Submission to The Social Lens: A Social Work Action Blog by Ken Moffatt, Professor, Ryerson University
Historical Social Work claims to certainty
Social work has had a long history of seeking a definitive and permanent solution to social ill.
Although there has been a lively debate about the knowledge claims of social work, too often each claim is supported because of its effectiveness and its permanence in terms of solution.
Such claims to truth include social science, charitable (Christian) mission work, idealism and even left-leaning politics (Moffatt, 2001). Social workers can be thankful that none has been able to overcome the other in the battle for truth. Too often the knowledge claim that becomes paramount is well suited to patterns of social dominance.
Social science and evidence-based practice is probably most suited to our current economic context, which gives it an incredibly strategic powerful advantage at this moment. The current discourses of stability are defined around a grouping of concepts that include innovation, evidence, management and competition (Moffatt, 2019). These social concepts are driving new managerial and neoliberal discursive frames that are infiltrating all forms of human organizing and specifically, social work (Gray et al, 2015).
It is my contention that the claim to a definitive truth in social work is false and deceptive unless we address the many forms of precariousness that exist. I am especially distrustful of “a subject which is either transcendental in relation to the field of events or runs in its empty sameness throughout the course of history” (Foucault, 1980, p. 117). At times, technocrats, scientists and idealists all claim truths as if they exist beyond the social realm of influence. This is the sphere of the male patriarch who claims a neutrality that is taken for granted and obscures power relations of advantage (Moffatt, 2019). Without addressing the basic lack of commitment to equality and the need for social support and redistribution, all these forms of stability are simply elusive and meaningless.
The politics of precariousness
In contrast to an historical social work that endeavours to create a norm of stability and social care, we are living through a time of incredible precariousness. Although at times the precariousness is thought to be created by our current health risks associated with COVID-19, it is my contention that the roots of this precariousness were in place well before the pandemic.
Social relations are in constant flux. The frail and impermanent nature of human connection is exacerbated in a global capital economy with a lack of commitment to social protection and communal insurance (Moffatt, 2001). Social structure and interpersonal relations are expected to change to accommodate the relentless force of profit making and efficient mechanisms of the financial sector. This global capital system is based on technological growth where value is measured through the micro measure of wealth and the speeding up of profit. Value and worth become blips on a screen. Bauman (2012) astutely observes contemporary life exists so that “all social forms melt faster than the new ones can be cast” (303). This may seem like a welcome relief for those of us who feel that the white patriarchal system is intransigent. However, the impact of economic and social certainty is unevenly distributed according to nationality, race, ability, sexuality and gender.
Tied to the relentless nature of capital is the neoliberal paradigm. Neoliberalism is so deeply embedded at the heart of our political system that it acts as a form of governing faith. Well suited to the capitalist economic system, the neoliberal approach to human affairs begins with the perception that the individual is enterprising, self-directing and self-sufficient. The locus of change to social ill and social quandaries therefore lies with the individual rather than the collective (Bauman, 2012; Gray et al, 2015).
We are in the midst of a long historical process of dismantling functions of the state such as education, social welfare, health services and social insurance that were meant to lead to personal social stability. Instead, we now exist in a gig economy with short term contractual employment with no benefits. The concept of a lifelong profession supported by education is fading away. The result is each of us lurches forward from project to project hoping that the resources will be in play to allow for survival. Long term planning and deliberate contemplation of social ill are things of the past (Bauman, 2012; Moffatt, 2019).
The state of economic and social precariousness is exacerbated by our inability to face precariousness as a political reality and a social concept. This aversion to a discussion about shared precariousness makes it difficult to sustain social policy and state structures that address need and risk. Judith Butler (2006a) argues that open discussion of precariousness and vulnerability is foreclosed in North America. To face down precariousness forces us to face the unbearable truth of our own risk and precariousness. To talk about precariousness reminds us that we are all precarious and that is too much for us to bear. Furthermore, making precariousness central to politics makes it clear we have a shared responsibility to address it. This shared responsibility runs counter to the competitive ethos of capitalism. We avoid this discussion of precariousness because it reminds us of our own risk, but also because it demands a radical new way of thinking.
Attending to precariousness as an ethical imperative
As social workers who deal with the marginalized and vulnerable in daily practice, we know about precariousness and the unequal distribution of wealth and resources (Moffatt, 2019; Witkin, 2014). It is my contention that the central ethical imperative of social work at this moment is to face that we exist in a constant state of social and economic precariousness and to acknowledge our shared vulnerability.
It is my experience that to suggest that we are without moorings with no end in sight is viewed as a heinous observation that is beyond reproach. Yet, the dire consequence of avoiding this discussion is that vulnerable people disappear. They disappear from the discursive frame so that there is no symbol or voice to speak of their plight. In other words, those vulnerable people disappear because they force us to face the shared precariousness and social vulnerability that is characteristic of contemporary social political economic relations. They are made to disappear so that we can avoid the discomfort of that awareness. We then must be witnesses and work to make visible those people who might disappear without an utterance (Butler, 2006b).
People disappear from the discourse but they also disappear physically due to illness, death and the many hidden forms of insecurity (Moffatt, 2021). Homeless encampments, for instance, as a symbol of precariousness, “need” to be moved or bulldozed because they undercut the paradigms of capitalism and neoliberalism. When encampments are in full view, they challenge the faulty logic of the benefits of social flexibility leading to profit-making and productivity. Encampments also are a shocking reminder of our shared precariousness. Even progressive social work voices who express a genuine alarm of the increased evidence of homeless too often talk about their concern for the other, the homeless, rather than a shared precariousness.
Without squarely dealing with precariousness, shame and anxiety take the place of solidarity and social safety as social mechanisms to address future social relations. Shame begins with the refusal to meet the gaze of the other. It is destabilizing and is meant to put the person who is the object of shame on edge (Sedgwick, 2003). The acts of shame are multiple, specific and wide ranging, and situate social ill within marginal and disadvantaged persons and their communities (Moffatt, 2012; Moffatt, 2004). Shame is well suited to our neoliberal frame of individual responsibility and our inability to face precariousness as a social problem. It is a further act of avoidance that situates the broader social ill with communities that are already in dire risk.
As anxiety about our own future increases, so too does our distrust of others who represent a competitive threat to our personal stability. In a global economic system, we do not strive to advance our lot; rather, we strive to stave off the fall from social economic harm. Rather than strive for personal and social improvement we avoid being left behind out of the sphere of social and economic well-being (Bauman, 2005; Moffatt et al, 2018). Anxiety is so well suited to capitalism since it creates a striving. This personal striving suits competitive individual notions of self and is well suited to consumerist culture. We strive for personal security; we strive to avoid complete social dislocation; and we strive to accumulate goods to protect us from that insecurity. I believe there is a political economy of anxiety that opens the incursion of capitalism to all social and personal spheres (Moffatt, 2019).
We should seek to address such shared public emotions as shame and anxiety through careful meticulous and thoughtful social work interventions (yes there is a place for practice). The acknowledgement of precariousness demands a reflective inquiry in the social nature of emotional states and how we enhance the feelings and lived experience of precariousness in our practice, even if unintentional.
So, precariousness is a persistent problem in that we are all stuck in it and the avoidance of its discussion affects us not only socially but also personally and interpersonally. Each level feeds on the other. Social Work has been charged in some ways to maintain social order and offer hope, and the dilemma is that in offering these truth claims we may hide the extreme precariousness that people experience.
To move past these problems of precariousness we can rethink the self as a site of interdependence (Butler and Taylor, 2010) rather than a site of autonomy. It seems to me we need to ask the ethical questions: “do we or do we not help each other with basic needs?” and will we “live in that world in which… we need each other in order to address our basic needs?” (Butler in Butler and Taylor, 2010). And finally, what will I risk in giving up my personal safety to address social security and stability, especially for those who are being left behind?
Works Cited
Bauman, Z. (2005). Education in liquid modernity. Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies, 27, 303-317.
Bauman, Z. (2012). Liquid Modernity. Cambridge UK: Polity Press.
Butler, J. (2006a). Precarious life. In Precarious life: the powers of mourning and violence (pp. 128- 151). New York: Verso.
Butler J. (2006b). Violence, mourning, politics. In Precarious life: the powers of mourning and violence (pp. 19-49). New York: Verso.
Butler, J. and Taylor, S., October 6, 2010. “Examined Life.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0HZaPkF6qE
Foucault, M. (1980). Truth and power. In C. Gordon (Ed.) Power/ knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972-1977 (C. Gordon, L. Marshall, J. Mepham, & K. Soper, Trans.) (pp. 109-133). New York: Pantheon Books.
Gray, M., Dean, M., Agilias, K., Howard, A. & Schubert, L. (2015). Perspectives on neoliberalism for the human service professionals. Social Service Review, 89(2) 368-392.
Moffatt, K. (2001). A poetics of social work: Personal agency and social transformation in Canada, 1920-1939. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Moffatt, K. (2004). Beyond male denial and female shame: Learning about gender in sociocultural concepts class. Smith College Studies in Social Work, 74(2), 243-256.
Moffatt K. (2012). Shame and men: A queer perspective on masculinity. C Magazine, 114, 5-8.
Moffatt K. (2019). Postmodern social work: Reflective practice and education. New York: Columbia University Press.
Moffatt K. (2021). R.M. Vaughan’s homes (including my own). Text and Photography, January, 2021. In Seeking the Periphery, Curator, D. Papatheodorou, Paul H. Cocker Gallery. Toronto. https://dasxhibitaions.ca/Ken-Moffatt
Moffatt K., Todd, S., Barnoff, L., Pyne, J., Panitch, M., Parada, H., McLeod, S. & Hunter Young, N. Worry about professional education: Emotions and affect in the context of neoliberal change in post-secondary education. Emotions, Space and Society, 26, 9-15
Sedgwick, E. (2003). Touching, feeling: Affect, pedagogy, performativity. Durham NC: Duke University Press.
Witkin, S. (2014). Autoethnography: The opening act. In S. Witkin (Ed.) Narrating social work through autoethnography (pp. 1-24). New York: Columbia University Press.
THE SOCIAL LENS: A SOCIAL WORK ACTION BLOG - The views and opinions expressed in this blog are solely those of the original author(s) and do not express the views of the UBC School of Social Work and/or the other contributors to the blog. The blog aims to uphold the School's values and mission.
