The Limitations of Social Work in Relation to Social Reorganization

Abstract

T HE subject of this paper by its terms of definition confines the author to the negative side of the question. However much she might enjoy pointing with pride to the notable part which social work can and does play in the changing of our social system, she must here confine her efforts to the rather ungracious task of analyzing why it has not done better. Before attempting such analysis, however, it seems advisable to define more carefully the terms of this relationship and to make certain distinctions within those terms. It is unnecessary here to attempt the difficult and usually fruitless task of defining social work. It does seem desirable, however, to recognize certain differentiations within it. In its relation to social reorganization, observation reveals two manifestations, the actions of social agencies themselves as expressed by their governing boards or through established policies, and the actions of social workers as individuals and in professional groups. Agencies in their official capacity may endorse legislation and participate in various movements for social reform. They may adopt policies governing their own activities which have a bearing upon social reorganization, such as a policy for relief for strikers, or the use of their buildings for union or radical meetings, or the inclusion in educational programs of discussion or promotion of certain measures for social change. Some organizations, which are, in a way, on the fringe of social work, such as the Amnerican Association for Labor Legislation or the Consumers League, have such activities as their major function. With many other agencies in the field of child welfare, family case work or group work, such participation in movements for social change may represent an occasional part of the official activity of the agency itself. In addition to such official action many social workers as individuals and through their professional groups may play their part in similar movements. Both types of activity are included in the general compass of social work but in practice the scope and the limitations of each may be quite different. For the purpose of this paper, therefore, it is fruitful to keep this distinction in mind. Another distinction seems necessary also in regard to the second term of this relationship-social reorganization. It is obvious from the title of this group of papers that by social reorganization is meant a fundamental rather than a superficial shift in social relations. At this point, however, one's concept of fundamental is as relative as the terms radical and conservative. To somne the shift from private to public support of relief is a fundamental reorganization; to others nothing is fundamental which leaves one stone upon another in ourpresent econotnic and social system. For the purposes of this discussion, the whole gamut will be included but it will become evident that the character of the change, whether relatively superficial or fundamental, will play a large part in the limitation felt by social work in relation to it. Any attempt to bring about social reorganization is likely to express itself most obviously in movements or causes. It may well be claimed that the changes