Last updated 09/07/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 September 2013
The political theory implicit in social casework theory can be defined, for purposes of this discussion, as the theory of the relationship between man and society on which professional social casework is consciously predicated, or that theory of the relationship which is logically implied by social casework practice. This theory is not often consciously articulated and we must look for it, therefore, in those presuppositions underlying casework theory which are frequently accepted uncritically, if not wholly unconsciously. This practice obviously cannot be carried on without basic (although perhaps not entirely conscious) presuppositions about what man is like and consequently about what society can or ought to do for him.
The presuppositions underlying social casework theory, although important in any context, have acquired a new significance to the extent that social casework has increasingly become a government function. During the past twenty years literally millions of people in the United States have been brought into a new relationship with officials of their local, state, and national governments—namely, the relationship of client and social caseworker.
1 Surprisingly, no unified count of recipients of either public or private casework services seems ever to have been made. Figures quoted here are from recent issues of the Social Security Bulletin and the Social Work Year Book.
2 See Miles, Arthur P., An Introduction to Public Welfare (New York, 1949), pp. 24–76Google Scholar, and many other sources.
3 Reynolds, Bertha C., Re-Thinking Social Case Work (San Diego, 1938), p. 7Google Scholar.
4 Annual Report of the Society for the Prevention of Pauperism, 1818, quoted in Devine, Edward T., The Principles of Relief (New York, 1904), p. 292Google Scholar.
5 Richmond, Mary, Social Diagnosis (New York, 1917)Google Scholar.
6 Social Diagnosis, p. 410.
7 Richmond, Mary, “The Social Case Worker in a Changing World”, address given at the National Conference of Charities and Corrections, 1915, reprinted in The Long View, a posthumous collection of articles (New York, 1930), pp. 374–75Google Scholar.
8 Richmond, Mary, What is Social Case Work? (New York, 1922), p. 256Google Scholar.
9 “Social Work”, Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences (1933), Vol. 14, p. 168Google Scholar.
10 Social Diagnosis, p. 368.
11 A Changing Psychology in Social Case Work (Chapel Hill, 1930), pp. 183–84Google Scholar.
12 Smith, A. Delafield, “Community Prerogative and the Legal Rights and Freedom of the Individual”, Social Security Bulletin, Vol. 9, no. 8 (08, 1946)Google Scholar.
13 Hollis, Ernest and Taylor, Alice L., Social Work Education in the United States (New York, 1951), pp. 205–6Google Scholar.
14 Relief and Social Security (Washington, Brookings Institution, 1946), pp. 865–67Google Scholar.
15 Ibid., p. 838.
16 A Changing Psychology in Social Case Work (cited above, n. 11), p. 187.
17 Family Service Association of America, Committee to Study Basic Concepts in Casework Practice, A Comparison of Diagnostic and Functional Case Work Concepts: Report, ed. Kasius, Cora (New York, 1950), p. 13Google Scholar.
18 See Pray, Kenneth, Social Work in a Revolutionary Age (Philadelphia, 1949)Google Scholar; Aptekar, Herbert, Basic Principles of Social Case Work (Chapel Hill, 1941)Google Scholar; Robinson, Virginia, Supervision of Social Case Work (Chapel Hill, 1936)Google Scholar, and Dynamics of Supervision under Functional Controls (Philadelphia, 1949)Google Scholar, as well as the book already quoted; Marcus, Grace, The Nature of Service in Public Assistance Administration (Washington, Federal Security Agency, 1947)Google Scholar; Jessie Taft, A Functional Approach to Family Case Work, of which she was editor, and the volumes of the Journal of Social Work Process published by the Pennsylvania School of Social Work between 1939 and 1946Google Scholar; as well as articles by all the above named in the Journal of Social Casework, The Social Service Review, The Jewish Social Service Quarterly, etc.
19 Pray, Kenneth, “A Restatement of the Generic Principles of Social Casework Practice”, in Social Work in a Revolutionary Age (cited above, n. 18), pp. 249–50Google Scholar.
20 “The Relation of the Social Casework Process to the Purpose of a Public Assistance Program,” a paper given at the New York State Conference on Social Welfare, 1948.
21 Grace Marcus, The Nature of Service in Public Assistance Administration (cited in n. 18).
22 Marcus, Grace, “The Psychological Problem in Providing Assistance as a Public Service”, paper given before the American Orthopsychiatric Association, 02, 1946Google Scholar.
23 Taft, Jessie, introd. to A Functional Approach to Family Case Work (cited above, n. 18), p. 5Google Scholar.
24 “The Underlying Philosophy of Social Casework”, reprinted in Principles and Techniques in Social Case Work; Selected Articles, 1940–1950, ed. Kasius, Cora (New York, Family Service Association of America, 1950), pp. 7–22Google Scholar.
25 Major writers in this school are Hamilton, Gordon, The Theory and Practice of Social Casework (New York, 1940Google Scholar; 2nd ed., 1951); Hollis, Florence, Social Casework in Practice (New York, 1940)Google Scholar; Bertha Reynolds (see above, n. 3); Fern Lowry; Lucille Austin; and Dorothy Hutchinson. Most of the significant writing of the last three is in article form. Some writers (such as Towle, Charlotte, whose Common Human Needs, published by the Federal Security Agency in 1945Google Scholar, was withdrawn in answer to the objections of the American Medical Association) use the vocabulary of this school but are, in their underlying concepts, eclectic or even nearer to the functional point of view.
26 “The Underlying Philosophy of Social Casework” (cited above, n. 24), p. 10.
27 Ross, Helen and Johnson, Adelaide M. M.D., “The Growing Science of Casework”, reprinted in Principles and Techniques in Social Case Work (cited above, n. 24), pp. 52–3Google Scholar.
28 Hamilton, , “The Underlying Philosophy of Social Casework” (cited in n. 24), p. 9Google Scholar.
29 Waelder, Robert, “The Scientific Approach to Casework with Special Emphasis on Psychoanalysis”, reprinted in Principles and Techniques, etc., pp. 24–25Google Scholar.
30 Hollis, Florence, Social Casework in Practice, p. 264Google Scholar.
31 Hamilton, , “Helping People—The Growth of a Profession”, 1948, reprinted in Principles and Techniques in Social Case Work, p. 89Google Scholar.
32 Hollis, op. cit., p. 8.
33 Ibid., pp. 5–6. Italics added.
34 Hamilton, , “Helping People” (cited above, n. 31), p. 89Google Scholar.
35 Hutchinson, Dorothy, “Re-examination of Some Aspects of Case Work Practice in Adoption”, Child Welfare League of America Bulletin, Vol. 25, pp. 4–7, 14 (11, 1946)Google Scholar.
36 Lane, Lionel C., “The ‘Aggressive’ Approach to Preventive Casework with Children's Problems”, Social Casework, Vol. 33, pp. 61–66 (02, 1952), at p. 65CrossRefGoogle Scholar. This article is the most explicit of a number that have appeared recently from the New York area advocating a more “aggressive” casework approach in cases involving children who show incipient behavior problems.
37 “Trends in Differential Treatment in Social Casework”, in Principles and Techniques in Social Case Work (cited above, n. 24), p. 337Google Scholar.
38 Deuel, Elizabeth, “The Content of Child Welfare Services”, in Child Welfare at the Crossroads, U. S. Children's Bureau, Federal Security Agency, 1949Google Scholar. It is interesting to note within the U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (formerly the Federal Security Agency) the predominantly functional approach of the Bureau of Public Assistance and the equally strong diagnostic or organismic views of the U. S. Children's Bureau.
39 Riggs, Frieda W., “In the Service of Children”, Journal of Social Casework, Vol. 28, pp. 21–26 (01, 1947), at p. 23CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
40 Hoey, Jane M., quoted by Gandelman, Josephine M., “Care of Children in Their Own Homes”, Round-Up (Proceedings of the Southwestern Regional Conference, American Public Welfare Association, Fort Worth, 1949), p. 64Google Scholar.
41 Quotations all from Public Welfare, respectively from Danstedt, Rudolph T., “A Possibility for Social Rehabilitation”, Vol. 10, pp. 46–48 (04, 1952)Google Scholar; Swander, Constance M., “A Study of Services Needed in a Public Assistance Caseload, Vol. 5, pp. 194–99, 215 (09, 1947)Google Scholar; and Smith, Marjorie J., “The Place of Services in the Public Assistance Program”, Vol. 9, pp. 161–63, 170 (08, 1951)Google Scholar.
42 Hamilton, , “The Underlying Philosophy of Social Casework” (cited above, n. 24), p. 7Google Scholar.
43 Reynolds, , Re-Thinking Social Case Work (cited above, n. 3), p. 7Google Scholar.
44 Lane, article cited in n. 36.
45 Reynolds, , Social Work and Social Living (New York, 1951), p. 109Google Scholar.
Comments
No Comments have been published for this article.