Title:
Select and discuss a theoretical approach to social work, outline its core features and evaluate its potential and limitations for social work practice with particular regard to anti-racist and anti-discriminatory issues.
Initially, my aim in this essay is to identify the key
concepts, influences, problems and realities, in the chosen theoretical concept
of social work to be examined: psychodynamic theory. I will include in the first section the people and ideas
that have influenced psychodynamic theory most of all; the most significant
influence being Sigmund Freud and his psychoanalytic theories; concepts such as
the ego and the id, transference and countertransference, along with the ideas
of defence mechanisms and the Kleinian developments from Freudian though called
object-relations and Bowlby's attachment theory.
Following on from that I will look at how it informs
assessment and intervention in social work practice with a special emphasis on
its pros and cons, whilst showing an awareness of anti-racist and
anti-discriminatory practice.
Though it is safe to say that the main emphasis of psychodynamic social
work is rooted within treating the individual with concern for their mental, or
psychic, equilibrium (predominantly in comparison to others - the social
worker's - supposedly normal state).
I will then conclude the essay by encompassing the entire argument to
extrapolate from it what psychodynamic theory (a theory for social work) says
about a theory of social work: that social work, for psychodynamic theory is
about helping the individual in their own situations and is not, in essence,
about changing, or even challenging, the convention of social reality; be they
political, economic or even cultural.
It would perhaps be useful to give a few quotes here of
what others have summed up psychodynamic theory to be in order to demonstrate
the essential philosophical roots that underpin it. Brearly (1991, p.61) has written that the 'essence of this
approach is that it recognises the importance of psychological approaches -
between self and "significant other" people, between past and present
and between inner and outer reality'.
Concomitant to this Preston-Shoot and Agass (1990, p.22) have written
that psychodynamic theory basically argues that 'past emotions are the cause of
present problems'. The point both
quotes demonstrate is that psychodynamic theory is concerned with intra-psychic
mechanisms and their success or failure; rooted, intrinsically, in idea(l)s of
normal mental behaviour and stability (a dubious idea in the extremes that
often accompany such a normative and normalising philosophy).
So what are the elements of this intra-psychic theory? Obviously it is rooted in a theory of
human development that it sees as universal because it sees it as biological or
pathological. And that theory is
Freudian in principal and one that argues that we all go through specific
stages of development that determine the rest of our lives (stages such as the
mirror phase for Kleinian theory; anal, genital and oral, for stricter Freudian
theorists). The point about most
of these theorists is that the stages occur when we are very young
(occasionally before we are a few months old) and then become lodged in the
unconscious where the problems that occur later in life can surface (due to the
battle between the subconscious and the unconscious, the id and the ego) at a
later stage to create anxiety, neurosis which requires the sub-conscious to
fight against them (using defence mechanisms) and either successfully repress
them or fail; failure resulting in a mental breakdown.
Although most of the theories that psychodynamic theory
utilises emphasise infancy in the development of any adult psychosis some have
gone further to develop 'life-span' theories of human development following on
from Freud. The most notable case
being Erikson, who includes in his later stages of human development cultural
factors. Bowlby added a theory of
attachment (that a successful adult, or childhood, psychic state is influenced
by the attachments that fulfil the individual in early existence and,
obversely, failure to create fulfilling attachments will lead to developmental
breakdown and later mental instability or breakdown). Obviously a failure to create successful attachments in
infancy are seen as instrumental in adult failure to create successful
attachments. Whatever the result,
the cause (or blame) of adult success or failure is seen as due to infant
occurrences that the adult has no power to rectify; making the whole thesis a
very deterministic one.
But no matter how much developments upon Freudian thought
have appeared to enhance psychodynamic theory for social work practice (i.e.
bringing in much greater external influences to count as either significant or
relevant) its main emphasis and fundamental principles are intra-psychic in
essence. That the writers (cf.
Brearly, Preston-Shoot and Agass) who advocate psychodynamic theory for social
work practice spend most of their time on the key concepts that it extrapolated
from Freudian psychoanalysis, followed by a brief justification that it is also
concerned with social influences, clearly makes the point that psychodynamic
theory is intra-psychic orientated and very limiting in its outlook and
potential if one considers the current social realities to have a greater
significance to the individual client (such as Marxist/Feminist, or even
environmentalist and other, social workers would).
We can clearly see that if psychodynamic theory is
intra-psychically orientated (a theory that argues that problems are created
within, or to, a normal psychology and that treatment should be about either
restoring order or normality to that individual's psyche) its use to social
workers faced with clients who have very real restrictions placed upon them by
external realities (racism, disablism, sexism or poverty etc.) is limited and, somewhat,
redundant. This is not to say that
elements of it cannot be extremely useful in understanding the inter-relational
dynamics of the social worker/client relationship.
Transference (where an individual transfers their
anxieties/insecurities on to others) or countertransference (vice verse) - a
couple of the key phrases in the psychodynamic theory repertoire - can be very
real aspects of client/worker relationships. The danger would be in universalising such a perspective, or
even assuming that the cause of such activities is either pathological or abnormal
if not present. Alongside of this
it is not uncommon for attachments between worker/client to be strong and even
parental like but, again, to assume that this is related to either successful
or unsuccessful parental relationships in infancy is not only naive but
reductionism in the extreme and not particularly helpful. The point is that what we are, is very
complex and not reducible to our parents or non-parents (more on this below),
whatever the case may be.
The same is equally true of defence mechanism behaviour
within individuals. It is not
untrue that people do often utilise, or instigate, defence mechanisms to defend
their own positions, insecurities, fears, hopes and embarrassing moments. And it is essential to be aware of
these processes. The danger of
having a rigid theory that universalises such behaviour patterns is that, to be
simplistic, a failure to exhibit a defence mechanism becomes grounds for being
labelled abnormal psychically; it ignores the possibility of freedom of thought,
expression and guilt rooted in extreme awareness. It could even leave open the possibility that an individual
might be labelled as being oblivious to risk and danger, to social convention
if they fail to exhibit 'natural' defence mechanisms. So that what an individual experiences as a liberatory
mentality others could justifiably (based on their own theoretical bents) argue
as being abnormal by the conventions of what is socially considered
normal. Thus it is open to abuse
and misuse in the interests of vested groups or individuals (as it is; so would
argue survivors of the mental health and social work system).
One cannot help but feel that developments in psychodynamic
theory that encompass some degree of awareness about the salience of the social
factors in constructing an individual are attempts to give it an appearance of
relevance that it does not actually deserve. Klein's object-relations theory (which develops on from pure
intra-psychic analysis to inter-psychic) is perhaps a good example; but it
betrays its true alliance by claims to restrict itself to 'significant others'
and is still largely about seeing human development as dependent upon very
early infant situations (i.e. the mirror stage). Erikson's theory also includes a much greater significance
upon social factors, but, again, it merely seems to be additional so as to
prevent its true philosophy from being ridiculed as being to deterministic and
biologically orientated. The point
I am making is that one can clearly see, from any reading of the key texts of
psychodynamic theory explanation or advocation, that it is predominantly a
theory that posits the root cause of any problem that an individual may have
within their own psyche (even if it may occasionally be part of a problem that
was minimally socially influenced), and as such, makes the treatment of (or
intervention in) that problem centre - almost without exclusion - solely upon
the individual. Thus pyschodynamic
theory is a theory that utilises pathology greatly and sees the client as
either being abnormal psychically, or temporarily in an abnormal psychic state
that it is the social workers duty to restore or control further degeneration
in to greater abnormality. One
could argue that it posits the idea that the client is their own worst enemy at
all times; a ridiculous idea in its analysis of either reality or people.
A couple of very keen supporters or Psychodynamic theory
wrote that Psychodynamic theory was important, and largely feared, because it
'illuminates profound and painful truths, the darker side of feelings,
personality and behaviour' (Preston-Shoot & Agass, 1990, p.85). They also argued that it explained the
different types of behaviour amongst people who have had the same or similar
upbringings and similar current lifestyles. One could argue, to counter their claims, that the painful
truths that they see as being revealed are devices behind which greater dark
truths are hidden (social, economic and political inequality that they - as
professionals - benefit from); also it is an illusory idea that any two people
have the same upbringing or live in the same circumstances, that they do not
explains the differences without recourse to pathological labelling or excuses
not to change or challenge fundamental social evils; poverty, ignorance and the
unequal distribution of wealth.
That aside, Psychodynamic Theory does have its use for
social workers and that is in that it can make one more aware of the nuances of
inter-personal relationships because many of its concepts have large elements
of validity in them in what is superficially common-sense (though as Gramci has
shown one must always beware of such a dubious naturalisation of social
constructs).
People do tend to mediate, or even base, their current
relationships upon past ones - that is the reality of existence - the mistake
is to homogenise people in a simplistic unifying theory such as Psychodynamic
Theory. Social Constructionists
(Foucault and Dyer being a couple of theorists who come to mind) have clearly
shown that relationships are instrumental in being significant elements in the
self's construction of the self.
But, and this is the beauty of Social Constructionist thought, people construct
as they are constructed; it is not deterministic because it allows for the
agency of the individual whilst acknowledging the salient factors that
influence us. What Social
Constructionists have also shown us is that it is ridiculous to restrict ones
analysis to either the individual or individuals and their human relationships
(the 'significant others').
Culture (be that politics, morality or literature, films and various
other media) are equally - or can be - significant in mediating and influencing
both the individual and their relationships.
One of the key worries of adopting a Psychodynamic Theory
for practice is that it is very keen on the idea of the 'norm' or the return to
'normality' for the client (what else could such a normative theory
require?). But what is this
normality? Obviously it is
predominately a version of a social norm that is rooted in the consciousness of
the social worker: white, middle-class, male, able-bodied and European. One need not adumbrate upon that to
much but to state that it obviously, by extension, a deeply suspect valuation
of human worth in dealing with people who will not predominantly be any of
those categories, let alone all of them.
Consequently, we can see that it would engender a very simplistic genderisation
of the roles of women in the family.
One of the key criticisms of Freud, and by extension Psychodynamic
Theory, is that it blames the mother in the family for most social ills; let
alone that it subscribes to the illusory supremacy and 'normality' of the
family as a whole.
That Psychodynamic Theory is obviously rooted in the
Medical Model of life rather than the Social Model also makes it deeply suspect
to those people who have suffered most at the hands of the professional who
clings to the fascist bent of the Medical Model disciples: the disabled, the
mentally ill and homosexual (to name but three).
As I said earlier, it does have it uses as a tool of
awareness of psychological tendencies in inter-personal relationships. Clients often do call upon various
defence mechanisms, and they often do display signs of transference and the
like. But is it pathologically
determined and independent of the clients lived life (as both a child and adult), of course not. But an awareness of such behaviour,
such common, though not biological, human traits can enable the social worker
to understand the client better and quicker and to assess their needs (which,
undoubtedly, can be psychological as well as practical). For example, and this highlights both
the success and failure of Psychodynamic Theory, a woman who comes for help as
her children are being abused by her husband. The woman needs immediate practical help, along with
immediate protection for her children; practical intervention that requires no understanding
what so ever in the short term. In
the long term it may be possible to enable both the mother and her husband gain
a greater understanding of why the situation arose. But also the woman and the children may need, in the very
long term, psychological help to mediate and ameliorate their sense of self;
that could be via counselling or assertiveness training. The point is that none of the incident,
or the aftermath can be defined pathologically (it occasionally can be, in the
case of a pathological child abuse but even that may have nothing to previous
familial relationships). The point
I am making is that occasionally something can be defined pathologically, but
not always. The trauma that the
victims of my little case scenario may subsequently have may also be as
influenced by the social stigma that goes with having been a 'victim' as much
as the actual event it self. Who
can tell, not I, not you and definitely not Psychodynamic Theorists.
As I have been stating, the root of Psychodynamic Theory is
firmly based in Psychoanalysis as defined by Freud and his followers. Its use is that its awareness of some
elements of human behaviour: transference, defence mechanisms and other inter-
and intra-psychological aspects of cognitive behaviour. Its problems, which far outweigh its
benefits, are that it is a normative theory rooted in white, middle-class
social constructs which it takes as natural or ideal. It also stereotypes women and all other peoples who do not
fit in to easily identifiable norms.
It also puts the emphasis (and blame) on the cause and correction of
that problem on the individual with a problem (there may not even be a problem,
but Psychodynamic Theory will make it one, per se, but a social inequality).
Consequently, we can see that Psychodynamic Theory in its
emphasis upon the individual and their current and past mental state, and/or,
their past and present 'significant relationships' places the main activity of
social work practice as psychologically orientated. Thus this theory for social work posits a specific
perspective on a theory of social work: that social work is to help the
individual either cope, or fit, their situation. It is in no sense about either drastically changing that
situation (except to a 'normal' one) or challenging the status quo. Thus it accepts the status quo as both
natural and defensible. Not a
theory of social work I would either recommend or subscribe to. My final criticisms of Psychodynamic
Theory I will leave to Payne (1991, p.89) who writes much better than I ever
will and encapsulates not only the essence of Psychodynamic Theory but its
fundamental flaws. He writes:
The reliance on psychoanalytic [ ... ] theory which
fundamentally accepts social order: it is social and personal disorder which
must be understood and dealt with.
Although there may be things wrong with the present environment for
clients, the burden of [Psychodynamic Theory] is to help them accept it and the
worker seeks social reform as a separate activity. [Psychodynamic Theory] is medical - health is a frequently
mentioned issue; diagnosis and treatment are uncritically accepted as the
model. Controversial
interpretations of internal dynamics are accepted as accurate representations
to guide treatment.
Bibliography
Ahmed, S., Cheetham, J., & Small, J., (editors), 1986,
Social Work With Black Children and Their Families, B.T. Batsford Ltd., London
Brearly, J., 1991, A Psychodynamic Approach To Social Work
in Lishman, J., (editor), 1991, Handbook of Theory for Practice Teachers in
Social Work, Jessica Kingsley Publishers, London
Coulshed, V., 1991 (1988), Social Work Practice (2nd
Edition), MacMillan, Basingstoke
Davies, M., 1985, The Essential Social Worker: A Guide To
Positive Practice, Wildwood House (Gower), Aldershot
Howe, D.,
1987, An Introduction to Social Work Theory, Ashgate (Gower), Aldershot
Lishman,
J., (editor), 1991, Handbook of Theory for Practice Teachers in Social Work,
Jessica Kingsley Publishers, London
Payne, M.,
1991, Modern Social Work Theory: A Critical Introduction, MacMillan,
Basingstoke
Preston-Shoot, M., & Agass, D., 1990, Making Sense of Social Work: Psychodynamics, Systems and Practice, MacMillan, Basingstoke