1

Chapter 2

Historical development of social work1

Social work is both a discipline and a profession

Social work is both a discipline and a profession. As a discipline, it has a specific body of theory

that guides its practice and as a profession it is guided by a particular set of values. In order to

understand any discipline, it is important to consider its historical development ‒ changes in its

ways of thinking ‒ over time. The profession of social work is closely linked with the institution

of social welfare. Thus if we wish to examine its historical development, we need to recognise

that it is closely tied to the evolution of the institution of social welfare in many countries. In

this chapter, we trace the historical development of social work and social welfare and focus

particularly on how social work came to be recognised as a profession.

As already noted, social work gets its distinctive nature among the other professions in society

from its connections with the institution of social welfare. In many countries, it became the

profession sanctioned by society to dispense social welfare services ‒ now referred to by

different terms in various countries: for example, social care services in the UK and community

services in Australia. Social workers are therefore concerned with the nature and range of

available social or community welfare services and with the delivery of these services to clients

in various contexts, such as disability, child welfare, mental health, and so on.

1 Chapter 2 in Bernstein, A., & Gray, M. (1996). Social Work: A beginner’s text. Pretoria: Juta. Now out of print.

2

Social welfare is much broader than social work

Social welfare, however, is much broader than social work. Although social workers play an

important role in the provision of social welfare services, they do not bear the sole responsibility

for welfare in society. Social welfare can be defined broadly as the sum total of all those factors

in society that contribute to the well-being of people. This is a broad definition that encompasses

all aspects of the social, educational, health, and occupational development of people. Social

welfare can also be defined more narrowly and different concepts about, and models of welfare,

have been adopted in different countries. These models are discussed in greater detail below.

How did welfare systems develop?

Welfare systems are a product of a country’s culture, history and social system. Social services ‒

and specifically the profession of social work in any country ‒ are thus related to many factors,

among them to the particular society’s:

Economic development

Social history

Geography

Political system and political structures

Traditional methods of meeting social needs

Values and beliefs

3

Similar approaches to helping can be identified in the history of social work and social welfare in

the UK, USA, and South Africa. This is not surprising since, up until the apartheid years, South

African society was modelled on the British system, as were most countries in Africa and Asia

colonised by Great Britain, with some important variations brought about mainly by the different

constitution of different nation’s population. As we shall see, during the apartheid years, South

African social work ‒ within the institution of social welfare ‒ was bound by broader social

policy which was divided and defined along racial lines. Social work services were divided

according to the four major racial groupings in the country, leading to quadruple duplication and

a very costly welfare system.

Over the years, there have been various paradigm shifts in thinking about social

welfare. In Western countries, the philosophy of liberalism had a major influence

on the development of social work and professional social work values came to

adopt liberal values, such as self-reliance and self-determination.

The early beginnings of both social work and social welfare, as we came to know them, were to

be found in the social conditions arising from increasing urbanisation and industrialisation in

western society. As these processes accelerated, people began to define more conditions as

social problems and the need for increased services grew. Initially, people’s needs were met

through mutual aid provided by the family, clan and community. With the breakdown of the

traditional structures resulting from the processes interwoven processes of colonisation and

modernisation ‒ industrialisation and urbanisation, these informal systems of care were eroded as

systems became more formalised. The earliest services were provided within the charity model

4

by church and religious organisations and mutual aid associations. These private or voluntary

organisations worked increasingly with the state as the public welfare bureaucracy came to exert

a greater degree of responsibility for welfare services, and especially for social security ‒

pensions and grants and other forms of welfare benefits for various groups of people, such as old

and disabled people, and war veterans and their families.

Midgley (1981) described this history as follows:

Historically, the emergence of social work in Europe and North America is associated

with poor relief. As the rural poor were drawn into and concentrated in the industrialising

cities during the nineteenth century, the problem of urban destitution became more acute

and conventional public poor relief provisions were strained; social work attempted to

provide an alternative which would lessen the burden of public assistance borne by

taxpayers, be more humane and seek to rehabilitate the destitute (p. 17).

A similar process can be seen in the history of social welfare in developing countries, and

particularly in Africa. Although the histories and experiences of individual countries may have

been different, it is possible to identify common themes. Just as, initially, England and the USA

had informal systems of care, so too African countries had informal but well-established

structures arising out of the pre-colonial values of these societies. The most important values,

according to MacPherson and Midgley (1987), were the following:

Individual needs were seen as part of the needs of the wider society.

The household was the centre for economic production, distribution and

consumption.

5

Needs were met through joint effort and cooperative work within extended

families, clans, villages and similar communities and, as a result, members of

these groups were assured of a common level of material welfare.

Kinship was very broadly defined, carried a lot of weight and demanded

extensive obligations and duties.

Colonial rule was the major social change that detached the individual from the support of the

household, the extended family and the kinship-based community. Colonial expansion and the

accompanying disruption of social structures reduced the ability of extended families and local

communities to care adequately for their members. The colonists’ over-riding concern was to

establish viable economic activities and to fulfil what they saw as their ‘civilising mission’. This

meant they had to replace traditional practices with westernised practices. Rural people, who

lived in traditional ways, were needed in the cities, since they provided a source of cheap labour.

This movement to the cities or industrialising urban centres, known as urbanisation, eroded

traditional lifestyles and systems of social welfare. It destroyed existing communities and

disrupted family life as the workers had to take up temporary lodgings in the city, leaving their

families in the remote rural areas.

Similar trends of pre-colonial care systems and colonial disruption can be seen in the history of

welfare services in countries across Africa and Asia. In South Africa, McKendrick (1990)

identified this pattern of informal care systems giving way to a formal, industrialised system, but

noted that the predominant theme which emerged arose from the relationship, particularly the

inequalities, between the races. The stages which he identified were as follows:

6

1. The family and mutual aid (up to 1800)

2. Expansion, urbanisation and poverty (1801-1902)

3. Poverty, the growth of a social welfare system, and the emergence of social work

(1903-1936)

4. Growing state activity in social welfare (1937-1950)

5. The recent past: modernisation of social welfare services and the implementation

of apartheid (1951-1980)

Following these stages identified by McKendrick (1990), came:

6. Increasing duplication and differentiation - the 1980s

7. The beginnings of the post-apartheid era: the period of reconstruction and

development ‒ the 1990s

Stages 1-3 followed patterns common to other countries. However, as South Africa moved

towards the policy of apartheid, so its systems took on their distinctive, racially-based character.

How did social work contribute to the development of social welfare in

society?

In England and the USA, social work and social welfare trace their history to the Judeo-Christian

values of western society embodied in the work of the Charity Organisation and Settlement

Movements that preceded government involvement in service provision. The Charity

Organisation Movement began in England in 1869 and was then launched in (North) America ‒

the USA ‒ in 1877. As its name implies, early non-government social welfare provision was

linked to ‘charity’, that is, to giving alms to the poor.

7

Social workers’ precursors were called ‘friendly visitors’. They attempted to help poor people by

providing them with food and clothing. To-day we refer to these as ‘in-kind’ benefits or social

relief. The ‘friendly visitors were largely women from the upper social classes. They were the

‘better-off’ in society who felt an obligation to help those who were less fortunate than they

were. They were usually religiously motivated and, since they regarded themselves as ‘better-

off’ ‒ implying they occupied a higher status in society ‒ they tended to be authoritarian and

moralistic.

Soon there were numerous groups of friendly visitors and the need to co-ordinate their efforts

arose. Co-ordination occurred on two levels. First, there was co-ordination of services and,

secondly, co-ordination of fundraising efforts. Since the aim of the charity organisation societies

was to implement principles of ‘scientific charity’, they had to find ways to organise charity

efficiently. This meant co-ordinating the activities of all charitable organisations. The remnants

of co-ordinated fundraising are visible in those communities where community chests continue

raise funds for the poor.

The Charity Organisation Society focused on individuals, particularly the poor, and its activities,

initially carried out by volunteers, became the model for early professional social work training.

In 1917, Mary Richmond, a leader in the Charity Organisation Society in the USA, published her

book Social Diagnosis, in which she outlined techniques for assessment of individual social

functioning. Her second book, published in 1922, was called What is Social Casework? These

were the first important social work textbooks and they documented what ‘social workers’ were

doing at that time. What they were doing, for the most part, was enquiring into the social history

8

of the client in order to try to establish the reasons for or the causes of their problems. Social

casework, at this time, involved conducting case investigations and making social diagnoses.

Besides the members of the charity organisation societies, there were other groups, both in

England and the USA, who were attempting to help the poor. These groups were part of the

Settlement Movement, which it took its name from the houses or settlements in which its

members lived and worked among the poor. The Settlement Movement was like the Charity

Organisation Movement in that its members were also socially concerned women from the upper

classes but the way in which they went about helping the poor was very different. They were

more concerned with focusing on neighbourhood and community welfare than with focusing on

the individual poor case by case.

The Settlement workers:

Were concerned with people as members of social groups and cultures, affected

by the social, economic, and political conditions in which they lived – many

settlements were in communities of migrants, whose cultural values differed from

that of the wider society.

Emphasised people participation, community involvement, and collective action

Believed the poor themselves should be involved in determining programs to deal

with their needs and problems.

It was not only people who were seen as the target of change but also the social conditions which

were identified as unjust. The philosophy of the Settlement Movement, which was spearheaded

by Jane Adams, thus went even further ‒ the people affected by unjust conditions should

9

themselves be involved in changing those conditions and settlement workers should facilitate

that involvement. This philosophy was later echoed in the work of Paulo Freire (1970).

The development of these two movements is very important when we are looking at the history

of social work and social welfare. In them we see the beginnings of two very different

approaches stemming from two different views of people and their interaction in society and of

how society ought to respond to social problems:

1. The Charity Organisation Movement emphasised the responsibility of the individual in

dealing with his or her own problems. It spearheaded the development of charity

organisations whose tasks it was to enable people to do this.

2. The Settlement Movement emphasised neighbourhood, community and social

responsibility in dealing with both individual and social problems. It spearheaded the

development of mutual aid and community groups whose task it was to make the

environment more responsive to people’s needs.

These early workers were concerned with the people who were affected by the social system in

which they lived, as well as with the social systems themselves. As the organisational base of the

profession became more sophisticated, and as social welfare services became more formalised

and bureaucratic, so the need for more skilfully trained personnel arose and training for social

work became an important endeavour. It is interesting to note that, had the social work

profession followed Jane Adams’ approach, social workers would have remained volunteers

because she did not agree with Mary Richmond, who advocated that they should be paid for their

10

services. We will return to this when we examine how social work evolved into a formal

profession.

At different times in the history of social work, then, varying emphasis has been given to the

individual and to society. However, a constant theme has been the attempt to integrate the two.

We referred to this in Chapter 1 as the ‘person-in-environment’ configuration.

To summarise what has been said thus far, early social work was concerned with social reform,

the provision of services, and the development of social welfare legislation. Even though the

charity organisation and settlement movements approached the problem of the poor very

differently, ultimately both were concerned with helping the poor. It was through their efforts to

raise social awareness regarding the plight of the poor that the formal institution of social welfare

came into being. They put pressure on the government to develop policies and programs to help

the poor. These policies and programs came to be known as the ‘institution of social welfare’.

Thus early social workers, then called friendly visitors and settlement workers, were instrumental

in the development of the institution of social welfare in society.

Three conceptualisation of social welfare

Different countries pursued different models of welfare. These models can be grouped broadly

into three conceptualisations of social welfare:

1. Residual

2. Institutional

3. Developmental

11

What is meant by the residual view of welfare?

South Africa has consistently followed a residual approach to social welfare. This approach has

the following characteristics:

It places the primary responsibility for welfare on individuals and families.

It is based on the belief that too much welfare encourages dependency on the state and to

discourage people from requesting welfare benefits should be kept to a minimum.

It has been called a ‘safety-net’ approach because. in terms of this thinking, welfare

services only come into play when all other attempts to deal with personal or social

problems, by the family or in the community, have failed.

People who then need welfare are required to prove their need: They have to pass a

means-test, that is, they must meet all the restrictive requirements to qualify for welfare

benefits. For example, to receive an old-age pension, old people have to be over the age

of 60 years if they are women or over the age of 65 years if they are men. They also have

to prove that they do not have an income over a certain limit or any other assets valued at

more than a specified amount.

What is meant by the institutional view of social welfare?

The institutional approach was adopted by the wealthy western nations of Europe. It has been

pursued most vigorously by the Scandinavian countries, especially Sweden. It has the following

characteristics:

Society is seen as being primarily responsible for the welfare of its citizens.

Welfare is believed to be the right of all people.

12

It aims to provide comprehensive coverage for people’s needs from the cradle to the

grave, that is, from birth until death and is therefore often called a ‘welfare state’

approach.

It is extremely costly to maintain and, even in highly industrialised, modern first world

countries, has not proved highly effective in reducing poverty.

Hence many countries have subsequently moved away from a welfare-state model removing the

primary responsible for welfare from the state to the private sector as the economic philosophy of

neoliberalism took hold from the 1980s onwards.

What is meant by the developmental view of welfare?

The social development approach is becoming increasingly important in those contexts where

there is a high degree of poverty in society. It has the following characteristics:

It has a broad, holistic view of social welfare.

Welfare is considered to be part of all social institutions that have a bearing on the

quality of people’s lives and on their level of social functioning, including health,

education, agriculture, and work.

Globally, there is an increasing recognition of social development and of the need for the

international community to work together to eradicate world poverty and social work has

increasingly moved to embrace social development as part of its brief. Since the early 1990s,

South Africa has pursued a social development model, first embodied in the African National

Congress’s Reconstruction and Development Program of 1994. The kind of social work needed

to fit into this model is called ‘developmental social work’. It implies that social work has an

important role in addressing poverty in society, as stated by Midgley (1981, 1995).

13

TASK 2.1

Given its history and the social, political and economic problems facing South Africa at the

present time, which of these models do you think is most relevant to the future of social welfare

in South Africa? How did social welfare develop in South Africa?

Although there are some important differences, the development of social welfare and social

work in South Africa followed a similar pattern as that in England and North America. In South

Africa, the beginnings of formal welfare are also traceable to the churches (remember friendly

visitors and settlement workers were religiously motivated) which began by providing welfare

services and by establishing institutions for poor white people. They focused particularly on the

care of children and the physically handicapped, and on poor relief for the indigent (the very

poor).

The ‘poor white’ problem in South Africa was accelerated by the development of secondary

industry following the discovery of diamonds in 1870 and gold in 1886. Immigrants ‒ as well as

African and white farmers ‒ rushed to the cities hoping to participate in the new wealth and

prosperity of the mining boom. White urban migrants lacked educational qualifications and trade

skills and were unable to compete with immigrants from abroad. They refused to accept the low

wages offered to African migrants for manual work and thus could not compete for employment

in the cities.

14

Poor farming methods, excessive sub-division of the land, and the Anglo-Boer War all

contributed to the increase in poverty among whites. A number of church and community-based

organisations were started to relieve white poverty. State programs were launched, in particular a

Department of Labour which assisted people in finding employment, but had limited success.

Although many African migrants found employment in the cities (albeit poorly paid), in order to

maintain the official policy of racial segregation, they were not accepted as permanent urban

residents. This so-called ‘influx control’ bolstered a system of migrant labour which separated

African working men from their families and thus from their community and traditional kinship

support systems in times of need.

Thus African poverty also became a substantial problem but it was of little concern to the white-

controlled government. State support and assistance was not offered to African, coloured or

Indian people. However, a number of voluntary co-operative associations aimed at replacing the

traditional supports lost in the move to the cities developed during this period. There were

abakhaya groups (people who came from the same village or district) who took responsibility for

their members in illness and death, as well as living communally in barracks, sharing food, and

helping one another adjust to a new lifestyle. Other groups were organised around shared

interests and activities. These included sporting and social clubs, civic associations, political

groups, burial societies, credit circles, mutual aid, and savings and benevolent societies.

In 1929, a scientific investigation into the causes of poverty in South Africa was undertaken with

funding from the Carnegie Corporation of New York. The Report of the Carnegie Commission of

Inquiry into the Poor White Problem blamed poverty on South Africa’s changing economic and

15

social structure (the social and economic environment) rather than on individual deficits or

pathology. Two recommendations of the Commission were that the state should be responsible

for people’s social welfare needs and university courses for the education and training of skilled

social workers should be established. These recommendations led to the establishment of degree

courses at a number of South African universities and, in 1937, to a state Department of Social

Welfare.

Social policy adopted during this period reinforced the residual approach that individuals must

take primary responsibility for meeting their own needs (described later) and, if possible, avoid

the need for charity or any formally provided social service. Services offered by the Department

of Social Welfare focused on the needs of the white population and, even where legislation such

as the Children’s Act of 1937 appeared to cover the needs of all, it was not applied to the African

population.

The period leading up to the apartheid era (1948-1990) was characterised by increased African

migration to urban areas in search of employment but government policy consistently prohibited

their permanent residence in the city. Consequently, little housing was provided, squatter

settlements increased, and family life became increasingly disrupted.

The apartheid government consistently pursued a policy of partnership between the state and

private welfare initiative while it was in power. Voluntary or private agencies were allocated

responsibility for developing new services but they were not to undermine the ‘traditional

institutions’ of the country, nor were they to overlap with state-sponsored or existing services.

As a result of this policy, the number of voluntary (community-based) welfare organisations

16

increased. Many of these organisations provided specialised services aimed at rehabilitation and

there was an increased demand for trained social workers.

The state controlled the activities of these voluntary organisations through legislation and the

welfare structure. Welfare legislation formulated during this period, subsequently replaced by the

White Paper on Social Development, included:

The National Welfare Act (No 100 of 1978) provides for the registration of welfare

organisations and allows the state to specify which welfare programmes should be

conducted by these organisations.

The Fund-raising Act (No 107 of 1978) regulates organisations allowed to collect money

from the public.

The Social and Associated Workers Act (1978) provides for the establishment of a Social

Work Council to oversee the social work profession.

During the 1980s, the apartheid government continued to pursue its racist policies through the

creation of the tricameral system. This system distinguished between own and general affairs, the

latter embracing matters to be kept firmly in the hands of the central government, such as the

budget and defence, and the former being ‘matters which specifically or differentially affect a

population group in relation to the maintenance of its identity and the upholding and furtherance

of its way of life, culture, traditions and customs’ (McKendrick, 1990, p. 21) to be administered

through racially separate departments. Three parliamentary bodies were created each with its

own administration system as follows:

Whites - House of Assembly

17

Indians - House of Delegates

Coloureds - House of Representatives

Africans were accounted for through the homelands policies which created costly administrations

in ten homelands, among them what came to be known as the TBVC states, namely, Transkei,

Bophuthatswana, Venda and Ciskei, and KwaZulu. Each homeland had its own department of

health and welfare. Urban blacks had their welfare needs addressed through the Department of

Education and Development Aid. This system was extremely costly and led to unnecessary

duplication and a waste of public funds to support the ideology of apartheid. It created a

bureaucratic nightmare for social workers.

South Africa entered the post-apartheid era with the release of Nelson Mandela from prison on

February 10th, 1990. Four decades of apartheid left most South Africans with limited or no

access to adequate health and social services, with, in some cases, whole communities without

any services whatsoever. In the 1990s, it entered a period of reconstruction and development, a

period in which past policies and practices had to be reviewed and replaced by more workable

ones to correct past imbalances and injustices, address the needs of the total population.

How do social workers fit into the welfare system?

The social work profession is closely linked with the institution of social welfare. Consequently,

social workers are concerned with the nature and range of available social welfare services and

the delivery of these services. In order to achieve these goals, most social workers work state

welfare organisations, followed by private welfare and private practice.

18

As we have seen, the historical development of social work was intimately linked with the

development of welfare services in many societies. Both arose as a response to social problems

and conditions which inhered in society at the time and both had to continue to be responsive to

society in this way. Hence to determine the way in which social workers fit into the welfare

system, we have to examine the social context to which this system is responding. This is why

there are different models of welfare in different societies; they are responding to a different

context or set of social conditions and problems. Although we will examine the South African

social, political, and economic context in more detail in Chapter 5, we will take a brief look at it

now in the task which follows to demonstrate the relationship between social welfare, social

work, and the values of the society in which they are embedded.

TASK 2.2

If we look at the population distribution of South African society with its estimated population of

50 million, it becomes apparent that most of the population lives in developing or rural

communities where resources are grossly inadequate, and where social workers feel powerless

and immobilised by the enormity of the problems confronting them. This situation is

compounded by the fact that the majority of the 10,000 registered social workers in the country

are concentrated in the heavily populated urban areas where most social work agencies are

situated, and there are just not enough social workers to go round. A stronger link between social

work and community development might go some way towards alleviating this problem.

19

Drawing on the ‘Pavement People’2 reading from Chapter 1 and from the discussion thus far in

Chapter 2, list what you see as pressing social problems in South Africa. How do you think

social work and social welfare should respond to these problems?

TASK 2.3

The roots of the social development perspective can be traced back to colonial times. The term

was first used in the context of British colonial welfare administration in Africa in the 1950s,

when social workers sought to transcend their conventional remedial roles. Apart from

providing remedial services for the disabled, children, the elderly, the mentally ill and young

offenders, these administrators sought to foster social programs, such as mass literacy and

community development that would enhance levels of welfare for the community as a whole.

The social development perspective3

The social development perspective has several distinctive features:

Social development is inclusive

It requires the mobilisation of all social institutions for the promotion of human welfare.

Development is viewed as a comprehensive process which encompasses all citizens and fosters

social solidarity. Unlike approaches which rely on treatment interventions, social development

does not delegate the responsibility for human welfare to the individual. Instead, collective

2 Gray, M., & Bernstein, A. (1994). Pavement people and informal communities: Lessons for social work.

International Journal of Social Work, 37(2), 149‒163. 3 Extracted from Midgley, J. (1994). The challenge of social development: Their Third World and ours. Social Development Issues, 16(2), 1-12].

20

mechanisms are used to include all sections of the population and to promote general rather than

individual welfare.

Social development seeks to integrate the economic and social aspects of development

Unlike approaches that emphasise the delivery of social welfare services to poor people, social

development views social programs as an essential ingredient of an overall growth strategy

designed to promote human well-being.

How do you think the social development approach described by Midgley (1994) fits

with the South African social work practice context?

What factors have influenced the historical development of social work?

Even though the development of social work as a profession was influenced by the way in which

welfare services in society developed (external effects), since social work also developed as a

discipline, with its own body of knowledge or theory, it is also necessary to look at factors which

affected the development of social work internally. These factors related to the:

1. Way in which social work went about helping people – method-specific practice.

2. Kind of training they needed.

3. Search for theoretical unity.

4. Search for professional recognition.

1. Method-specific practice: The conflict between ‘mission’ and ‘method

The crucial issue in the debate about social work’s concern with ‘mission’ or ‘method’ relates to

the way in which it has responded to the dual concerns of individuals and society. As noted

21

above, over the years the pendulum has swung between concern with individuals and concern

with communities and/or society and attempts to see the relationship between people and society

(discussed more fully in the next chapter on values) are a constant theme in the development of

social work theory and practice.

Historically, social work practice tended to be method specific - social workers worked either as

caseworkers, or group workers, or community workers. The problem with method-specific

practice is that no one role could be said to constitute the whole of social work practice. Social

workers need to respond to the context in which they operate and to be involved in a diverse

range of functions, activities, and roles.

The method-specific approach has its roots in the evolution of social casework. At the time of the

Charity Organisation Society, people who were not able to function effectively were viewed as

‘ill’ and as requiring ‘treatment’. However, by the time Mary Richmond published What is

Social Casework? in 1922, she had accepted the importance of the concept of environment, and

was (albeit in a limited way) concerned with the interaction between ‘person and environment’.

Another social work writer described Mary Richmond’s approach as follows: ‘The good social

worker doesn’t go on mechanically helping people out of a ditch. Pretty soon she begins to find

out what ought to be done to get rid of the ditch’ (quoted in Du Bois & Miley, 1992, p. 29).

Although the focus is still on individual change (helping people out of the ditch), the impact of

the environment (the ditch) on people’s functioning is not excluded. In contrast, the Settlement

Movement (from which social group and community work developed) was less inclined to deal

with poverty as a purely individual phenomenon and tried to use the power of the group to

achieve both individual and socio-economic change.

22

As it evolved, the newly emerging profession of social work used three main methods:

1. Services to individuals and families - known as social casework

2. Services to groups - known as social groupwork

3. Services to communities - known initially as community organisation, which was mainly

concerned with the coordination of services and fundraising, as described previously, and

now usually called community work

Social work’s method-specific approach was also related to its quest for professional status.

Following on developments in other professions, where individualistic helping methods

predominated, for example, in law, medicine, and psychiatry, many social workers considered

that professional status and social recognition were not possible while social workers were

‘stigmatized as the “servers” of the poor’ (Humphreys & Dinerman, 1984, p. 184) and while they

were associated with social reform. There was a consequent reduction of interest in social

reform and increasing interest in individualistic helping methods, such as counselling and

casework, and in working with people with a higher social standing. Social workers adopted

methods which were seen by other professions as ‘scientific’, ‘rational’ or ‘objective’, while

their commitment to the whole person, to the community, and to the reform of society were put

aside. The consequence can be seen as a split between cause and function or, as Howard

Goldstein called it, between ‘mission and method’ (Goldstein, 1990, p. 33).

As shown above, early social workers had a social mission to make society more responsive to

the poor. This was embodied in their concerns with social reform. Now we are seeing that, as

social workers became more concerned with other factors, such as their quest for

professionalism, so their focus changed from concern with the mission of social reform to

23

concern with what would be most conducive to enhancing their professional status in society. If

this necessitated a change in their mission and the way in which they went about achieving it

(their methods) so be it.

C. Wright Mills (1974) talked about the relationship between individuals and society in

terms of ‘personal troubles and public issues’. He said that a collection of private

troubles becomes a public issue and a public issue may result in many private troubles.

Public issues may be interpreted as private troubles through a process that blames the

victim and denies the need for a public solution. For example, the growth of informal

settlements is seen as the fault of the people living in them rather than as the result of

institutionalised discrimination or inadequate housing policy. It is, then, the residents of

informal settlements who are seen as the target for change rather than public policy.

2. Specialised training was needed for the practice of social work

As the Charity Organisation Movement developed, so it became clear that charity workers or

‘friendly visitors’, as they were called, needed training. This led to the evolution of social work

education and the first school of social work, which was established at Columbia University in

New York at the end of the 19th century. Other universities in Britain and North America soon

followed. The first South African social work education program was developed at Wits

University in the 1930s and to-day there are twenty-one schools and departments of social work

in South Africa.

24

In North America and Great Britain, as well as in many developing countries, including South

Africa and Zimbabwe, social work education takes place within the university. However, in

countries such as Germany, France, Sweden, and the Netherlands, social work training was

offered outside of the universities (although many of the training institutions had the same status

as universities).

Over the years social workers have been required to study the principles and methods of social

work, as well as to take courses in a variety of academic subjects. Although social work initially

borrowed its theory from the related behavioural and social sciences, it has gradually developed

its own knowledge base and evolved into a discipline in its own right. This knowledge base is

coloured by the settings in which social work is practised. Because these are diverse, there are

many areas of specialisation in social work either in terms of methods (casework, group work,

community work, research, supervision, and social policy) or in terms of contexts or fields of

practice (child welfare, the aged, the physically and mentally challenged, medical and psychiatric

social work, and so on). In order to practice in these various contexts, social workers need both

general knowledge about social work, its theories and methods, and specialist knowledge about

the problems they deal with in specific contexts. For example, a social worker working at child

welfare in the intake section needs knowledge of, among other things, social casework, child

abuse and neglect, and community resources.

3. Search for theoretical unity

Because it is so diverse, social work has no unified theory of practice although, over the years,

consistent attempts have been made to achieve theoretical unity. Numerous theoretical

25

approaches have been advanced, many drawing from knowledge developed in the related

behavioural and social sciences, such as sociology and psychology. Some are unique to social

work, others are schools of thought permeating several disciplines. Psychoanalysis,

behaviourism, systems theory, and cognitive-behavioural theory are a few of these theoretical

approaches. Social work’s knowledge base is thus derived from social science and behavioural

theories, practical experience, and values and ideology.

As mentioned above, social work’s diversity comes from its different practice methods and from

the variety of settings in which it is practised. Thus a major concern in the development of social

work has been the search for theoretical unity through an approach which integrates practice

methods and contexts. Those features of social work theory, which applied across methods and

contexts, came to be known as ‘generalist’ and those specific to particular contexts or methods

were referred to as ‘specialist’. However, from the 1970s onwards, concerted attempts have been

made to find a ‘holistic’, ‘unitary’ perspective for social work practice focusing on

commonalities rather than differences. The ecosystems perspective is seen as a conceptual

framework which encompasses the breadth and diversity of social work. The way in which it has

been used as an integrating framework will be discussed in Chapter 4. For the time being, given

the direction in which social work in South Africa appears to be going and current theoretical

thinking, one can say that social development is consistent with this integrative ecosystems

perspective. The question to be addressed in the next section is whether professionalism is.

26

4. Search for professional recognition

The drive for professional status was universal and occurred wherever social work came to be

practised. Although it began historically in Europe and North America, it soon spread to other

contexts, including South Africa. Many of those employed by charitable institutions in North

America and in England in the 1890s, regarded their work as a profession comparing it with the

traditionally accepted professions of law, medicine, and theology (Woodroofe, 1962). In 1915,

Abraham Flexner, a noted expert on professional education, addressed the National Conference

on Charities and Correction in Baltimore on the question ‘Is Social Work a Profession?’ He

concluded that social work did not meet the criteria which he called ‘hallmarks of a profession’.

According to Flexner (1916), for an occupation to qualify as a profession it must meet the

following criteria:

1. Involve essentially intellectual operations with large individual responsibility.

2. Derive its raw material from science and learning.

3. Use this material to achieve a practical and specific goal.

4. Have an educationally communicable technique.

5. Be able to organise and monitor its activities.

6. Be increasingly altruistic in motivation.

As far as social work was concerned, he accepted that its workers were altruistically motivated,

but it did not have the responsibility or power of a true profession. Its aims were too wide and

insufficiently specific. As a result of its broad scope, its practitioners lacked specialised skills.

While educational efforts had been made, he said, social work lacked a systematic, scientific

body of knowledge and theory which could be taught to aspiring professionals.

27

The reaction to Flexner's assessment was a ‘zealous quest’ for professional status resulting in a

‘flurry of activity’ in America (Du Bois & Miley, 1992, p. 35). The number of schools of social

work expanded dramatically and training was advocated for all social workers. A professional

accreditation body was formed, educational curricula were standardised, and a belief in the

singular, generic nature of social work skills, applicable in any setting, was propounded at a

series of conferences.

The quest for professional recognition is perfectly understandable if we accept that professionals

lay ‘claim to extraordinary knowledge in matters of great social importance’ and that they are

granted ‘extraordinary rights and privileges’ in return (Schön, 1983, p. 4). However, there are

arguments both for and against professionalism. Some view it as central to effective service

delivery, where professional objectivity and a separation between the worker’s professional and

personal self is needed (Anderson & Martin, 1982). Others view it as a heritage of the medical

model, with the similarly negative effect of separating and distancing social workers from their

clients (Brown, cited by Hopp & Pinderhughes, 1987; Webb, 1984). The severest critics of

professionalism point to the price paid by social work in its bid to gain a monopoly on dispensing

social welfare, the highest cost of all being its sacrifice of its reform impetus (Biklen, 1983;

Hamilton, 1976). They also point to the danger of professions developing expertise in order to

acquire privilege and power rather than to promote public interest and to best serve people’s

needs (Schön, 1983). In the discussion which follows, it will be shown that the drive for

professional recognition has created several anomalies or paradoxes for social work, which is

concerned with social change and with being accessible to people who need its services.

28

Hamilton (1976) points out that the achievement of professional status depends on the success of

any occupational group in convincing society that it has a legitimate claim to the symbol of

professionalism. To do this, the occupational group needs to identify with the ruling group and

needs to be able to convince those in power that they have a worthwhile contribution to make to

society. Through the process of becoming a profession, then, the occupational group becomes an

integral part of the existing fabric of society and, by implication, it must develop skills in

maintaining the social structure as it is. Established authority then grants the profession the

autonomy to work in certain areas and the occupation must ensure that the dominant elite

remains persuaded of its positive value, or at least its harmlessness, so that it continues to protect

it from encroachment. Therefore, in order to become a profession, the aspiring occupation must

clearly identify with the standards and values of the status quo. What arises then is a situation in

which the profession is allowed to operate within the confines imposed by the politicians and

others who control the state. In the case of social work, it grants social workers established

authority to provide welfare services and protects its territory from encroachment by other

professions.

However, there is an anomaly when the profession starts out with a mission of social reform and

change and ends up as part of the ruling hierarchy with a stake in keeping society as it is. Biklen

(1983) argued that it was precisely this which was an undesirable consequence of the trend

towards professionalism. This creates a paradox for a profession like social work with its

commitment to change. He highlighted this paradox: he talked about the way in which social

work began with its commitment to social reform and social change but then, as it became woven

into the fabric of society, it lost its change impetus. He questioned whether professional

recognition was worth this sacrifice.

29

Hence for Hamilton (1976) and Biklen (1983), the search for professional status implies a wish

to be in a position of power within society, to drive out competition and to become established as

the sole suppliers of a particular service ‒ in the case of social work, social welfare services.

Dispensing social welfare and social work services, then, becomes the exclusive function of

social workers who become imbued with a certain mystique, which comes from society’s belief

that only they have the knowledge and expertise to supply such services. Some people question

whether one can be expert in dealing with something as unpredictable as human behaviour.

There are also debates about whether knowledge or experience leads to expertise. Writers like

Biklen (1983) interpreted the rise of the self-help movement as a reaction against

professionalism. According to his view, self-help groups developed, among other reasons,

because social workers did not have a thorough understanding of the problems with which they

were dealing since they had never experienced them, but mostly they developed because people

were dissatisfied with the services they were receiving from formal helping systems and the

social workers within them (Biklen, 1983; Schön, 1983). In her research on self-help groups,

Bernstein (1991) could not find any empirical evidence to support claims of this nature that self-

help groups supported this anti-professional stance.

Nevertheless, criticisms such as these raise important questions regarding accountability. To

whom are social workers accountable: to their clients or to the organisations which pay their

salaries or to the government which sanctions their existence? These perplexing questions relate

to the values and aims of social work (discussed more fully in Chapter 3).

30

Clearly there are both advantages and disadvantages to professionalism and there is a need in

society for professions to ensure adherence to social norms and the laws of the country. Once

established, professions do have an obligation to press for change and improvement as and when

necessary. Usually professional values mirror societal values and, in the case of social work, the

fact that social workers may work with people who do not comply with social norms does not

mean that the profession cannot, at the same time, work to change unjust norms and practices.

Being part of the social structure need not have a sinister face, especially where the profession

and those in power share a similar quest for social justice.

TASK 2.4

In terms of your understanding from what you have read thus far do you think social work is or

should be a profession? Read the section of the article on Pavement People entitled ‘Lessons for

Social Work’ and then list what you consider to be the positives and negatives of

professionalism.

What is the current status of the social work profession in South Africa?

Similar aspirations can be seen in the efforts of social workers worldwide to gain professional

status. Can social work in South Africa be regarded as a profession if professional recognition

depends on, among other things:

Achieving a recognised status in society

Having a professional culture

Being a paid occupation employed full-time

Being guided by codes of ethics

31

Having educational programs

Having a scientific knowledge base

From what has been said about professionalism thus far, is it desirable for an occupation like

social work, which is moving increasingly towards a focus on social development, to be

preoccupied with its professional status? We will come back to this question in Chapter 5 but for

now let us examine the evolution of social work’s professional status.

In South Africa, an Act of Parliament (originally called the Social and Associated Workers Act

and then the Social Work Act, No 110 of 1978 as amended) legally defined the acts and activities

of social workers as follows:

Any act, activity or method directed at diagnosing, eliminating, preventing or treating

social malfunctioning or problematic functioning in man, or at promoting social stability

in man, and includes any process which is calculated to promote the efficient

performance or application of such act, activity or method.

This definition was so poorly conceived and inappropriate that it was eventually withdrawn in

the Social Work Amendment Act, No 48 of 1989. Yet the Social Work Act regulated the social

work profession in South Africa and provided for a Social Work Council which regulates social

work education and practice, specifically practice misconduct, the registration of social workers

and social auxiliary workers, and sets minimum standards for social work education by

prescribing not only what social work students should be taught, but also the teaching methods

and the deployment of staff in social work departments. With the advent of the White Paper on

32

Social Development in 1995, a reconstituted Council for Social and Associated Workers was

more representative of South African social workers than the previous one.

SUMMARY

In this chapter, we have looked at the development of social welfare and social work both

internationally and in South Africa and examined social work’s quest for professional status. The

following important concepts were learnt in this chapter:

Social welfare

Charity

Self-help and mutual aid

Voluntary organisations

Welfare legislation

Professionalism

FURTHER READING

For subsequent articles by Gray and colleagues on the progress of social development and

developmental social work, see:

Gray, M. (1994). Community development and social work. Social Work/ Maatskaplike Werk,

30(4), xii‒xiii.

Gray, M. (1996). The role of social workers in developmental social welfare: Is there a place for

them? Social Work Practice, 2, 8‒13

Gray, M. (1996). Towards an understanding of developmental social work. Social Work Practice,

1, 9‒13. (Reprinted in Child and Youth Care Journal, July 1996).

Gray, M. (1996). The importance of community development. Social Work/Maatskaplike Werk,

32(3), 193‒204.

33

Gray, M. (1997). The contribution of community social work to social development. Journal of

Applied Social Sciences, 21(1), 45‒51.

Gray, M. (1997). A pragmatic approach to social development: Part 1. Social Work/Maatskaplike

Werk, 33(3), 210‒222.

Gray, M. (1997). A pragmatic approach to social development: Part 2. Social Work/Maatskaplike

Werk, 33(4), 360‒373.

Gray, M. (1998). (ed.). Developmental Social Work: Theory and practice. Cape Town: David

Philip.

Gray, M. (2000). Social work in South Africa: In search of early role models - Interview with

Professor Mike Hough. Social Work/Maatskaplike Werk, 36(2), 202‒206.

Gray, M. (2000). Social work and the ‘social service professions’. Social Work/Maatskaplike Werk,

36(1), 99‒109.

Gray, M. (2002). Developmental social work: A ‘strengths’ praxis for social development. Social

Development Issues, 24(1), 4‒14.

Gray, M. (2002). Editorial ‘Dancing to the beat of our own drum’. Social Work/Maatskaplike

Werk, 38(4), xx‒xxii.

Gray, M. (2006). The progress of social development in South Africa. International Journal of

Social Welfare, 15(Suppl. 1), S53‒64.

Gray, M. (2010). Theories of social work practice. In Nicholas, L., Rautenbach, J., & Maistry, M.

(ed). Introduction to Social Work (pp. 75–98). Cape Town: Juta.

Gray, M., & Allegritti, I. (2002). Cross-cultural practice and the indigenisation of African social

work. Social Work/Maatskaplike Werk, 38(4), 324‒336.Gray, M. & Allegritti, I. (2005).

Mamphele Ramphele and Xhosa culture: Some insights on culture, self-determination and

human rights for South African social work. Social Work/ Maatskaplike Werk, 41(2),

131‒142.

Gray, M., & Collett van Rooyen, C.A.J. (2000). Social work political participation: A South

African study. Social Work/Maatskaplike Werk, 36(2), 180‒192.

Gray, M., & Collett van Rooyen, C.A.J. (2002). The strengths perspective in social work: Lessons

from practice. Social Work/Maatskaplike Werk, 38(3), 225‒233.

Gray, M., & Crofts, P. (2004). Partnerships: Marrying the strengths and resources of diverse

interest groups. Social Work/Maatskaplike Werk, 40(3), 246‒259.

Gray, M. & Gannon, B. (1998). The relationship between social work and child and youth care.

Social Work/Maatskaplike Werk, 34(2), 206-215.

34

Gray, M. (1998). Welfare policy for reconstruction and development in South Africa. International

Journal of Social Work, 41(1), 23-37.

Gray, M., & Lombard, A. (2008). The post-1994 transformation of social work in South Africa.

International Journal of Social Welfare (Special Issue), 17(1), 132‒145.

Gray, M., & Mazibuko, F. (2002). Social work in South Africa at the dawn of the new millennium.

International Journal of Social Welfare, 11(3), 191‒200.

Gray, M., & Mitchell, W.A.M. (2007). The road less travelled: Reconstruction, welfare and social

development in South Africa. In L. Dominelli (ed.). Revitalising communities in a globalising

world (pp. 79–94). Aldershot, Hants: Ashgate.

Gray, M., & Mubangizi, B. (2010). Caught in the vortex: Can Local Government Community

Development Workers in South Africa succeed? Community Development Journal, 45(2),

186–197.

Gray, M., & Mubangizi, B. (2011). Putting the ‘public’ into public service delivery for social

welfare in South Africa. International Journal of Social Welfare, 20(2), 212–219.

Gray, M., & Sathiparsad, R. (1998). Violence against women in South Africa: An analysis of

media coverage. Social Work/Maatskaplike Werk, 34(3), 267‒280.

Gray, M. & Sewpaul, V. (1998). Critique of the policy proposals of the inter-ministerial committee

on young people at risk. Social Work/Maatskaplike Werk, 34(1), 12‒27.

Gray, M., & Simpson, B. (1998). Developmental social work education: A South African example.

International Social Work, 41(2), 227‒237.

Gray, M., & Wint, E. (1998). Social work and the emerging occupational group of community

developers. Social Work/Maatskaplike Werk, 34(1), 71‒79.

Gray, M., Kreitzer, L., & Mupedziswa, R. (2014). The enduring relevance of indigenisation in

African social work: A critical reflection on ASWEA’s legacy. Ethics and Social Welfare,

8(2), 101–116. DOI:10.1080/17496535.2014.895397 (Special Issue on Human Rights in

Africa).

Gray, M., O’Brien, F. & Mazibuko, F. (1996). Social work education for social development.

Journal of Social Development in Africa, 11(1), 33‒42.

Mafokane, M.D.M. & Gray, M.M.A. (2007). Factors hindering the successful outcome of rural

community projects. Social Work/Maatskaplike Werk, 43(3), 201‒208.

Neilson, D. & Gray, M. (1997). Integrating social development into child welfare services. Social

Work Practice, 1.97, 16‒21.

Travis, R. (Jnr), McFarlin, N., van Rooyen, C.A.J. & Gray, M. (1999). Community development in

South Africa: Its use as an intervention strategy. International Social Work, 42(2), 177‒188.

35

van Rooyen, C. A. J. & Gray, M. M. A. (1995). Participatory research: Compatibility to social

work. Social Work Researcher/Practitioner, 8(2), 3‒8.

van Rooyen, C.A.J., & Gray, M. (2000). Social work education in South Africa: Changing

contexts, changing content. Social Work Africa, 1(1), 19‒26.