Knowing where you stand: Neoliberal and other foundations for social work

R. Woodcock
{"title":"Knowing where you stand: Neoliberal and other foundations for social work","authors":"R. Woodcock","doi":"10.1080/17486831.2011.595077","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The neoliberal philosophy that presently dominates social work in America is often accepted by social workers without question; and when it does come into focus, it is commonly treated as the only perspective that could make sense or be ethical. But in fact every philosophy, including neoliberalism, sometimes calls for tough judgments and requires unpleasant commitments. Many social workers may find that an eclectic and dispassionate but informed approach works best in practice. This article provides thumbnail sketches and cross-comparisons among some of the most commonly mentioned political philosophies, so as to help social workers interpret dialogues, understand clients’ views, and identify potentially divergent threads in their own political orientations.","PeriodicalId":270572,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Comparative Social Welfare","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Comparative Social Welfare","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17486831.2011.595077","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

Abstract

The neoliberal philosophy that presently dominates social work in America is often accepted by social workers without question; and when it does come into focus, it is commonly treated as the only perspective that could make sense or be ethical. But in fact every philosophy, including neoliberalism, sometimes calls for tough judgments and requires unpleasant commitments. Many social workers may find that an eclectic and dispassionate but informed approach works best in practice. This article provides thumbnail sketches and cross-comparisons among some of the most commonly mentioned political philosophies, so as to help social workers interpret dialogues, understand clients’ views, and identify potentially divergent threads in their own political orientations.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
了解你的立场:社会工作的新自由主义和其他基础
目前主导美国社会工作的新自由主义哲学经常被社会工作者毫无疑问地接受;当它成为焦点时,它通常被视为唯一有意义或合乎道德的观点。但事实上,每一种哲学,包括新自由主义,有时都要求做出艰难的判断,并要求做出令人不快的承诺。许多社会工作者可能会发现,折衷、冷静但知情的方法在实践中效果最好。本文提供了一些最常被提及的政治哲学的草图和交叉比较,以帮助社会工作者解释对话,理解客户的观点,并在他们自己的政治取向中识别潜在的分歧线索。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The impact of the financial crisis on happiness in affluent European countries Active ageing and pensions in the European Union Time and punishment: a comparison of UK and US time bank use in criminal justice systems Historical perspectives on North Korea: a brief introduction and bibliography Income inequality and its driving forces in transitional countries: evidence from Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1