Social Action or Reaction

Social Action or Reaction
By Nathan E. Cohen
First published in The Group: The Official Publication of the American Association of Group Workers
October, 1947 Volume 10, No. 1

Group workers along with other social workers have come to accept and use the term social action but its meaning and implementation remains quite varied. Part of the difficulty is that although there is agreement on the development and adjustment of the individual as a major goal, there is not the same emphasis on another major goal, namely, the betterment of the world in which he lives. The interrelatedness of these two goals is often taken for granted but methodology is frequently aimed in only one direction. In schools of social work, for example, courses in social security, housing, labor problems, social legislation, etc. have been added to the curriculum but their purpose is not always clear to the student. In the main they are regarded as informational courses which will aid the student in better understanding the problems of individual adjustment and development. There is not yet agreement on the thesis that social workers have a responsibility for doing something about the socio-economic factors which affect the lives of the people with whom they work. A study of social action and professional education made in 1944 by Marion Hathaway revealed the following: “The schools agree that the students should understand the role of the social worker in social change but the extent to which there is agreement concerning the nature of the role was not possible to determine.”
The time has come to re-emphasize the point of view that the social work tree has two organic limbs, namely, the psychological and the socio-economic and that is not a question of either or, but rather both and, for these two limbs flow into and are fed by the same set of roots. As stated by Kenneth Pray in an article on the Social Worker and Partisan Politics, the social worker has a dual responsibility. “On the one hand he is responsible for performance, on the highest possible level, of certain social services to persons who need and seek those services because of existing circumstances in their lives related to the social setting in which they find themselves. On the other hand, he is responsible for helping to remove and to modify those limitations in the social environment that help to create, to complicate or to intensify the needs to which he ministers, or to hamper the full use of the services he makes available.” Social work is a product of the community and in its total approach must have “a more positive aim than the avoidance of neurosis,” or adjustment to status quo. This means that we must do more than merely observe the socio-economic factors to see how they affect the individuals with whom we work. We have the responsibility of helping them to understand these forces so that they might better help themselves, as well as taking actions through our professional associations and as citizens, toward the promotion of constructive social conditions.
Page 7 in original document
Defining Socially Desirable Goals
Another impasse in implementing theoretical social action is that although there may be acceptance of a definition that social action involves individual or group action for furthering social desirable goals, there is again difference of opinion as to what is socially desirable. If the majority of a group, for example, is in favor of lynching or segregation, is that the yardstick to be utilized? Obviously there must be a more basic yardstick through which to operate, one which grows out of our social philosophy. The philosophy of social work is not an accumulation or collection of unrelated beliefs but rather is based on a principle giving unity to what we do. That principle is a belief in and concern for democracy and for the people who are a part of it. In the same way that John Dewey boldly declares “democracy and sound psychology to be forever coextensive,” so too must we make clear that it is not possible to have social work as we understand it without a democratic climate, and “frankly ban all ‘social work’ postulates that are not democratically oriented.”
Since our understanding of democracy is basic to our social work beliefs it might be well first to explore the full meaning of the term and then to examine the present scene to determine whether or not the political and social climate is widening the gap between social work theory and practice. Democracy is more than a political form of government. It is an ethical concept which must permeate our total way of life. Thomas Jefferson’s first self-evident truth is that all men are created equal and from that they derive certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We have learned from experience that democracy viewed only as a political form of government cannot meet this truth. Equality, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness demand a social and economic democracy as well as a political one.
What of the present democratic climate? A serious reading of the barometer would reveal a fluttering needle warning us of political, economic and social storms ahead. Politically, reaction is in the saddle. The pattern of approach is so reminiscent of the early days of the rise to power of the Nazis that one realizes that although Fascism was defeated on the battlefront it has not been completely eradicated on the home front. Civil liberties are being undermined steadily and thoroughly. Progressives have been split; conflict has been created within the trade unions; liberal radio commentators and others in position to affect public opinion have been removed, and fringe progressives have been frightened and silenced by the threat to civil liberties. Under this smoke screen of dangers from the “left” domestic reaction guided from the “right” has moved in steadily.
Hand in hand with this political reaction has come a narrowing of economic and social democracy. Progressive measures to insure housing, health services, expanded social security, federal aid to education, fair employment practices, removal of the poll tax, federal protection against lynching, have been buried. The cost of living is steadily rising toward new heights while the government offers the alternatives of eat less or waste less as the solution to this dangerous problem. Low income groups who must of necessity eat less are now being urged to regard this plight as a patriotic measure. Social workers are well aware of the effects of these developments on the people with whom they work, as they know first hand the frustration, anxiety, and insecurity that accompany periods of economic and social unrest. Furthermore, the inflationary climate is playing havoc with the budgets of social welfare agencies which will result in an inevitable curtailment of services.
With the health and well being of the majority of the population threatened and with social welfare services facing possible curtailment, what are the agencies doing to combat these developments? Unfortunately, the political and social climate has created a sufficient fog to engulf the leadership of many agencies and play havoc with their sense of objectives. Rather than intensify a program of social action based upon an understanding of the relationship between economic and political democracy, the tendency is to destroy whatever “social action” consciousness has been built up. The following proposed joint operations policy in regard to “controversial political matters” recently recommended by the Executive Committee of a Council of Social Agencies and the Chest Board to member agencies of the Chest are symptomatic of what lies ahead:
1. That local social service agencies shall not espouse or oppose action of any national agency on controversial matters until officially approved and cleared by the agency’s local board of directors.
2. That in sponsoring or participating in any meetings for the discussion of controversial political matters there shall be clearance with and approval by the agency’s board of directors.
3. That in any adult education programs which include discussion of controversial political matters, agency boards and staffs should give due regard to the presentation of representative and differing points of view.
4. That the quasi public status of member agencies of the Chest and the relationship existing between them and all component community groups suggests the propriety of notification being given by members of the agencies employed professional staffs, for the information of their respective boards of directors, prior to public sponsorship of political candidates or participation by such staff members in political activities. The hazard exists that such participation by a professional worker may be misinterpreted by a political viewpoint or sponsorship by the employing agency.

One can add to this obvious attempt to create a Hatch Act for private agency employees, the increased hostility toward social work unions, the attack on Public Welfare workers, and numerous other examples symbolic of the times.



The Group Worker’s Role in Social Action
The time for action is now, for it is later than we think. What can we as group workers do about all this? The question can best be answered in three parts, namely, what we can do on the job, as professional workers though our professional organizations, and as citizens.
Space does not permit more than casual treatment of the group worker’s role in social action on the job. The principles and methods through which we have always operated still hold and will be effective if we utilize them. Since the life situation is the best medium for programming there will be numerous opportunities to capture the reflection of the problems of the high cost of living, housing, discrimination, world peace, etc. as one moves along in terms of needs and interests. A real hurdle may be our own lack of sensitivity to and concern for these problems, thereby failing to stimulate or encourage already existing interests within the membership. Another major difficulty will be the attempts by boards to narrow the policy pertaining to social action similar to the experience described earlier. Group workers must stand their ground and perform a herculean task of board and committee education. It will be easier to perform this task if through local chapters of AAGW and through group work sections of councils of social agencies, group workers stand together in common purpose. The membership of the agency should be in touch with the any attempt to change policy so that they can help prevent the will of a minority being imposed on the majority. The very striving for membership participation in the formation of agency policy is in itself the beginning of social action and an important element in the training for citizenship.
As a citizen the group worker functions as any other individual in the community bringing his particular knowledge and skills into the general communal effort, but as a member of a professional organization his contribution is more specialized. The professional organization has a particular function to perform and can be most effective operating within its stated purpose. Through the professional organization the group worker is able to go beyond the more confining perspective of his agency and to identify himself with broader objectives. As revealed in the “Proposal of Principles and Procedures For Social Action” submitted by the Social Action Committee of the American Association of Group Workers, there is room for a contribution to the social scene even with the confines of “issues which directly affect the profession” and “selected issues on which our experience as group workers has some particular bearing,” especially if the latter category is interpreted in the broadest sense. The real problem, for an association that is young, is not only the delimited area of issues but also the working out of the machinery for action even within these limits. Is it assuming too much to say that we are beyond the initial stages of conflict around objectives and that any differences which arise will be in terms of means rather than ends? In a sense our ability to make rapid strides in contributing our share of effort toward social legislation is a test of the level of our profession and our expertness as group workers. It is imperative that the work of the Social Action Committee be given priority for not only must the voice of the Association be heard in the present social and economic climate but we must through our efforts give perspective and assurance to group workers on the job and in their role as citizens.
The group worker is first a citizen who, along with other citizens, has a responsibility in making democracy work. Our training and experience in the laboratory of the life situation and our concern for training for citizenship should serve as a double stimulant to carry our share of the civic load. There is always the rationalization that we must remain neutral because of our jobs but the individual who follows this course has already taken sides. Since he does nothing to stop reaction, he is really aiding and abetting the latter. Furthermore, how effective can we be in our everyday lives if we do not practice what we preach? As stated by Gordon Allport, “unless we try deliberately and persistently to affect our destinies at certain points, especially where broad political policies are concerned, and in some of the other representative areas of our life, we are not democratic personalities, we have no balance or wholeness, and society undergoes proportionate stultification.” If we are interested in democracy and in making the philosophy of our profession a working one we must become actively engaged in supporting and promoting all efforts towards social progress on every level-local, state, national and international. We must become participant citizens in a “do-democracy.”
The challenge to all of us as professional group workers is clear; social action or reaction. We must answer the challenge courageously with every ounce of knowledge and skill we have at our command. If we keep our social worker objectives uppermost in our minds and proceed in accordance with proven techniques, we cannot help but achieve progress and make an accumulative contribution to the total scene. As we face the challenge let us never forget that “no social worker is thoroughly professional in outlook who remains oblivious or indifferent to those forces within the social setting that affect problems with which he deals or the nature and effect of his service.”
References:
Allport, G.W., The Psychology of Participation, Psychological Review, Vol. 53, No. 3 May 1945, p. 127.
Dewey, John, The Philosophy of John Dewey, 1939, Chap. 9.
Hathway, Marion, Social Action and Professional Education, National Conference of Social Work, 1944, p. 365.
Pray, Kenneth L., Social Worker and Partisan Politics, The Compass, June 1945, Vol. XXVI, p.3.