“Without Losing What We Know”: Dissenting social work in the context of epochal crises

IF 0.5 Q4 SOCIAL WORK Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work Pub Date : 2022-09-24 DOI:10.11157/anzswj-vol34iss3id921
D. Baines
{"title":"“Without Losing What We Know”: Dissenting social work in the context of epochal crises","authors":"D. Baines","doi":"10.11157/anzswj-vol34iss3id921","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION: This article builds on Fraser’s (2021, 2019) argument that the overlapping crises of social reproduction, climate, economy, and public health have resulted in a splintering of the hegemony of dominant groups. This generates a “wilding of the public sphere” in which groups urgently seek counter-hegemonic storylines and alternative solutions to interwoven crises (Fraser, 2021, n.p.). This article further theorises consent and dissent in social work practice and workplaces.\nMETHODS: Data were collected using qualitative interviews and a convenience sample of ten executive directors and managers of social services in a large city in Canada. Data were analysed using a constant comparison method involving multiple readings of the field notes and transcripts, until patterns and themes could be discerned.\nFINDINGS: The article analyses three themes, namely, dissent as: 1) working on the edges of the state; 2) working on decolonisation including what it means to be a settler; and 3) critical reflection. The themes are then discussed together under a final interwoven theme that is argued to reflect new hegemonies, in particular political world-making, building new emancipatory knowledges, theory, practice and hegemonies.\nCONCLUSION: Social-justice-engaged practices can emerge within systems hostile to social solidarity, suggesting that dissent is resilient to neoliberalism though it may sometimes operate quietly and at the level of individual practice. This resistance and the nascent, shared, dissenting narratives can contribute to the de-legitimatisation of oppressive social structures as social workers search for, and build, more emancipatory approaches.\n\n\n\n","PeriodicalId":44524,"journal":{"name":"Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work","volume":"106 ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11157/anzswj-vol34iss3id921","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SOCIAL WORK","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: This article builds on Fraser’s (2021, 2019) argument that the overlapping crises of social reproduction, climate, economy, and public health have resulted in a splintering of the hegemony of dominant groups. This generates a “wilding of the public sphere” in which groups urgently seek counter-hegemonic storylines and alternative solutions to interwoven crises (Fraser, 2021, n.p.). This article further theorises consent and dissent in social work practice and workplaces. METHODS: Data were collected using qualitative interviews and a convenience sample of ten executive directors and managers of social services in a large city in Canada. Data were analysed using a constant comparison method involving multiple readings of the field notes and transcripts, until patterns and themes could be discerned. FINDINGS: The article analyses three themes, namely, dissent as: 1) working on the edges of the state; 2) working on decolonisation including what it means to be a settler; and 3) critical reflection. The themes are then discussed together under a final interwoven theme that is argued to reflect new hegemonies, in particular political world-making, building new emancipatory knowledges, theory, practice and hegemonies. CONCLUSION: Social-justice-engaged practices can emerge within systems hostile to social solidarity, suggesting that dissent is resilient to neoliberalism though it may sometimes operate quietly and at the level of individual practice. This resistance and the nascent, shared, dissenting narratives can contribute to the de-legitimatisation of oppressive social structures as social workers search for, and build, more emancipatory approaches.
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
“不失去我们所知道的”:时代危机背景下的不同社会工作
引言:本文建立在弗雷泽(2021年,2019年)的论点,即社会再生产,气候,经济和公共卫生的重叠危机导致了主导群体霸权的分裂。这产生了一种“公共领域的狂野”,在这种情况下,群体迫切地寻求反霸权的故事情节和相互交织的危机的替代解决方案(弗雷泽,2021年,n.p.)。本文进一步将社会工作实践和工作场所中的同意和异议理论化。方法:数据收集采用定性访谈和方便样本的十位执行董事和社会服务经理在加拿大的一个大城市。数据的分析采用持续比较的方法,包括多次阅读实地记录和抄本,直到能够辨别出模式和主题。研究发现:本文分析了三个主题,即:1)在国家边缘工作的异议;2)致力于非殖民化,包括定居者的意义;3)批判性反思。然后在最后一个交织的主题下讨论这些主题,这个主题被认为反映了新的霸权,特别是政治世界的制造,建立新的解放知识,理论,实践和霸权。结论:社会正义参与的实践可以出现在敌视社会团结的系统中,这表明异议对新自由主义是有弹性的,尽管它有时可能悄无声息地在个人实践的层面上运作。随着社会工作者寻找和建立更多解放的方法,这种抵抗和新生的、共享的、反对的叙述可能有助于压制性社会结构的非合法性。
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
28.60%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Pacific social work navigating practice, policy and research Resistance, reclaiming and reframing: Relationship-based Pacific social work practice Disrupting Whiteness in Social Work Fieldwork placement reflection from a regional Pacific university during Covid-19 The Fono's 'Alert Level 4' Story
×
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