Diversity and unity in the social work profession

Abstract

Bernece K. Simon, AM, is Samuel Deutsch Professor, School of Social Service Administration, University of Chicago, Illinois. A group of blind men was preout of joint and so are the ideas, sented with an elephant and asked to Nevertheless, the work that these pa describe it. The characterizations varpers and the symposium represent of ied wildly, depending on which part fers the potential for developing com of the elephant was handled by each mon interpretations that might be individual man. None could describe welded into a base from which the the elephant as a whole. This metaprofession can work, phor seems apt when considering these papers and the discussion. There is evidence that the authors and parMISSI0N AND OBJECTIVES ticipants at the meeting on conceptual Such a professional base began to take frameworks were addressing the same shape during the symposium discus subject, had areas of consensus, and sions at which there appeared to be (with greater or lesser enthusiasm) movement toward acceptance of a wanted to arrive at a conceptual framecommon mission. It is at this level of work that would define social work generalization and commitment that and bind it together into an identifipeople of good will can agree most able and discrete professional entity, often. An examination of this ap However, this did not occur either in parent agreement and of the authors' the papers or during the discussion, stated views concerning their profes The problems of definition, boundsion's mission reveals interesting prob aries, and uniqueness are still present, lems and suggested avenues for con It is possible that this is not the sideration. time to define social work, to set subHowever differently they are worded, stantive and methodological boundthe authors' statements of mission aries for it, or to identify its unique have certain characteristics in corn characteristics as distinct from other mon. They identify some aspect or humanistic, service-oriented profesrefinement of the concept of helping sions. It may not be the time because, (which Morris considers ambiguous) as several of the authors noted, the or assistance as part of the mission of society in which social work operates social work. Terms such as allevia continues to be caught up in fundation (Reid), promotion (Minahan mental and wrenching philosophical, and Pincus), enhancement and res political, and moral upheaval. The untoration (Dean), and creation certainty that the agonies of society (Morris) are used to set forth the produces is particularly difficult for basic thrust of social work activity, social work. In spite of the profession's The connotations of these words indi amoebalike tendencies in reference to cate a common value base, definition, boundaries, and uniqueness, in addition, the various statements the areas of social upheaval are the of mission seem to show some accord same areas that social work has tradithat social work is committed to peo tionally claimed as the domain for its pie and society and to the interrela concern and its action. Although rapid tionships between them. However, the change is a certainty, the direction this agreement becomes attenuated as the change will take is essentially unpreauthors develop their theses. The dictable. Therefore, it is small wonder crack begins with the differing empha that social workers, like others, must sis each of the authors places on people map out their directions and terrain or on society. Even though each tries with an unsteady hand and a clouded to work on the interrelationship of eye. people and society, there is a shaky Special contradictions and dilemmas continuum of emphasis. On one end is affect society's view of the social work found the focus on people as individ profession and elicit conflicting and uals in interaction with society; on the opposing views within the profession other, society and its impact on peo itself. This systemic snarl is reflected pie. This continuum has obvious con in how social workers debate their tradictions and overlaps that constitute problems and how they differ as to one source of the tenuousness of purpose and function. The times are agreement.