Social work as a social movement

Social Work as a Social Movement

During the early part of the 20th century, social work was a way of helping individuals, but did little to question the status quo of larger groups of people. However, beginning in the 1950s, broad-based social movements began to challenge relationships that had previously been seen as private. While the underpinnings of these movements began in the 1950s, they became prominent in the 1960s. These movements made issues that had previously been considered private, such as the relationship between the sexes, public issues. In fact, it is fair to say that social movements politicized previously private issues, bringing broader attention to certain inequities. This led to some change, though not as much change as movement-leaders sought. Galeano and Klein both discuss the idea of social work as a social movement, and the relationship between the everyday work of helping individual people and the larger-concept of helping groups of people.

Galeano's view of the 20th century is a pessimistic one, and he actually extends that pessimistic view to social work. He likens social work to charity, which is an apt comparison in a welfare state. Moreover, there can be little question that parts of lower-class America function as a welfare state, not simply because they receive assistance, but because policies and programs seemed aimed at keeping them from ever achieving autonomy. Galeano is very critical of that type of assistance. According to him, "charity is top-down, humiliating those who receive it and never challenging the implicit power relations. In the best of cases, there will be justice someday, high in heaven. Here on earth, charity doesn't worry injustice, it just tries to hide it" (Galeano, p.312). He contrasts this to solidarity, which is unifying and that helps to illuminate the difference between something like a communist/socialist society and a welfare state; though the two are often bandied about as similar concepts, they are actually very dissimilar, but the differences between the two are meaningless if there is not a societal attitude change. Moreover, Galeano correctly points out that many Western countries, most notably the United States, are resistant to the underlying social change that would usher in socialism in its neighbors; they are so entranced with the idea of capitalism that they resist socialism even if it would better the living conditions of many people. At the same time, Western nations are committed to the idea of foreign aid, which simply continues the welfare state.