couldn’t know his child in the light of
love and justice at the same time. Understanding nonlinearity taught us that
the “act of playing the game has a way of changing the rules” (Gleick, 1988:
24).
Unfortunately, all of the so-called branch or extension sciences of physics -
natural and social - didn’t follow the same scientific leads, remaining almost
exclusively tied to the mechanical principles of Newtonian determinism and
reductionist empiricism in an effort to generate new knowledge in their
specialty disciplines. Social work, because of its newly founded theory and
practice ties to the medical and psychoanalytical sciences, missed the
significance of these discoveries at the level of human relations until
mid-century when general systems theories were introduced, helping us
re-establish a professional focus on the mutuality of linkages in the
person-in-environment domains of the people with whom we work. Even so, a
critical examination of how this century’s scientific discoveries, such as the
aforementioned principles of uncertainty and complementarity, impact on the
theory and practice of social work has yet to happen with any degree of
comprehensiveness. Part of our objective in this paper is to motivate you to
begin your own examination. But, first let’s take a closer look at the evidence
that links social work to the foundations of pre-20th century science and its
dominator model of reality.
Linkages to “Old” Science
Augros and Stanciu (1988) review some of the famous attempts to fit the
Newtonian foundations of physics into other sciences. The economic theories of
Thomas Malthus paraphrased Newton’s first law of motion to support the
assumption that humankind was naturally lazy (inert) and unwilling to work
unless externally forced to do so. Malthusian economics are believed to have
been one of the foundations for Darwin’s conclusion that the mechanism of
evolution was natural selection governed by ruthless competition in a hostile
(“red in tooth and claw”) environment in which only the fittest would survive.
These assumptions were used by Spencer to construct a draconian Social
Darwinian philosophy advocating the natural elimination and probably the “good
riddance” of the poor and weakest members of society. The idea that man is an
inert force requiring an external force to make him move also was used by Marx
to support his contention that external social forces determines human
consciousness; one’s consciousness does not determine his/her existence.
Freud’s psychology was modelled on mechanistic biology, claiming that humans
are basically of weak intelligence ruled by their instinctual wishes (Augros
& Stanciu, 1988). The behaviorist psychology of Skinner rests on the
premise that human behaviour as a whole is fully determined; humans have no
part in their own destiny as initiating, creative agents. In summary, the old
science supporters:
Maithus, Marx,
Freud, and Skinner agree on one thing: man is not an agent in his own right,
but is acted upon by inner and outer forces beyond his control. In the full
rigor of the mechanistic scheme, man cannot act for a conscious purpose (Augros
& Stanciu, 1988:9).
Reductionism is said to be the philosophy that affirms the idea that
all sciences and disciplines are reducible to physics once all the facts of
these separate areas are understood. Materialism is the doctrine that claims
the “building block” of all human experience is reducible to an understanding
of the physics of matter. Objective observation confirmed by controlled experimentation
was singled out as the only sound method of science to find the mechanically
determined facts of all living and nonliving matter.
Social work’s beginnings are easily traced to genuine concerns for the
intrinsic worth and dignity of all people. In its earliest forms social work
was recognized as a new discipline response to observed social injustices,
poverty and discrimination inherent in the rise of capitalism and
industrialization in 19th century societies. In spite of these humane
foundations, social work’s methods of professional help were quickly grounded
on the prevailing mechanical worldview that was itself a large part of the
problem. Hindsight proof of this can be documented in the way our pioneers were
persuaded by the strong influence of medicine to adopt a scientific method of
helping, clearly tied to the objective fact-finding reductionism of classic
physics. Our early endorsement of Freudian psychology further tied our
understanding of human development and the evolution of our profession to a
machine-model view of person-in-environment functioning. In more recent years,
the effectiveness of behavioral psychology methods, supported by the claimed
superiority of rigorous empirical studies, have received considerable promotion
in the pi icrice literature as preferred practice methods for social workers
(Thyer & Wodarski, 1990). Even the practice wisdom advocates of our
profession, when dealing with hard-to-reach clients are often inclined to
support the Malthusian and Spencerian interpretations of Newton’s law of motion
if they are consistently frustrated with the perceived inertia (resistance and
laziness) of disenfranchised individuals, families or communities.
The deeper roots of physics, claiming it to be the base science for all other sciences,
and the concomitant promotion of its mechanical paradigm can be traced to the
ancient Greek philosophies of materialism and idealism. The beginnings of these
philosophies are now traceable to the rise of male-god dominated religions,
like Judaism and Christianity, that in turn have deep links to the domination
and hierarchical order found in the ancient Hebrew tribes and their Semite
ancestors, ruled by a caste of warrior-priests (Eisler, 1987). Western social
work takes most of its worth and dignity value base from these religions,
without due care given to the limited worldview of original order that the
forerunners and subsequent authorities of these religions supported and used to
discriminate, impoverish, subjugate and oppress the female half of humanity.
The moral certaintist beliefs found in the early charity organization forms of
social casework can be traced to the 17th century Protestant Reformation (and
Malthusian economics) which laid the groundwork for what at the time was the
progressive ideology of capitalism, stressing the virtues of industry,
individual attainment and condemning the sins of sloth, individual failure and
poverty (Eisler, p. 162). These early forms of social casework stressed the
importance of proper fact gathering so that help could be “given on the basis
of verified need, based on verified misfortune and verified lack of resources”
(Penman, 1989: 212).
The long held belief that all sciences - biology, psychology, physics,
sociology, history, etc., and their associated professional disciplines - can
be understood deterministically has been appropriately limited by exciting
“new” science discoveries in this century. The challenge for social workers is
to sufficiently familiarize themselves with these discoveries and begin the
transformation of retooling their systems perspective and method models of
practice to include appropriate information from these new sciences. In doing
so, the profession should find itself much more closely aligned with
developments in Eisler’s cultural transformation theory and placed in a
stronger advocacy position to affect domestic and societal transformations from
dominator models of living (perpetrators of chronic wars, social injustices and
ecological imbalances) to partnership models (co-creators of peace, social justice
and ecological balance).
Linkages to Neolithic cultures and the
“New” Sciences
How we can transform the profession’s 19th century value foundations from the
constraints of a dominator model of reality to a partnership model of reality
will come with our increased knowledge and understanding of the advantages of
cultural transformation theory and its scientific supports. Eisler has embarked
on a lengthy action research reexamination of human sociocultural evolution
from a gender-holistic perspective. Her theory proposes the likelihood of two
basic models of society underlying the vast diversity of human cultures: a
dominator model, popularly known as patriarchy, based on the ranking of one
half of humanity over the other, the other is a partnership model based on a
linking rather than a ranking principle that does not equate diversity with
either inferiority or superiority. These two ways of describing the
organization of human societies lead to two basic ways of structuring the
relations between the female and male halves of humanity: androcracy - derived
from the Greek root words andros (man)
and kratos (rule) meaning man-ruled; and gylany - derived from
the Greek root words gyne (woman),
and from
andros (man) and the letter 1 that
stands for linking of both, which we interpret to mean man/woman
linked-governance (Eisler, 1987: 105).
With support from the findings of post-World War II
archaeological studies, Eisler’s work suggests that the earliest forms of
structured human relations were gylanic (i.e. based on equality and partnership
between the sexes) and worship of the “life- generating and nurturing powers of
the universe.” Over many thousands of years covering Paleolithic and Neolithic
times, the partnership model foundation of this structure was destroyed
sometime between 5,000 and 7,000 years ago by the invasions of nomadic
hordes from the Asiatic and European northern peripheries of society and
replaced with an androcratic structure (i.e. a male supremacy model of human
relations). The new androcratric structure, wherever it took hold, had several
norms in common: male dominance, male violence, and domination hierarchies.
These new forms of society were characterized by physical destruction, cultural
regression and radical shifts in the direction of cultural evolution. The most
noted change is an ideological shift wherein “the power to dominate and
destroy… gradually supplants the view of power as capacity to support and
nurture life” (p.53). In the simplest of terms, a catastrophic bifurcation
(branch-like) turning point had occurred that transformed male brutality and
insensitivity to the top of these domination hierarchy structures, leaving the
female half of humanity relegated to the bottom as a male-dominated tool of
production and reproduction. The last known vestige of a former gylanic society
is what we now know as Minoan Crete and even it was destroyed by 1100 B.C.
Although our review of Eisler’s work thus far is grossly over simplified, the
impact should be staggering. She is revealing a previously unknown piece of
human history that contradicts most of what current history and literature
teaches. Her account of the beginnings of modem civilization as we know it
today documents the entrenched stability of male-dominated androcracies She
cites many examples over the past 2,500
years where the shape of androcratic societies have been stretched
due to a variety of gylanic shifts in the direction of greater equality between
the sexes, but each time the power of the dominating hierarchy forces the
emergence of new shapes in human relations back to their original androcratic
form. Examples of these shifts include short-lived instances of Socratic
advocacy of equal education for women and criticism of “might makes right” justice;
the gylanic teachings of Christ that called for the primacy of “female virtues”
- nonviolence, love thy neighbor and thy enemy, do unto others as we would have
them do unto us; a new conscience of responsibility for others in the
Elizabethan age; and the rise of feminism as a modern ideology in the women’s
liberation movement of the 19th century. These examples, of course, are greatly
overshadowed by the persistent evidence of a society still guided by the
rule-of-thumb doctrine of a violence-based androcracy.
The evolution of Christianity provides one of the most glaring examples of
gylanic failure. By 200 A.D., “Christianity was well on its way to becoming
precisely the kind of hierarchic and violence-based system Jesus had rebelled
against” (Eisler, 1987:13 1). Equally disturbing examples of modem day extremes
of androcratic rule are easily cited: Hitler’s Germany, Franco’s Spain, Idi
Amin’s Uganda, Khomeini’s Iran, Ceausescu’s Romania and now Hussein’s Iraq. In
North America, we have many examples of Rightist or neoandrocractic forces that
stand firmly against equal rights, freedom of choice and exhort us to be
“God-fearing” supporters of God’s (and therefore man’s) military might. Peace
and disarmament that would nurture and protect all humanity, including women
and children, has never been a ranked priority in the 180 or so male-dominated
nation-states of the world.
The challenge to androcracy, for the most part, is fragmented and inconsistent.
Only the firm supporters of gylany can make explicit the systemic connections
between domestic violence in the form of male rape and wife beating and
societal violence in the form of war. Advocates who understand and support
feminism make these systemic connections. All social workers should be able to make
these co-evolutionary connections, but many of us can’t because of our value
and practice foundations are still too firmly
rooted to Cartesian influenced androcratic models of reality. So,
how do we cast off androcratic constraints and replace the foundations of our
profession with a philosophical shift to those that are more in line with
gylanic structures? This is where support from the scientific discoveries of
this century can help. Physics discovered the limits of its mechanical-
dominated view of the universe almost one hundred years ago; other sciences
have been slow to follow, but many have recently made important breakthrough
findings.
The philosophical shift that we are asking social workers to make is one from
Newtonian reductionism (part to whole perspectives) to 20th century holism
(whole to part perspectives). The ability to comprehend a holistic perspective
will accelerate as we acquire an awareness of the complementarity of chaos and
order in the evolution of living, and nonliving systems. Human living systems
in their sociocultural environments are the focal interest of social work.
These systems differ from nonliving systems because of their self- creating
(autopoietic) feedback capacity, which gives them a regenerative quality that
mechanical systems do not have. The stopping and starting of nonliving systems
requires external input; not so for living systems. Holism in living systems
works from a whole to the part systems perspective, the opposite of mechanical
reductionism. Science has also discovered that increased autonomy of a living
organism couples it more tightly to its environment. This has led to the
revelation that individuality is rooted in cooperation; a revelation many hope
will lead us “toward a new kind of holism - a holism which will resolve the
apparent conflict between individual freedom and collective need” (Briggs &
Peat, 1989:165).
Support of holism is popular rhetoric among social workers, but it is poorly
understood and superficially applied in practice. Recent discoveries in
physics, chemistry and fractal geometry provide holistic ways to integrate the
subjective and objective, order and chaos, observer and observed, etc. without
subjugating one to the other. Social work’s alliance with holistic systems
perspectives can be strengthened and reinforced by adding the foundations of
these new science discoveries to its knowledge base. Physics, as already
mentioned, abandoned the Newtonian paradigm of mechanics almost one hundred
years ago. Biology is beginning to recognize that it is not simply an extension
of mechanical physics. The Darwinian mechanism of natural selection based on
the Malthusian theory of limited supplies and competitive survival is being
challenged with a more correct observation of inter/intra species cooperation
and harmonious coexistence with their ecosystems (Augros & Stanciu, 1988).
Recent developments in the increasingly popular science of chaos and order
(also known as nonequilibrium or far from equilibrium thermodynamics)
(Prigogine & Stengers, 1985; Laszlo, 1987; Gleick, 1988; Briggs & Peat,
1989) provide us with a new scientific development stage for understanding the
cultural transformations described by Eisler. We will try to make this clear to
you by connecting Eisler’s androcratic and glyanic models of reality with the
models of reality inherent in three stages of scientific development (Loye
& Eisler, 1987: 56). Although it may seem out of place for us to use a
physical science reference, it is generally acknowledged, “traditionally what natural
science opens up becomes the territory of social science” (Loye & Eisler,
1987: 56). Since the applied knowledge of social work draws heavily from the
social sciences it seemed to us that advancement of our profession could be
facilitated if social workers know the basics of what the natural sciences are
discovering and embark on their own evaluation of the relevant merits of these
findings.
Assuming that the specifics of the three scientific developments may be
unfamiliar to many social workers, we have tried to simplify the connection
between Eisler’s models and these developments with the aid of a map. Briggs
and Peat (1989) are helpful in describing maps as “imaginative pictures which
allow thought to bring into focus aspects of reality that might otherwise be
lost in details” (3 1-32). Maps provide us with a visual way to explore the
details of reality that would otherwise be too complicated to retain in our
mind. We must remember though that a map is only a model of reality and not
reality itself. We will describe three maps, which have what scientists call
“attractors” that affect the dynamical states of a system. Each system state
map features a different type of attractor.
The aforementioned dynamical states reflect the three stages of scientific
development. The first two stages provide the necessary foundation to
understand the dynamical science of Newton and his mechanical worldview. The
process of change in these two stages was tracked in terms of “static
attractors” or “periodic attractors.” The first stage, known as modern
thermodynamics, dealt with steady or equilibrium states. In other words,
stability and order were considered normative; change was abnormal,
representing a condition of disequilibrium. Disequilibrium tended toward disintegration
(entropy) and a state of ultimate equilibrium (random disorder) or inertia.
Steady state equilibrium was a state of balance that protected systems from the
dangers of disequilibrium and ultimate destruction. The second stage recognized
the presence of an oscillating or periodic equilibrium, but it did not vary
from the thermodynamic assumption that order and the basic mechanical condition
of inertia were normative.
In a 1st stage system, static attractors would naturally pull the system state
in the direction of ultimate equilibrium. A static attractor system works like
a common pendulum that starts from a state of rest (inertia) and will
eventually return to this state without some kind of external intervention to
keep it in motion (steady state equilibrium). In a human or social system
context, the quality of life is almost totally dependent on a limited number of
external forces (job, social support, status, etc.). The loss or withdrawal of
these forces would seriously threaten the steady state health/social
functioning of the system.
In a 2nd stage system, a periodic attractor would allow for some diversity, but
hold the system within a regulated set of limits. A periodic attractor system
works like a simple predator-prey system that supports an oscillating
(homeostatic), but still steady state equilibrium between a fairly fixed set of
limits or pattern of governance. The conditions for a steady state equilibrium
are tightly regulated. In a human relations context, for example, a patriarchal
marriage could break-up, transforming one or both partners into a static state
existence or ultimate death; or the dominated spouse in trying to find a more
flexible way of life is transformed by other factors (societal or personal
values) back to patriarchal subjugation.
The third stage of scientific development, coming largely from 20th-century
discoveries, is a major departure from the other two stages. For those familiar
with this stage, it is commonly called nonequilibrium thermodynamics. In this
stage, change and diversity are defined as normative; steady state stability by
itself is considered deviant. Stability is no longer defined in steady state
terms; instead it becomes a dynamical mix of order and chaos elements contained
within a defined boundary. In a third stage system, strange attractors keep the
system in perpetual motion, moving it back and forth between patterns of
predictable order and transformations of unpredictable chaos triggered by
bifurcation (branch-like) turning points. The system state is characterized by
a far from equilibrium robustness (dynamical equilibrium) that can accommodate
considerable variation and irregularity as a sign of its health and vitality.
New discoveries in human physiology, for example, now show that chaotic robustness
in bodily functioning signals health, whereas periodic or orderly behavior can
foreshadow disease (Goldberger, Rigney & West, 1990). Although we have
described these system maps separately, they can all exist in some form inside
one another. In this respect, all three systems states can be present and
active in the same human or social system.
The androcratic system of human relations described by Eisler easily fits the
characteristics of a 1st stage or 2nd stage equilibrium system. A steady state ordered
view of how the two halves of humanity should relate is maintained. Any
deviation is quickly returned to the ordered norm. A regulated steady state
would tolerate some variance and flexibility, but never enough to dramatically
change the ordered view nature of how the two halves should relate to each
other. In this system state, a high level of hierarchic regimentation tightly
regulates the dynamical relationships between the two halves of humanity, which
ultimately force any gylanic variations in the system back to its original
shape. Even though the destructive features of androcracy are easily argued and
becoming more and more observable, the male-dominator model in human societies
has not only endured over the last three to four thousand years it has
projected a false sense of strange attractor robustness, but only for men.
Eisler’s gylanic model of reality connects best with the characteristics of a
strange attractor system state. These states are deeply interconnected,
dynamical, and versatile in the expanding direction of actualization
hierarchies - systems within systems holons that evolve forward in the
direction of more complex levels of functioning. This gylanic model connection
with the 3rd stage system state is less strongly asserted in Eisler’s own work.
She sees the model as a peripheral attractor that will trigger a bifurcation
point, transforming the relationship between the two halves of humanity from a
static system state to a more flexible periodic system state. We think it can
and must do more. The transformation must carry through to a far from
equilibrium system state that more realistically reflects the dynamical nature
of human complexity. Once achieved, the gylanic (partnership) model and strange
attractor system state would become the normative state for all human societies
to regenerate and sustain in an expanding direction of co-evolutionary
actualization. Although far more robust and healthy than a hierarchically
regulated androcratic system state, gylanic system states, as they were in the
past, will be vulnerable to at least three types of bifurcation turning points:
a) activation of an entropic
process that moves them back to the more controlled bounds of a periodic
attractor state or worse still all the way to a Static system State and
ultimate destruction;
b) activation of a far from
equilibrium amplification that overwhelms the system, putting it into a
catastrophic process that needs to be dampened back to the dynamical thresholds
of an already robust system or,
c) a chaotic amplification that
signals the need to move onward (transform) to a new gylanic system state.
Social work in our opinion is a gylanic-based discipline, currently
trapped within the domination hierarchies of androcratic societies in the
world, which is trying, along with other gylanic influences, to create enough
stretch in the shape of these societies to start a bifurcation process that
will fully transform them into 3rd stage dynamical system states. The
profession’s gylanic base is not as well rooted as it might be. We need to find
new value and practice perspectives to support our foundational beliefs about
the worth and dignity of all people and our commitment to work at the interface
of person-in-environment ecosystems for individual and social justice improvements
that would benefit all. If “peace” is accepted as a high level mind concept in
present day society; war and armaments have been the low level physical
manifestation of achieving peace through competition and dominance. For
example, the enlightened children of our time are still calling their
generation to “fight” for peace and social justice in the world. Social work
has to step up its ability to change the physical manifestation of this calling
to one of cooperation and partnership. Careful study of Eisler’s Cultural
Transformation theory is certainly one place for us to start. In addition to
some of the insights that 3rd stage scientific developments can provide us, we
need to thoroughly assess the new biological literature on living organisms - the
Gala theory (Lovelock, 1987; Sahtouris, 1989; Allaby, 1989; Joseph, 1990) and
the breakthrough findings in the fields of genetics, physics, paleontology, and
animal behavior that find nature as cooperative, harmonious and not surviving
according to the Darwin’s “survival of the fittest” mechanisms. After we have
examined these new findings and hopefully found ways to incorporate them into
updated theories and practice actions, we still need to find a way to map all
the components of our discipline onto a whole systems model (a common
infrastructure) that will give us a holistic way to envision the dynamical
nature of how we organize ourselves, advocate what we believe to be beneficial
for both halves of humanity, and ethically do what we are trained to do with
fellow human beings in their sociocultural settings. The next section of the
paper will propose a model for your consideration that we hope addresses the
design, the science and the professional shapes of our discipline.
New Conceptual Model for Social Work
Social workers
have spent considerable time looking for a whole systems model of their
profession that is both abstract enough to be globally generalizable and
practical enough to be used at a local agency or individual practitioner level.
The National Association of Social Workers (NASW) has played a major part in
the developmental work of such a model over the last 35 years, beginning with
the amalgamation of several specialty associations into one national
association, followed by Bartlett’s seminal work on a common base for the
profession and the focused work of two conceptual framework committees in the
late seventies and early eighties (Bartlett, 1970; NASW Special Issues, 1977
and 1981). The elusive search for a common conceptual framework (some say. it
is impossible to develop and a waste of any further intellectual investment)
has been a major academic interest of one of the authors for at least the past
ten years (Ramsay, 1985, 1987, 1988, 1989). This Section is a condensed overview of that
work.
We begin with
the use of a conceptual map to give you a whole picture view of social work in
its simplest whole system form. In taking this step, we are following the
advice of a highly respected British physicist:
It is often
necessary to resort to the abstract… to make sense of the world. Ordinary
experience cannot be a reliable guide (Davies, 1983).
A whole picture view represents the idea of undivided wholeness in its
most comprehensive form - say the Universe - or the special case wholeness of a
specific area of interest - say social work. To make any kind of sense of
wholeness, the work of another physicist, David Bohm, models the need to make
distinctions; parts of the whole are divided one from the other (Hayward, 1984:
178). Wholeness represents implicate order, the idea that everything is
enfolded into everything. Explicate order is achieved by unfolding or dividing
a map of the whole until we reach a section that lies in its own distinct
region, divided from all other outside sections. The concept of a boundaried
whole system is used as the dividing instrument, which like the skin of living
organisms distinguishes an outside from and inside (Hayward, 1984:29). We will
use this whole system instrument to unfold a infrastructure model for mapping
social work from its simplest whole system form to any of its numerous
multidimensional forms. A flat projection circle is used to depict the system
boundary. In this paper, we will limit our focus to the system - the circle -
of social work. A whole system instrument is known to divide any system in
three ways: the system itself (i.e. social work), everything inside the system
(i.e. all the parts of social work) and everything outside the system (i.e. all
that is non-social work) (Fuller, 1975). In this way, a whole systems model can
be unfolded into an ever increasing number of partialized and complex parts
without losing sight of its simplest whole picture form, or it can enfold back
into increased fuzziness and eventual undivided wholeness, possibly too
abstract to be of much practical value.
We can now
construct the whole system instrument that will give us the ability to unfold
or enfold a model of any system to a desired level of simplicity or complexity.
From a geometric perspective, if you take a point (1 of something), a line (2
points connected), a triangle (3 points angularly connected) or a tetrahedron
(4 points triangularly connected), all could represent system stability in some
form, but only the tetrahedron structure meets the criteria required to
represent whole system stability in its simplest form. A tetrahedral structure
can be constructed by taking two triangle forms, opening their boundaries at
one of the angles and rearranging the lines and angles in a way that allows
them to slide together to form a unified whole system that now has a four
triangle form. See Figure 1.
Figure 1
In its 2-dimensional plane projection form it would look like a large
triangle with four equal size triangles inside the triangle boundary. In its
3-dimensional form the whole system would look like a triangle-based pyramid.
When we insert this structural form inside the system circle, we have created a
whole system model which has structural stability and a defined boundary. In
addition, we now have a dividing instrument that can be used to depict a system
in a wide variety of whole system arrangements. See Figure 2.
Figure 2
The value of using the tetrahedral form as a dividing instrument is
found in the many works of Buckminster Fuller (1969, 1975, 1979, 1982), who was one of the first to discover
the likelihood of this structural form being the basic coordinate system of all
whole system structures in Nature. Nature’s use of this structural form raises
the possibility that a whole systems model constructed from a tetrahedral
structure could serve as a common denominator infrastructure that under girds
all scientific and professional disciplines.
Once a whole
systems model is constructed it can be used to provide the viewer with a visual
picture of a well-known systems perspective: the whole (the circle) is greater
than the sum of its parts (the four faces of a flat projection tetrahedron) in
side the circle boundary. In addition, we can see that the model has an outside
shape (circular) and an internal infrastructure (tetrahedral). Next, we take
the universal symbol of infinity (a somewhat flattened figure-eight), place it
inside the circle and visualize a point continuously moving round and round on
a figure-eight pathway, but never returning to its exact starting point. We
know have a whole systems model that symbolically represents the infinite
possibilities inside the finite boundaries of a system, supported by a stable
infrastructure. If we return to the system boundary for a moment and reshape
the circle a bit so that it has an amoeba-like form, we can imagine a model
that qualitatively speaking has a constantly changing (robust) outward shape
coexisting with its more orderly infrastructure. Being able to model the shape
or topology of systems in a dynamical state should help our profession
eventually make use of the mathematics of the new science of fractal geometry
to measure the quality-of-life diversity of all kinds of individual or human
social systems.
To make sure
the model depicts dynamical relationships between all of its parts, the four
triangle faces representing the internal structure can be spread apart to
depict a structural pattern of wavy lines interconnected to a network of four
parts. There is a formula, R = (N2 – N)/2, that tells you the
minimum number of interconnected relationships between any known number of
parts (Fuller, 1969). In its simplest whole system form, requiring four
connecting parts, the minimum number of relationships between the four parts of
whole system model will be six. Finally, we can show how the basic model can be
progressively unfolded into multiple levels of complexity by taking any or all
of the four faces and subdividing them at their midpoints. In this way, we can
construct a highly complex and detailed map to depict the far from equilibrium
interconnectedness and diversity of all its parts without losing sight of the
forest (i.e. the whole) for the trees (i.e. the parts). The advantage of this
model for social work lies in the fact that the whole picture of what social
workers do can be depicted anywhere on the continuum from its simplest level of
divided wholeness (four basic components) to infinite levels of detailed and
unfolded robustness (n number of elements). We now have the outline of a
whole system model that can be used to map the essential features of a 3rd
stage systems perspective model for social work. A map of this kind also may
help us understand the “whole to part” meaning of the term synergy and a
connected meaning that shows how if we know something about the behavior of the
whole and special knowledge of some of its parts we can more easily figure out
what we need to know or what to find out about the unknown parts. In addition,
the model gives us a whole picture opportunity to focus attention on the
dynamical relationships interconnecting all the parts as well as on the parts
themselves.
Now, the whole
systems model can be used to construct a special case model of the common
components in the discipline of social work. Once constructed it should provide
social workers with a comprehensive map to allocate and locate all the known
details required in the practice of social work, and at the same time never
close the door to the possibility of more knowledge becoming known or current
knowledge becoming dated or redundant.
To begin, the
social work circle, in its smooth or amoeba-like form, can represent the
global or geocontext shape of our profession and the internal tetrahedral
structure represents the fact that the geocontext of social work can be
unfolded into a minimum four part context. We suggest that these context parts
might easily be the following: spiritual, geographical, political and societal
The societal face can then be unfolded or “detailed-in” (as the architects
would say) until we locate the place of social welfare in a particular society.
This face then can be subdivided until we find the face of social work, the
discipline most likely to be involved in the delivery of social welfare
services. The other contextual faces can be detailed-in until we get the local
context of our choosing - the geographic location, religious beliefs, political
system(s) that most directly influence the practice of social work, as we know
it.
Looking
specifically at the undivided wholeness of social work it too can be
conceptually unfolded into a simple whole system four part foundation. The four
components can be whatever consensus any defined group of social workers reach
about the common base character of their profession. Based on an accumulation
of views in social work literature and the literature that addresses basic
questions about what constitutes science, we have proposed the four components
to be: a) domain of practice, b) paradigm of the profession, c) domain of the
practitioner and d) method(s) of practice. See Figure 3.
Figure 3
By choosing domain as one of the components, we are accepting the views
found in literature that anything can be defined as a science providing it has
a domain that helps distinguish between types of science by defining the
subject area to be studied, and has applied methods of inquiry/intervention in
which the findings can be experientially tested (Wilber, 1984).
In the first component, the domain of practice depicts the traditional
person-in- environment territory that social workers claim to represent the
holistic scope of where they apply helping professional methods to serve and
advocate for the social welfare of others. Being even more specific, the
profession has declared that within this person-in- environment domain its
primary focus of attention is on the interconnective patterns between different
groupings of people and the multiple parts that make up their particular
environment. Many adherents of the profession support this primary
interconnectivity focus that no other helping profession has claimed as the
primary focus of its domain. New scientific support for the appropriateness of
this interconnection focus in a person-in-environment domain is found in the
literature citing the fact that the property or characteristics of something
belongs to the relationships between parts of the system, not the parts
themselves (Zukav, 1978).
The second
component addresses the need for an enduring group of adherents to coalesce
around a common view of a defined domain of practice and to establish
particular modes of professional activity. Activities that meet these
characteristics Kuhn (1970) called “paradigms.” Social work like any other mode
of scientific endeavor or professional activity needs a common paradigm component
to minimize disagreements among those who learn the basics of their discipline
in the context of different cultures, varied interpretations of the
discipline’s body of knowledge and multiple intervention approaches. We have
introduced the concept “design” to the science-profession paradigm of social
work to explicitly recognize the value-laden nature of the discipline. Design
scientists try to integrate the art and science of a discipline; they believe
that relationships between people and their environments are ever improvable
and they take a position on the desired shape of things (Gabel, 1979; Kappraff,
1991). Social workers, for example, believe that the shape of all human
societies should be guided by values that protect the intrinsic worth of
individuals and obligate human societies, individually and collectively, to the
social responsibility of making opportunities, services and resources equitably
available to all members.
Domain in the
third component is used to acknowledge that social workers, like the people
they work with, have their own person-in-environment territory, personally and
professionally, that affects how they perceive the domain of their clients and
how they apply their methods of intervention. Because social workers identify
themselves as their own primary “instrument o change” it’s deemed essential for
them to constantly monitor and evaluate the shape of their
personal/professional domain and the sharpness of their helping skills.
Likewise, employers of social workers need to include this component as part of
their map of social work in order to recognize the special care and nurturing
these instruments of change require if we are to maintain practice standards at
an acceptable standard of care level.
The fourth
component addresses the need for a component to represent the systematic
methods or conduits used by professional practitioners to put their knowledge,
values, and skills into action. Whereas the other components are displayed in
systemic format that provides a framework for mapping detailed information
about the many varied parts of a system, the method component is displayed in a
systematic format to depict the phase cycles that the social worker and domain
of the client must process their way through.
The core component
faces of the model can be rearranged to show how the systemic components
interlock with each other at single bond points, but continue to travel on
their own elliptical pathways. The systematic method component can be
transformed into a minimum three or four phase cycle form. See Figure 4.
Figure 4
Each component can be unfolded into its basic four subparts, separated
to show the inter-connective links and displayed to depict how they can come
together and move through the method component on role-guided pathways. The
progressive unfolding can continue to whatever detailed level of complexity
(breadth and depth) is desired or necessary to guide the type of social work
that is being practised in a defined context. We offer a brief overview of what
the next level of detail in the model
might include.
Domain of
Practice
Social work’s domain exists on a human
society level as opposed to biological
or physical levels. Society is defined as a system made up of human beings in
specific relations that have environments that are both social and natural
(Laszlo, 1987: 88-89). The
basic four faces of social work’s traditional person-in-environment area of
practice are described in a psychosocial scenario of self and otherness.
Otherness is a assumed to be a necessary condition, thing or person part of
one’s environment for any living organism to he alive. Without otherness (a
contextual environment) there can be no awareness; without awareness there can
be no life of communication between interconnected parts. Self is the person or
human society face of our practice domain and environment minimally consists of
three otherness faces: validator otherness, resource otherness and personal
otherness. The person face can be a single individual or individuals in couple,
family, group, community or nation relations. The otherness parts can be
described as follows:
Validator otherness - this element can be
detailed-in to identify all the proper and relative norms - expressed as
values, beliefs, ideals, customs, traditions, laws, policies, etc. - that a
society or individual uses to interpret itself. These interpretations serve as
governance and cultural guides and/or constraints to regulate, control,
socialize or otherwise affect the qualitative shape of a defined person-in-environment
system. Proper validators are typically centralized in the form of dominant
ideologies, revealed truths, constitutional laws, cultural customs, etc. and
considered to be invariant or unmodifiable “truths” about the world around
them. Relative validators are more typically decentralized and tolerant of
differences.
Personal otherness - this face represents the
personal social support relations that usually are defined as intimately close
or significant other to an individual or family, but also to a group, community
or even a nation.
Resource otherness - this is an extensive
element that represents all of the other opportunities, resources, goods and
services of a political, social, spiritual, geographical or economic kind that
can sustain, enhance or impede the structural strength of a system or affect
its qualitative shape.
Depending on the detail required at each level, subdividing can be
expanded to include greater breadth of detail or shifted to a different level
(s) for increased depth. Whatever is decided, this method of mapping the domain
of practice allows for an infinite variation of breadth and depth combinations.
Regardless of the detail entailed in the mapping, the eventual objective is to
assess the sustainability of the system. If the human members are in harmonious
relations and synchronized with their environment the identified domain is
dynamically sustainable. If, on the other hand, it cannot sustain the parts in
a mutually satisfactory set of relations or replenish and repair flaws
satisfactorily it is likely at a point of bifurcation - transformation from one
attractor system to another in either a downward or expanding arrow of time
direction.
Paradigm of the Profession
This component
provides a representational form to implement Rein and White’s (1981) claim
that social workers should have the ability to “enlarge the notion of context
to include not only the client’s situation [in a person-in-environment domain]
but the agency itself and more broadly, the institutional setting of practice
[in a professional paradigm framework].” It also allows a broadview map to
accommodate the association and presence of various specialist and generalist
groups within the profession. Those in specialist practices have a narrow
practice base with little differentiation or diversity making them highly
vulnerable to changes in their environment. Generalist practitioners, on the
other hand, have a broader base that makes its easier for them to adapt to a
wider range of environmental changes without the risk of becoming redundant.
The basic parts of this component are adapted from the work of Pincus and
Minahan (1973): change agent system, client system, action system and target
system. Their four part model of practice, as you know doubt recall, was
developed from criteria that social work must recognize and work with the
connections between dichotomous methods, develop and maintain relationships
with a wide variety of people, work with different sizes and types of systems,
not rely on one theoretical, orientation, and be able to transform theory into
practical applications (vi-viii). In this component, the client system, for
example, can unfold into traditional social work categories: size, field,
target population or social problem. Size can subdivide to individual, family,
group, community. Field can unfold into child welfare, school social work,
family services, corrections, medical, health care, etc; target population into
children, youth, families, elderly, disabled, delinquents, minorities, and
social problem into poverty, housing, social security, and so on. Other
elements, like the change agent system, can unfold into service provision,
management, support services, policy-making, for example. Policy-making could
be further divided into board, government, profession and funder units all of
whom influence the management of the identified change agent system and its
professional service providers.
Domain of the Practitioner
Social workers
like the people they work with have their own person-in- environment domains
(i.e. belong to their own types of human societies) that affect how they
conduct themselves professionally and personally. At the professional level,
they are expected to ingest the relevant codes of professional conduct that
apply to their practice activities and adhere to their standard of care tenets
at all times. As “instruments of change” they are expected to vigilantly
monitor and evaluate their competence to serve others. At the personal level,
they are guided by patterns of validator otherness, personal otherness, and
resource otherness that affects how they will carry out their professional
practice obligations, functions and roles. It is just as important for the
professional to detail-in and carefully examine the specifics of these domains
as it is to do the same at the domain of practice level for a client.
Method of Practice
This component
deals with the important issue of whether any form of social work intervention
is warranted in the pyschosocial evolution of a human society (our domain of
practice). Should members of the discipline try to steer the evolution toward a
preferred design or shape? Our profession has always answered yes to this
question and there is support for both social work and other forms of
interventive action in the evolution of human society (Laszlo, 1987). At the
same time practitioners are constrained by special instrumental values to
protect against their intervention efforts from becoming manipulative and
controlling. Because this component represents the process that ought to
happen, guided by the method of treatment/intervention selected, method maps
have to be displayed systematically instead of the systemic way that the other
three component maps are presented. To do this, the top face of the basic
tetrahedral structure is flipped forward onto the face below it or flipped down
onto one end or the other of the row of faces below it. The result is a minimum
three phase or four phase method framework. The phases can be extended to
include as many as a particular method calls for, with the assumption that
nothing less than a 3-phase whole system model is possible. Each phase can be
subdivided to identify a minimum of two tasks per phase: one with a broad base
focus; the other a honed-in focus. Methods of intervention can be selected that
are designed to purposively steer the process in a preferred direction through
the method framework, but each selection must be carefully monitored and
evaluated to make sure the basic phase cycle requirements of the systematic
process are being met and that the foundational principles of the profession
are not being violated.
Conclusion
Now we can take
some time to refer back to earlier parts of our presentation to determine how
well they integrate with the foundational components of social work. Eisler’s
work, for example, can be examined from two perspectives. We could test the
extent to which her theory explaining androcratic and gylanic structures is
grounded in social work. Or conversely, we could detail-in each of the core
components of social work with a special emphasis on the pool of information
that governs and culturally guides the profession and then assess the degree of
androcracy or gylanicness characterized in the structure of each component. On
a specific case base, similar mapping and assessing process could take place.
We could also
use the conceptual model to examine the relevance of the three scientific
development stages with social work and to see what kind of attractor system
states are present in specific case examples mapped across the core component
parts of the model. This exercise would help us determine the dynamical
character of the system - static and deteriorating; periodic and narrowly
regulated; chaotic and robust; chaotic and catastrophic. The dynamical state
determination would guide the possible type of intervention required - crisis
intervention, mutual-aid, consciousness raising, community development,
preventive education, protective support/social control, transformation
encouragement, and so on. These determinations would guide the practitioner in
the recommendation or selection of a particular theory and corresponding mode
of intervention.
In the area of
social work education, we could examine both the core and elective units of any
given curriculum - human growth and behavior, administration, research, social
policy, practice methods and field education - to assess whether the content
and foundational premises of courses under these headings fit the desired
gylanic character of the profession. In addition, the particulars of a course
assignment in research, for example, could be aided by plotting all the known
and unknowns about a given area of practice on the component maps and then
determining whether research would focus on learning more about its shape
(requiring a qualitative design) or on some relationship characteristic -
association, correlation, causal - between identified independent and dependent
parts (requiring a quantitative design), or simply seek more knowledgeable information
about system characteristics (requiring a survey design). The conceptual
framework could be used as a guide to examine the curriculum in general or
specified course offerings in search of gylanic features operating dynamically
in a chaotic attractor state.
How do we bring
our case for social work to begin the process of re-aligning its traditional
foundations to a dynamical partnership model of reality to a close? Since we
have relied quite heavily on references to 20th-century discoveries thus far,
we will use yet another to conclude our position that the time has come for a
transformational change in the models that have guided social work for most of
its history. Picture in you mind the fact that over 200 years ago, Laplace, the
French mathematician and astronomer, clearly articulated our old view of
universe. He pictured the universe as completely determinable - everything
could be precisely determined from the laws of cause and effect (Peitgen &
Richter, 1986: 175-180). In
such a world there would be no freedom and chance; and in the same sense there
would in fact be no place for democracy and diversity of life systems to exist
in human societies. Pictured this way, it would be hard to imagine any social
worker, past or present, willing to endorse this worldview as a philosophical
foundation for the profession.
In fairness,
science, even though accused otherwise, has never been completely wedded to
Laplace’s theory of exactness. Even the staunchest advocates of the classical
scientific method acknowledge the presence of minute imprecision, at least in
principle. Modem science works from the assumption that approximately the same
causes produce approximately the same effects over time. This is often the case
especially for limited time periods; otherwise natural laws of any kind could
not be discovered and functioning machines or structures could not be built.
The point for social workers to realize, even more fully than they have up to
now, is that the scientific discoveries of this century have proven this
approximate cause-effect assumption not to be universally true. Fractal
geometry, mentioned earlier and a part of the fairly recent science of
dynamical systems, has shown that tiny deviations at the beginning of a process
can produce large differences at later times. This finding we believe to be of
major importance to a profession like ours that relies on problem-solving
processes and the sensitive intrusion of “human otherness” into other people’s
dynamical life systems. The care that social workers take to “start where the
client is at” suggests that we have always intuitively known tiny deviations in
the way relationships begin can trigger enormous effects (positive or negative)
over time. Common sense knowledge and everyday observations continue to support
the truth of this assumption. Dynamical systems science tells us this is
typical of natural processes. In this respect, dynamical systems discoveries in
the past 20 years have refuted both the crude determinism of traditional
science and the exact determinism of Laplace, reinforcing earlier discoveries
in physics during the first two decades of this century. The existence of
chance and freedom are present, “causing” chaos and order to appear in
harmonious balance. This mixture of chaos and order is not only fascinating and
beautiful in natural forms (the swirling beauty of evening storm clouds, for
example), it is typical of natural processes. Goodness-of-fit is not found in
the total regularity of an architecturally perfect skyscraper nor in the
rule-based order of a modern bureaucracy or centralized democracy. Goodness-
of-fit is the harmonious fit (aesthetic beauty) found in nature - clouds,
trees, crystals, snowflakes. In human social systems, likewise, health of all
kinds is not total regularity; total regularity is pathological. Health is a
dynamical balance of orderly chaos which has no exact cause, but is subject to
minor iterations and external intrusions that many produce/cause huge
variations at some later point in the life cycle of living organisms.
Dynamical
systems science, which includes Eisler’s partnership model of reality and our
proposed whole systems model of practice, is the’ kind of science that can
integrate the art and science dichotomies in social work. In short, we believe
that a realignment of social work’s traditional foundations with the models
outlined in this paper will ground the profession to a dynamical systems
science base and help us fully integrate the intuitive wisdom and empirical
science aspects of our profession. Dynamical systems science will help us
integrate the free choice/self-determination and social responsibility values
inherent in a partnership model of reality into a harmonious balance that will
support our call for a greater co-evolutionary coupling of global commitment
and indigenous practices.
References
Allaby MA. (1989). A Guide to Gaia: A Survey of the New Science of
our Living Earth. ‘New York: EP Dutton.
Augros R & Stanciu G. (1988). The New Biology: Discovering the
Wisdom of Nature. Boston & London: New Science Library.
Austin D (1983). The Flexner myth and the history of social work. Social
Service Review (57) 3, 1357-1376.
Bartlett H (1970). The Common Base of Social Work Practice. New
York: NASW.
Briggs I, Peat D (1989). Turbulent
Mirror: An Illustrated Guide to Chaos Theory and the Science of Wholeness.
New York: Harper and Row.
Capra F (1983). Turning
Point: Science, Society, and the Rising Culture. New York: Bantam.
Capra F (1988). Uncommon
Wisdom: Conversations with Remarkable People. New York: Bantam New Age
Books.
Davies P (1983). God and the New Physics. London: Penguin Books.
Eisler R (1987). The Chalice and the Blade: Our History. Our Future. San
Francisco: Harper and Row.
Franklin D (1986). Mary
Richmond and Jane Addams: From moral certainty to rational inquiry
in social work practice.
Social Service Review (60)4, 504-524.
Fuller RB (1969). Utopia
or Oblivion: The Prospects for Humanity. Woodstock,
NY: The Overlook Press.
Fuller RB.(1975). Synergetics:
Explorations in the
Geometry of Thinking. New York: Collier Books, Mac Millan Publishing
Company.
Fuller RB (1979). Synergetics II. New York: Collier Books,
MacMillan Publishing Company.
Fuller RB (1982). Critical Path. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Gabel M (1979). Ho-ping: Food for Everyone. Strategies to Eliminate
Hunger on Spaceship Earth. New York: Anchor Books.
Gleick J (1988). Chaos:
Making a New Science. New York: Penguin Books.
Goldberger A, Rigney D, West B (February, 1990). Chaos and Fractals in
Human Physiology. Scientific American, 43-49.
Gould SJ (1987). An Urchin in the Storm.
New York: W. W. Norton.
Hayward J (1984). Perceiving Ordinary Magic: Science and
Intuitive Wisdom. Boston: New
Science Library.
Joseph L (1990). Gala: The Growth of an Idea. New York: St.
Martin’s Press.
Karrnpkoff J (1990).Connections: The Geometric Bridge Between Art and
Science. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Kuhn T (1970) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. (2nd edition.
enlarged’). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Laszlo E (1987). Evolution: The Grand Synthesis. Boston: New
Science Library.
Lovelock J (1988). The Ages of Gala: A Bipphv of our Living Earth.
New York: W. W. Norton and Co.
Loye D, Eisler R (1987). Chaos and transformation: The implications of
natural scientific nonequilibrium theory for social science and society. Behavioral
Science 32, 53-65.
Margulis L (1987). Early life: The microbes have priority. In Wm. Irwin
Thompson (ed.). Gala: A Way of Knowing. Great Barrington, MA: Lindisfarne
Press.
NASW (1977). Special issue on conceptual frameworks. Social Work
(22) 5.
NASW (1981). Conceptual frameworks II: Second special issue on
conceptual frameworks. Social Work (26) 1.
Peitgen H-O, Richter P (1986). The Beauty of Fractals: Tmaes of
Complex Dynamical Systems. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Penman HH (1989). Looking Back to See Ahead. Chicago: Chicago
University Press.
Pincus A, Minahan A (1973). Social Work Practice: Model and Method.
Itasca, ILL: F. E. Peacock.
Prigogine I, Stengers I (1984). Order out of Chaos. New York:
Bantam Books.
Ramsay R (1985) A
conceptual framework for teaching the practice of social work: A new approach
to an old problem. In M Rodway (ed.) The Teaching of Social Work Methods:
Discussions and Innovations. Calgary, AB: The Faculty of Social Welfare,
University of Calgary.
Ramsay R (1987) Social work’s search for a common conceptual framework.
In Y Kokima & T Hosaka (eds.). Proceedings, 23rd International
Congress of Schools of Social Work, August 1887, Tokyo, Japan.
Ramsay R (1988). Is social work a profession? A 21st century answer to a
20th century question. The University of Calgary, unpublished manuscript.
Ramsay R, Smith L, Taylor-Holton B, Tyndale K (1989). A global model for
social work: Nature’s way of unifying the family of social work. A paper
presented to the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) International
Chapter, Vienna Symposium, July 19, 1989, Vienna, Austria.
Rein M, White S (1981). Knowledge for practice. Social Service Review
(55) 1, 1-41.
Sahtouris E (1989). The Human Journey: From Chaos to Cosmos. New
York: Pocket Books.
Thyer B, Wodarski J (1990). Social learning theory: Toward a
comprehensive conceptual framework for social work education. Social Service
Review (64) 1, 144-152.
Watson J (1968). The Double Helix. New York: The New American
Library.
Wilber K (1984). Quantum Questions: Mystical Writings of the World’s
Greatest Physicists. Boston: New Science Library.
Zimmerman J (1989). Determinism, science, and social work. Social
Service Review (3) 1, 52-62.
Zukav G (1979). The Dancing Wui-Li Masters: An Overview of the New
Physics. New York: Bantam Books.