Contemporary Social Work Theory and Issues Essay

Assignment TitleTo what extent good deal well-disposed utilisation be fair to middlingly conceptu in ally understood in footing of a arrange at the interface in the midst of friendly forcing out and well-disposed inclusion body?To what extent can complaisant invent be adequately conceptually understood in equipment casualty of a position at the interface between tender exclusion and complaisant inclusion? correspond to the internationalist Federation of loving Workers (IFSW) the kind release profession promotes the say-so and liberation of raft to enhance well be. Utilising theories of piece behaviour and neighborly systems, tender realize intervenes at the points where plenty interact with their environments (IFSW, 2000). further the sociable rick section is questi iodined, in both its ope judicious attack, and in conditions of where it is positi matchlessd at the interface of individuals that are excluded and include inside todays decree. This look for will aim, using relevant theories and concepts, to leave behind the opinion of the author, regarding their nonion of how the cordial prune region is delivered, and moreoer, grasp an understanding of where this power is located, either civiliseing with the amicablely excluded or leaning towards the concept of inclusion.The term mixer exclusion was coined in France by Rene Lenoir in 1974, (Gore, 1995, Silver, 1995, Haan, 1998, cited in Islam, 2005 4) and, in his opinion, referred to the great unwashed who were omitted from employment-based hearty security systems. His reference to the excluded consisted of the mentally and physically handicapped, suicidal people, historic periodd individuals, ab serveoutd children, medicate addicts, delinquents, single parents, multi-problem households, marginal a kindly persons and opposite neighborly misfits (Silver, 1994-95 532). friendly exclusion did non replace exiguity as a concept but referred to the broader process of a ffectionate disintegration an increasing rupture of the attach between the individual and night club (Islam, 2005 4). As Lenoir suggests, brotherly exclusion transpires in umpteen forms race, poerty and deprivation, employment, and class, and retains varied definitions. gibe to Sheppard (2006), the outgo definition that provides an understanding of all the dimensions of well-disposed exclusion was submitted by the Child need Action Group (Walker and Walker, 1997, cited in Sheppard, 2006) tender exclusion refers to the dynamic process of being shut out, fully or partially, from whatsoever of the accessible, economic, political and cultural systems which determine the hearty integration of bon ton. However, the model of favorable exclusion has only been in use in the UK for a relatively unawares time, and its extensive practice could indicate that it describes a phenomenon that already existed, but lacked a able name (Page 2000 4). Marx, for deterrent good example, r efers to the underclasses in contemporary capitalistic society. According to Marx members of the proletariat are compel guide to shop their labour federal agency to the bourgeoisie in put to attain for themselves the means to their sustain subsistence (Ashley and Orenstein, 1998).Marx was aware of the growth of the middle classes, located at the interface of proletariat on the one side and the bourgeoisie on the other, thus increasing the security and business leaderfulness of the upper class. Subsequently this produced a diverse division of the functional class, Marxs lumpenproletariat, for example the migrant population, the indigents, the unemployed and those in poverty and deprivation, individuals that today would be the termed well-disposedly excluded. According to Marx, class structures are primary(a) in determining the main social classes, the central forms of struggle indoors societies, and the life experiences of people in these classes. However, secondary f orms of inequality and conquering occur within each class, and these may fritter the form of racial and ethnic inequalities, or gender inequalities. Marxist feminists bespeak that, within any class, women are less(prenominal) advantaged than men in their access to hearty goods, power, status, and possibilities for self-actualisation and the causes of this inequality lie in the establishment of capitalism itself (Ritzier, 1992 468-9)., However, as Marxist possibleness distillates on class division, and is concentrated on the macro instruction level only, this slew of amicable Works position at the interface of exclusion and inclusion is non conclusive. The affable Worker would be calln as working more in rootage with the lumpenproletariat and not providing services to the proletariat and sure enough not the bourgeoisie, hence places social work at the heart of the excluded and not the included. Moreover as social work from the Marxist perspective, is placed firmly wi thin the macro level, the individualism and person centred approach that the social doer aims to provide the invitee cannot be fulfilled, as to do so would mean to be working at the micro level which the Marxist view discounts. The Functionalist stance referencing the concept of social exclusion is to describe a group, or groups, of people who are excluded from the normal activities of their society in multiple manners, thus deviating from their societies norms of behaviour (Sheppard, 2006).A functionalist perspective of social exclusion is, therefore, poresed upon the excluded persons being deviant and non- adjusting to social norms. However, foreign the Marxist perspective, the Functionalist would concentrate on the social proletarian in operation(p) on the macro and the micro level, working with the individual, and excessively taking the clients wider social systems in to account, for example family, friends, school and working environment. Emile Durkheim (1858-1917), a nd later Talcott Parsons (1951), suggests that societies were social systems, made up of interrelated social elements, and that these systems were moral entities. Durkheim and Parsons argue that all man associations give rise to expectations in patterns of conduct, therefore producing restrictions on how a person should or shouldnt behave. Hence emerges collective cognisance which, in turn, constrains an individual and obliges them to act in particular ways (Cuff, Sharrock and Francis, 1992).One way is that norms in effect discipline individuals above all by dint of their moral authority, relatively autarkical of any instrumentally significant consequences of conformity with them (Parsons 1951, p. 37). The other is that there is a tendency for individuals to collapse and maintain attachment to the same incorporated system of norms and to find solidarity in the sake of shared goals (Parsons 1934 295, Peacock 1976 265). The Functionalist, therefore, would suggest that social wor k is rattling much refer with the deviants in society, the individuals that do not conform to societys norms. However this touch sensation too could be contested, as, if the social work profession concerns itself with the deviants of society, the client could be at risk from labelling and of being further excluded by the social worker themselves.Sheppard (2006), asserts that social work is, in fact, exclusionary and that social workers cannot engage in integration and inclusion because its innate functions lead labelling and marginalising people ( Sheppard, 2006). Functionalism also neglects the negative functions of an event, much(prenominal) as divorce, and does not encourage people to take an active role in changing their social environment, even when such change may benefit them. interlocking supposition also discriminates society as a social system, but unlike Functionalism who perceives society held together by social consensus or cohesion, Conflict Theory interprets society as held together through battle and compulsion. From this perspective, society is made up by competing interest groups, some more brawny than others (Andersen and Taylor, 2008). When Conflict Theorists look at society, they see the social domination of subordinate groups through the power, authority, and coercion of dominant groups. Randall Collins (1941) suggests that power and status are fundamental relative dimensions at the micro level of social interaction and perhaps at the macro level as well.Collins concludes that coercion and the ability to force others to behave a certain way are the primary fundament of conflict in society (Turner, 2000). Therefore in the conflict view, the elect members of the dominant groups create the rules for success and luck in society, often denying subordinate groups such success and opportunities, thus generating social division, and creating social exclusion, at the macro and the micro levels of society. In contrast to the conflict perspective, the strengths approach concentrates on building clients strong points in order for them to become empowered and initiate social change. Cowger and Snively (2001) favour the empowerment perspective as central to social work practice, and see client strengths as providing the fuel and get-up-and-go for that empowerment (Miley et al, 200491).Empowerment can be defined as a nominate that links individual strengths and competencies, natural lot systems, and proactive behaviours to social policy and social change (Rappaport, 1981, cited in Zimmerman, 1995 569). However if the social worker is operational more within the context of empowering the socially excluded, rather than the included, what of the power and authority that a social worker holds over the client as an cistron of social run into? Moreover, if a social workers role involves empowering the client to take defend of their own lives, how does the power transfer from the determinate figure of the social wor ker, to the deprived, socially excluded client? Indeed, would the client want to be empowered, or be able to hold rational thought, capacity, to be open to empowerment? Rojek (1989) argues that empowering clients to focus on capacity building and not in making changes directly to the authoritarian social structures affecting the client, places responsibility on the client to change whilst still veneering social obstacles.Therefore, for the social worker to effectively practice empowerment, the client is presumed to have adequate rational capacity, and have only one risk factor influencing their lives. This is difficult, as, from researching this essay, it has become apparent, that the socially excluded individuals that social work operates with, has more than one disadvantage, problem, or need that they require reserve to cope with. Perhaps the term enablement would be more fitting than the harsh, power/ incapacitated concept of empowerment and subsequently, that the social worke rs role should concentrate on maintaining the client According to Davies (1994 58) the social worker is contributing to the tending of society, by exercising control over deviant members, whilst allocating resources according to policies laid overmatch by the defer, on an individual basis. This consensus approach analyses structural inequalities in society and the role of social work in relation to such inequalities (Lishman, 2005 70).Davies idea of maintenance of the individual, and, therefore society, is simplistic, and, by using the term maintain rather than change, dominates a proper conception of social work (Sheppard, 2006). However the topic social worker would discount Davies notion of maintenance as they perceive the state as part particular dominant interests and therefore cannot exemplify a neutral, humanitarian role in respect to vulnerable, disadvantaged, socially excluded people. They would argue that social workers using the maintenance role, with respect to st ate policies, will perpetrate inequality and its associated oppressions, disadvantages and stigma. Radicalists come that social workers need to understand the genius of state power, and the role of social work as an element of state control and oppression (Lishman, 2005).If this is the case, and the social worker is operational in the form of an broker of social control, whilst holding the power and control over the client, may actually be alienate them further from society. Additionally, as the radical perspective, alongside Marxism, focusses on the class differences in society, it fails to take into account the multiple and varying oppression and disadvantage which operate in British Contemporary Society. According to Langham and Lee (1989 9) radical social work texts and practice led to the failure to cope the systematic defence force of power to women and black people and failed to recognise inequality arising from sexuality, disability or age.There is much debate and d isorderliness in reference to the definition of social work, and even more deliberation concerning the role of the social worker and of its operational position in todays society. pickings into account, views from the Marxist, Radical and Functionalist perspectives, it has been the focus of this essay to square up upon the position of social work at the interface of social exclusion and social inclusion. It is of the authors opinion, that social work should perform a maintenance role, working with socially excluded individuals. The notion of being an agent of social control is not very appealing, as it makes the social worker an authority figure, which clients would find oppressive. It doesnt matter if the client is deviant or a conformist, the social worker should remain non-judgemental and focus on enabling and maintaining them to gain independence and repair their lives.ReferencesAndersen, M. Taylor, H. (2008), Sociology, Understanding a Diverse Society, fourth edn. USA Thomso n Higher Education. Ashley, D. Orenstein, D. (1998), sociological Theory, clean Statements. quaternary edn. USA Allyn and Bacon. Cuff, E. Sharrock, W. Francis, D. (1992), Perspectives in Sociology, 4th edn. London Routledge. Davies, M. (1994), the Essential mixer Worker, tertiary edn. Aldershot Ashgate issue Ltd. International Federation of accessible Workers, 2000, Definition of Social Work, Online Available at http//www.ifsw.org/f38000138.html (Accessed on 19/12/2011). Islam, A, (2005), Sociology of distress Quest for a New scene, Bangladesh e-journal of Sociology. 2, pp. 1. Lisman, J. (2005), Handbook of theory forpractice teachers in social work, 10th edn. London Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Miley, K. DuBois, B. (2004), Social work an empowering profession, 5th edn. Boston Pearson Publishers. Page, D. (2000), Communities in Balance, the reality of social exclusion on housing estates, York Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Parsons, T. (1934), the Place of Ultimate set in Sociol ogical Theory, International Journal of Ethics, 45(3), pp. 282-316. Parsons, T. (1951), the Social System, New York muster out Press. Ritzier, G, (1992), Sociological Theory, 3rd edn. New York McGraw-Hill. Rojek, C. Peacock, G. Collins, S. (1989) Social Work and Received Ideas, London Routledge. Sheppard, M. (2006), Social Work and Social Exclusion, the Idea of Practice, Hampshire Ashgate Publishing Ltd. Silver, H. (1994-95), Social Exclusion and Social Solidarity terce Paradigms, International Labour Review, (133), pp. 531-578. Turner, J. (2000), Handbook of Sociological Theory, USA Springer Press. Zimmerman, M. Perkins, D. (1995), Empowerment Theory Research and Application, American Journal of Community Psychology, 23(5), pp. 569 579.