Description
Submit a 2-page document in which you highlight the important contributions of the individual you selected. Your document should
- Outline the individual’s path to working in the social work field.
- Describe the most important contribution(s) of the individual to the field.
- Explain how the study of this individual would inform your practice as a social worker.
- Adhere to APA conventions.
Attached are some articles that can be of help to determine her contributions etc.
European Journal of Social Work, 2016
Vol. 19, Nos. 3–4, 405–419, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2015.1084272
The circle of social reform: the relationship social work—social policy in
Addams and Richmond
O Círculo da Reforma Social: A Relação Serviço Social-Política Social
em Addams e Richmond
Francisco J. N. Branco*
Faculty of Human Sciences, Catholic University of Portugal, Palma de Cima, 1649-023 Lisboa,
Lisbon, Portugal
This article presents some results of a broader purpose of research on the thought
and work of Addams and Richmond, particularly about the relationship between
social work and social policy. First, we aim to contribute to deeper knowledge
on the thought of these two pioneers on this relevant subject for social work
nowadays and, particularly, to remove a relative veil of ignorance Richmond’s
involvement in social reform activities and elaboration on social reform in the
context of the public and social policies process. Second, our proposal is to
support a revision of the orthodox account on the antagonistic or irreconcilable
nature of the two major traditions—social casework (or psychosocial approach)
and social reform (or socio-political approach)—founded by two of the most
influential figures of social work. Based on secondary and primary sources, the
article focuses on the inseparable relationship between social policy and social
work, clearly present in the thought and intervention of these seminal authors,
and sheds new light on on-going debates and the disputed role of social
policy perspectives within professionalised social work and the articulation
between direct intervention with individuals, groups and communities and policy
practice.
Keywords: social work; social policy; social reform; Addams; Richmond
Este artigo apresenta alguns resultados de um projecto mais amplo de investigação
sobre o pensamento e a obra de Addams e Richmond, particularmente sobre a
relação entre serviço social e política social. Em primeiro lugar, visa-se
contribuir para um mais profundo conhecimento sobre o pensamento destas
duas pioneiras sobre uma relevante questão para o serviço social contemporâneo
e, particularmente, remover o véu de ignorância sobre o envolvimento de
Richmond em actividades em prol da reforma social e sobre a sua elaboração
sobre a reforma social no contexto do processo das políticas públicas e política
social. Em segundo lugar, é propósito deste artigo defender a necessidade de
revisão da perspectiva ortodoxa que preconiza o antagonismo ou natureza
irreconciliável de duas das maiores tradições do serviço social—o serviço social
de caso (ou abordagem psicossocial) e reforma social (ou abordagem
sociopolítica)—fundadas por duas das suas mais influentes figuras. Baseada em
fontes secundárias e primárias, o artigo foca a inseparável relação entre política
social e serviço social, claramente presente no pensamento e na intervenção
*Email: fnbranco@fch.lisboa.ucp.pt
© 2015 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
406
F. J. N. Branco
destas seminais autoras, e lança nova luz sobre debates em curso e o papel
contravertido da perspectiva da política social no serviço social profissional e a
articulação entre a intervenção direta com indivíduos, grupos e comunidades e a
prática política em serviço social.
Palavras-chave: Serviço Social; Política Social; Reforma Social; Addams;
Richmond
Social work did not evolve in a vacuum. A series of events affected its development and
will continue to shape social work in future ( … ). These events influenced decisions about
the extent to which this society would respond to its members’ social needs and, subsequently, to the social programs that would be supported. (Morales & Sheafor, 2002,
p. 51)
The socio-historical interpretation of the genesis and institutionalisation of the social
professions in general, and social work in particular, leads us to argue that these professions and occupations emerged in response to social needs and problems. Moreover,
the professions’ historical itinerary embodies societal projects that are both historical
and socially contextualised (Groulx, 2007; Mayer, 2002).
Modern social work lies in two important social movements that present themselves as a response to social and urban questions in industrial society: the Movement
of Charity Organizations Societies (COS) and the Settlements Movement. In addition,
modern social work constitutes itself as a professional discipline in social sciences, as a
‘sociatry’1 (Richmond, 1930, pp. 474–478), dedicated to the study of and intervention
in social problems. In this perspective, ‘l’effort social’ (Mayer, 2002) embodies the
indissoluble relationship between social policy and social work, understood in a
broad sense to includes not only public policy.
In the history of social work, the opposition between two conceptions, the psychosocial approach and the social reform (or socio-political approach), is embodied by its
most influential pioneers: Mary Richmond and Jane Addams. These two seminal personalities founded two traditions in social work, which have been, with repeated insistence, erected in antagonistic or irreconcilable visions. However, further analysis of
their civic engagement in the context of the Progressive Era and their thoughts and
works allow us to observe the blurring of the opposition and the possibilities for
fruitful articulation of their visions and approaches. Effectively, for Addams and
Richmond, there is, under distinct influences and forms, an awareness of the relationship of inseparability between social work and social policy.
Considering the nature and contextualisation of the research subject some preliminary notes are needed. Richmond and Addams were central figures to the development of social work in the USA but their thoughts and works were clearly
influenced by social movements, initiatives and figures that were born in UK. Generally speaking, the Settlements antecedents took place in England in 1854 with the
establishment of Working Men’s College in London by F. D. Maurice; this occurred
30 years before the establishment of the pivotal Toynbee Hall, Whitechapel (1884)
under the influence of Samuel Barnett.2 The same occurred with the COS Movement.
The first COS was founded in England in 1869 and spread in the USA between 1877
and 19203 (Carson, 1990, pp. 1–68; Lengermann & Niebrugge, 2007; Mink &
O’Connor, 2004, pp. 143, 656; Popple & Reid, 1999, pp. 9–29; Shaw, 2014; Woods
& Kennedy, 1911, p. x).
European Journal of Social Work
407
Despite the inspiration referred to, the transatlantic reciprocal influences and
observed commonalities, the development of social work in the USA, the UK and
other European countries presents singularities that should not be dissolved in a universal history (see, e.g. Lengermann & Niebrugge, 2007; Lengermann & NiebruggeBrantley, 2002 and Shaw’s 2014 research works on the relationship between sociology
and social work in the USA and the UK).
In line with this argument it is important to point out that the orthodox account on
the antagonistic or irreconcilable nature of the two major traditions founded by these
influential early figures of social work cannot be generalised. In some national and
international contexts this thesis could sound like a ‘straw man’ argument, one
denied by both the social work education and professional pathways.
A critical aspect in historical research is the risk of anachronism. As Seed (1973)
points out:
There is a difference between trying to understand the historical background to events
and traditions from which there is evidence that ideas about modern social work developed […] and simply claiming a piece of history as belonging to modern social work.
(p. x)
Or, as (Shaw, 2014, p. 125) emphasises, not avoiding ‘linguistic temporal elisions’. In
this sense it is important to more precisely clarify the use of some terms, notions and
concepts.
Not discussing here the dimensions and milestones that authorise the more accurate
use of terms like social work, sociology, social sciences, we mobilise the notion of pioneers, precursors or forerunners as adequate to qualify the ideas, initiatives and works
developed by these figures. From this point of view it is possible, for example, to
qualify Hull-House Maps and Papers as a work of social science (Schultz, 2007;
Sklar, 1998), ‘settlement sociology research’ or ‘science of social reform’ (Lengermann &
Niebrugge, 2007) and it will be acceptable to at least consider this kind of works (see
Lengermann & Niebrugge, 2007, Table 3.2.) as precursors of modern sociology.
Another important consideration is the use of ‘social policy’. Social policy as scientific discipline emerged in the context of the twentieth century under the great influence of the British school of social administration with Titmuss as a prominent
figure in the context of the London School of Economics. However, the use of
social policy is consistent with either the understanding that the establishment of
social policy as scientific discipline was preceded by earlier social work forerunner
initiatives for social reform or a broad conception of social policy nowadays (see
Alcock & Ferguson, 2012, p. 4).4 Is interesting to note that Marshal (1967, p. 33)
used the expression social reform policies to reference policies that acquired form in
the century transition period from XIX to XX. It is in this sense that we consider
the focus on the relationship between social work and social policy—more precisely,
the relationship between social work oriented toward creating public policies (see Lengermann & Niebrugge, 2007, p. 109) and direct intervention, in Addams’ and Richmond’s conceptions. Following this perspective, the policy practice is conceptualised
according to Wyers (1991):
Policy-practice in social work is an approach in which social policy and direct social work
practice are combined. […]. Requisite to policy practice behavior is the requirement that
408
F. J. N. Branco
direct service practitioners (including supervisors) understand and analyze the effects of
extant social policy on clients and participate in the modification of social policy that is
harmful to clients and in the elimination of policy deficits by working for new policy.
These behaviors are operationalized at several policy levels: the personal, the organizational, the community, and the legislative. (p. 246)
and by Gal and Weiss-Gal (2013):
Activities undertaken by social workers as an integral part of their professional activity in
diverse fields and types of practice, that focus on the formulation and implementation of
new policies as well as on existing policies, and suggested changes in them. These activities
seek to further policies on the organizational, local, national and international levels that
are in accord with social work values. (p. 5)
The Progressive Era and the social work pioneers involvement in social reform
If the Government can have a department to take such an interest in what is happening to
the cotton crop, why can’t it have a bureau to look after the nation’s child crop? (Assertion
assigned to Lillian Wald in 1903) (Bradbury, 1956; Muncy, 1991)
The lives and careers of Addams and Richmond largely coincided with the context of
the Progressive Era, a period of US history considered to be between the 1890s and the
early 1920s (Herrick, 2005; Maclean & Williams, 2012; Piott, 2011; Robertson, 2015):
Progressivism reflected a growing concern about the physical, economic, and moral problems created by industrialization, urbanization, and the concentration of economic
power [and express an impulse towards] to expand democracy, professionalize government, and make industrial capitalism more humane. (Robertson, 2015, p. 42)
According to Robertson (2015, pp. 42–43) several streams fed the progressive impulse:
(1) Industrialisation with the consequent rapid transformation of American
society.
(2) Social disruption caused by industrialisation, which gave rise to a profound
change in the social policy agenda.
(3) The dynamic innovation and reform spirit based on Christian values that
informed the Social Gospel movement in response to very complex context.
(4) The expansion of advocacy groups.
This hinge and reform period is indistinguishable from the emergence and institutionalisation of social work as a profession.
As Pittman-Munke (1985, p. 161) stresses, despite the extremely complexity of the
Progressive Movement there was agreement on major objectives, namely the political
reform and the betterment of social conditions, in which Addams and Richmond were,
differently, very involved.
Jane Addams had much larger public and social notoriety than Richmond. The
engagement of Jane Addams in social reform is relativity well known and recognised.
Social reform was one of the pillars of the Settlements Movement, particularly at HullHouse, one of the three «R’s» that formed the motto and the socio-political conception
of the movement: Research, Reform, Residence.
European Journal of Social Work
409
As James Hurt notes, in the introduction to the new edition Twenty years at HullHouse, Addams’ action as a social reformer had a significant impact:
The Hull-House reformers were not responsible, of course, for all turn-of-the-century
reforms—the abolition of child labour, the regulation of working hours and conditions
for women, enforcement of safe work conditions, reform juvenile law, and a large
number of others—but were responsible for a remarkable number of them, and many
others were inspired by the spirit of Hull-House. (p. ix)
For Addams, policy-oriented practice was an intrinsic and central element of social
work as ‘sociatry’, naturally without prejudice to other dimensions present in her
settlement projects.
In Twenty years at Hull-House (1912/1990)5 Addams very clearly describes not only
her vision of the place of research but presents several examples of research activity that
covered a broad spectrum of issues from the influence of health conditions in environmental and living conditions of immigrants, studies on children and young people in
school settings, and in factory work, as well as in many other areas such as housing conditions. The research activity carried out at the Hull-House had a set of very peculiar and
relevant characteristics: it was held by residents or employees linked to the University of
Chicago, involved the residents in various dimensions, sought to establish cooperation
with government departments from different domains, was understood as an essential
support for social reforms mediums and was long range. This is demonstrated in
Addams’ (1912/1990) formulation: ‘Settlement is led along from the concrete to the
abstract’ (p. 176). It should also be stressed that research was presented to Addams
and other residents as one of the vectors supporting the actions of social reform, particularly illustrated in the collective work Hull-House Maps and Papers (Residents &
Schultz, 1895/2007) as emphasised by (Lengermann & Niebrugge, 2007):
To be a successful advocate, settlement sociologists needed to build up, out of what they
learned as neighbors, information that would be accepted by a wider public as valid. In
this quest for accurate and graspable information, the settlement sociologists developed
a rich methodology. They used multiple research and data collection strategies,
drawing on both qualitative and quantitative techniques. They concretized social problems in terms of empirical experiences of human pain. They analytically demonstrated
that that pain occurred not randomly but in a pattern caused by social structure.
They presented their information and analysis in an accessible form for a general public.
And they concluded their research with proposals for change—actions to be taken and
policies to be enacted.
For American sociology they pioneered the use of many strategies now taken for granted
by academic sociologists: the survey, the interview, the questionnaire, personal budget
keeping, participant-observation, key informants, and secondary data analysis (which
included the census, legislation, memoirs and diaries, wage and cost-of-living records,
court reports, social worker reports, tax rolls, nursery rhymes, and industrial accident
reports). (pp. 102–103)
In the same direction Maclean and Williams (2012) note that the maps and papers are
the synthesis of the main features of Settlement Movement:
Settlements functioned as a vital link between the harsh realities of urban living and the
populations around them, often recently-arrived immigrants or rural migrants. They
410
F. J. N. Branco
provided adult education, meeting spaces for community groups and labor unions, and
assistance in the process of acculturation. They also collected data in the form of statistics
and systematic observations to advocate for needed services and social reforms. (p. 238,
emphasis added)
Addams was the central figure of the Chicago Reforming Cohort6 (Maclean &
Williams, 2012; Muncy, 1991) developing an influential leadership in the constitution
of a ‘female dominion’ (Muncy, 1991) of policy-making. This task was pivotal to the
establishment of several public agencies, at state and federal level, including the
paradigmatic Children’s Bureau of the Federal Labour Office, an agency created by
Congress in 1912 and headed between 1912 and 1920 by Julia Latrhop and Florence
Kelly between 1921 and 1934 (Lengermann & Niebrugge, 1998, (Figure 7–1)).
The engagement of Jane Addams as a social reformer is broader than her role as a
prominent figure of the Settlements Movement. In 1909, Jane Addams was elected
president of the National Conference of Charities and Corrections and was involved
with its Social Standards for Industry platform whose agenda included the demand for
the establishment of minimum standards of industry work conditions for working class
men, regulation of employment for women and child labour protection, and a system
of accident and old-age and unemployment insurance (Franklin, 1986, p. 513).
Despite this being an under acknowledged dimension of Mary Richmond’s profile,
she exercised a leading role in campaigns for social reform, for the adoption of legislation
in the areas of education, employment, housing, health care and public health and
women status, and was particularly active on welfare of children and women issues
(Agnew, 2004, p. 6, 97, 113; Pittman-Munke, 1985, p. 163; Richmond, 1930, p. 217).
Some of more relevant social reform activities that Richmond was involved in occurred
during the Philadelphia years (1900–1909) during her years as secretary of the Philadelphia Society for Organising Charity. In that period Mary Richmond elaborated the draft
of the Wife Desertion Law aiming to provide relief to women facing poverty and deprivation as a result of their husbands’ desertion. At the same time, she sponsored together
with the University of Pennsylvania a scholarship to promote the study of vagrancy and
homeless men (Agnew, 2004, pp. 107–108; Pittman-Munke, 1985, p. 163). Another very
important focus of Richmond’s attention during this era was her engagement with the
child protection activities and reforms contributing to the foundation of Pennsylvania
Child Labour Committee and child labour legislation, to establishing the Juvenile
Court and Children’s Bureau and to the reform of the Society to Protect Children
from Cruelty (Agnew, 2004, p. 113; Pittman-Munke, 1985, p. 164).
Later, during her position as director of the Russell Sage Foundation in New York,
despite the time devoted to the Social Diagnosis project and the training and social
work education, Mary Richmond remained active and involved both in research
and social reform. Her involvement is exemplified by the ‘Study of Nine Hundred
and Eighty-five Widows Known to Certain Charity Organization Societies in 1910’,
which drove Richmond to advocate reforms related with to health, old-age and unemployment insurance (Agnew, 2004, pp. 126–127).
According to Robertson (2015), despite the limitations experienced by these social
reform initiatives due to the federalist nature of the American political system, implying
that major initiatives have had a greater impact at the state level that at national level
and a significant heterogeneity, their legacy represents, without any doubt, an ‘archipelago of new precedents, strategies, groups, networks and social policies’ (2015, p. 55).
European Journal of Social Work
411
Social casework and social reform: parallels or intersecting paths
They were the same social needs that inspired the work of the pioneers of Social Casework
[Mary Richmond] and […] Jane Addams in the Settlements […]. (Paré, 1956/1961, p. xv)
Divergent social origins, backgrounds and itineraries may explain different affiliations
with the social movements within the Progressive Era, and ideological orientations
with expression in their thought concerning the urban poverty and other social
problems (Agnew, 2004; Franklin, 1986, p. 510). As Agnew (2004) notes ‘Richmond
differed in social background from many of her reform contemporaries, and yet she
shared their indebtedness to a core of values and a reform spirit that characterized
middle-class Victorian culture’ (p. 8). On the other hand:
Addams, more than other women in her times, symbolized the new woman who took her
place in the world of work. […] She also asserted the values of social cooperation against
the satisfaction of the individual, spoke against the laissez-fare policies that justified
industrial capitalism, endorsed woman suffrage, and supported welfare programmes.
(Franklin, 1986, p. 512)7
These differences were at the basis of the public debate between these two influent
leaders.
According to Agnew (2004, p. 10), Mary Richmond, in the Baltimore years, vacillated between a nostalgic and an innovative approach to poverty, between the traditional orientation of the COS Movement (based on the education and
development of the character of the poor) and social reform (under the impact of
the economic depressions and the influence of social gospels). Following the Agnew
argument,
like many late-nineteenth-century middle-class reformers, Richmond served as intermediary between religious and secular organizations, channeling her leadership skills towards
social reform within a secular context, while drawing on social gospel teachings in forging
a ‘middle’ way of reform. (2004, p.10)
Curtis (2001, pp. 1–16) gives us a very clear framework to understand the challenges faced by Victorian Protestantism:
The social gospel appeared at a critical moment in American history […]. Consequently,
social gospelers were among those who experienced anxiety when the matrix of beliefs
and values that had given life meaning in the nineteenth century began to make less
and less sense. Struggling to find religious and personal meaning themselves, they
gradually developed a social interpretation of religion that contributed to the formation
of the new culture that emerged in the twentieth century. An examination of the social gospel can reveal the intersection of faith and culture and demonstrate how social and cultural facts of life impinged on religion. […] Because of its origin in an era of cultural
transformation, the social gospel can help explain how a modern, secular, consumption-oriented culture took root and flourished in Protestant Victorian soil. (p. 6)
This was the ‘soil’ which also nurtured the growth and formation of the Unitarian
Richmond, which subsequently ‘provide Richmond’s impetus for reflecting on her
life, on society, and on constrictive social reform’ (Agnew, 2004, p. 46). In addition,
similarly to other members of the Protestant community, she embraces the social
412
F. J. N. Branco
gospel in a commitment to the ‘Kingdom of God’ on earth in this life, contrasting with
traditional Protestantism ‘next life’ (see Curtis, 2001; Horstman, 2005; MacLean & Williams, 2012).
Valuing social reform, Richmond not only acted according to her religion convictions but also consistently with her scientific elaboration. Richmond was influenced
by George Mead as well as Edwin Thomas when she formulated ‘the man in situation’
as a core concept of her theory. As Aranda (2004, p. 129) argues, the works of Mary
Richmond, from 1917, should be interpreted as influenced by interactionism, in
which she inspired to resolve the conflict between the individual and society, and not
in Freud’s psychoanalysis. This argument is consistent with the Hamilton (1951) statement in the second edition of Theory and practice of social casework, when she says,
‘Until the thirties, casework had not felt the impact of ego psychology as it has developed from psychoanalysis […]’ (p. v). In the same sense, Robinson (1930) also supports
this idea when she points out that ‘In spite of [the] statement of the psychological basis of
case work, however, it is the sociological rather than the psychological basis which
organizes and gives unity to her presentation in Social Diagnosis’ (p. 38).
Despite remaining convinced of the relevance of social casework with families,
Richmond, primarily during the Philadelphia years (1990/1909), progressively
changed her thought about the indispensability of broader reform of social conditions,
calling for a new and large ways of helping and developed her personal and practical
conception—the circle of social reform—to the linkage between individual and
family work and social reform. As Agnew emphasises, referring to her experience
with the research developed in the New York Years in the 1910s, ‘Richmond used
the evidence of her study on widows to promote other avenues of wholesale reform’
(Agnew, 2004, p. 126).
Then, in spite of the public debate and divergences relative to the Settlement Movement (and directly or indirectly to Addams), Richmond (1930) conceptualised the
articulation between ‘social work by individual by individual, and the social work
for the mass’, as her address at the National Conference of Charities and Correction,
in 1915, reveals:
Social case work does different things for and with different people—it specializes and
differentiates; social reform generalizes and simplifies by discovering ways of doing the
same thing for everybody. Together it is possible for them to achieve social well-being;
acting separately and more or less at cross purposes they achieve only the most partial
and transitory results. The only kind of social case work in which I believe, therefore,
and the only kind to which I shall refer today, may be defined as the art of doing different
things for and with people by co-operating with them to achieve at one and the same time
their own and society’s betterment. (pp. 374–375)
This is especially clear in what can be considered her mature work What is social case
work, which shows the recognition of the relevance of policy-oriented practice in social
work:
The other forms of social work, all of which interplay with case work, are three—group
work, social reform, and social research. Case work seeks to effect better social relations
by dealing with individuals one by one or within the intimate group of the family. But
social work also achieves the same general ends in these other ways. It includes a wide
variety of group activities—settlement work, recreational work, club, neighbourhood
and local community work […] By a method different from that employed in either
European Journal of Social Work
413
case or group work, though with the same end in view, social reform seeks to improve conditions in the mass, chiefly through social propaganda and social legislation. (Richmond,
1922, p. 223)
It can be seen too in claiming as one of the key roles of social casework its role of
‘observer of social life’:
No better advice could be given to family case workers, I believe, than to study and
develop their work at its point of intersection with social research, with group activities
and with social reform or mass betterment. This does not mean that they should drop
their work or slight it in order to make special studies or to engage in legislative campaigns, but it does mean that they should be more scientifically productive than they
now are, that they should be making social discoveries as a by-product of successful
case work […] and that they should be bearing faithful witness to the need of social
reforms wherever their daily work reveals the need. They should supply the pertinent
details necessary during the preliminary period of public education, and help later
to make any new legislative measures workable by applying them in their case work.
(Richmond, 1922, p. 225)
This orientation to intersecting paths is somewhat highlighted by Addams (1912/
1990):
In the earlier years of American Settlements, the residents were sometimes impatient with
the accepted methods of charitable administration and hoped, through residence in an
industrial neighbourhood, to discover more cooperative and advanced methods of
dealing with the problems of poverty, which are so dependent upon industrial mal-adjustment. But during twenty years, the Settlements have seen the charitable people, through
their very knowledge of the poor, constantly approach nearer to those methods formerly
designated as radical. (p. 177, emphasis added)
If there are documented conflicts between these two early influential strands of
American social work, for example the disputes about the orientation of social
work education programmes (see Lengermann & Niebrugge, 2007, pp. 90–93;
Muncy, 1991, pp. 66–92; Williams & MacLean, 2012, pp. 244–251), the limits of
the settlement approach and the necessity of coalition and networking between
these and other key actors for social reform achievements, they pragmatically
moved the settlements’ leaders to take the road of convergence in action and attenuated public divergences. As Addams (1912/1990) refers explicitly:
In the hearing before a Congressional Committee for the establishment of a Children’s
Bureau, residents in American Settlements joined their fellow philanthropists in urging
the need of this indispensable instrument for collecting and disseminating information,
which would make possible concerted intelligent action on behalf of children. (p. 178)
Muncy (1991) reports another example of this convergence in the creation of the
School of Social Service Administration (Chicago University). In this process
Abbott and Breckinridge came to dispute Graham Taylor regarding the professional
training and education orientation. Advocating for a social reform-oriented training
for social work, putting emphasis in social research and policy-making, Abbott
and Breckinridge diverged in Taylor’s vision (see Muncy, 1991, chapter 3; Williams
& MacLean, 2012, pp. 244–251) oriented to ‘the training of capable men and women
414
F. J. N. Branco
for professional and volunteer social, civic and philanthropic work’ (Taylor as cited
in Muncy, 1991, p. 74). However, although they devalue the caseworkers, according
to Muncy (1991), aiming to support the social work education project they:
needed to essay an infusion with case work heritage, reconciling different perspectives
within the profession, and considering the possible conciliation between case-work and
social reform, supporting the perspective that well-educated caseworkers could transform
their door-to-door experiences into scientific data and learn to become the policymakers.
(pp. 81–82 emphasis added)
In Abbot’s words:
The caseworker of today should become later … the Secretary of a Commission to redraft
the poor laws of a State or organize a new system of prison labor.
The social worker meets at every turn questions of social legislation, proposals for social
reform, and even the more immediate problems of inadequate wages, of trade unionism,
of insurance, of workmen’s compensation. She is called on to recommend revisions of the
poor law, of probation statutes, of the criminal law. (Abbot as cited in Muncy, 1991,
pp. 83–84)
The methods of reform
Mass betterment and individual betterment are interdependent … social reform and
social work of necessity progressing together. (Richmond 1917, p. 25)
In line with Richmond’s thought, it is interesting to consider her conceptualisation of
the ‘Cycle of Social Reform’. In an article published in the International Journal of
Ethics in 1906, called ‘The Retail Method of Reform’, but relatively unfamiliar,
Mary Richmond supports the idea that an effective social reform implies a double circular movement beginning with the direct intervention at the micro-level, introduced
using the figure of ‘ret
Vol. 19, Nos. 3–4, 405–419, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2015.1084272
The circle of social reform: the relationship social work—social policy in
Addams and Richmond
O Círculo da Reforma Social: A Relação Serviço Social-Política Social
em Addams e Richmond
Francisco J. N. Branco*
Faculty of Human Sciences, Catholic University of Portugal, Palma de Cima, 1649-023 Lisboa,
Lisbon, Portugal
This article presents some results of a broader purpose of research on the thought
and work of Addams and Richmond, particularly about the relationship between
social work and social policy. First, we aim to contribute to deeper knowledge
on the thought of these two pioneers on this relevant subject for social work
nowadays and, particularly, to remove a relative veil of ignorance Richmond’s
involvement in social reform activities and elaboration on social reform in the
context of the public and social policies process. Second, our proposal is to
support a revision of the orthodox account on the antagonistic or irreconcilable
nature of the two major traditions—social casework (or psychosocial approach)
and social reform (or socio-political approach)—founded by two of the most
influential figures of social work. Based on secondary and primary sources, the
article focuses on the inseparable relationship between social policy and social
work, clearly present in the thought and intervention of these seminal authors,
and sheds new light on on-going debates and the disputed role of social
policy perspectives within professionalised social work and the articulation
between direct intervention with individuals, groups and communities and policy
practice.
Keywords: social work; social policy; social reform; Addams; Richmond
Este artigo apresenta alguns resultados de um projecto mais amplo de investigação
sobre o pensamento e a obra de Addams e Richmond, particularmente sobre a
relação entre serviço social e política social. Em primeiro lugar, visa-se
contribuir para um mais profundo conhecimento sobre o pensamento destas
duas pioneiras sobre uma relevante questão para o serviço social contemporâneo
e, particularmente, remover o véu de ignorância sobre o envolvimento de
Richmond em actividades em prol da reforma social e sobre a sua elaboração
sobre a reforma social no contexto do processo das políticas públicas e política
social. Em segundo lugar, é propósito deste artigo defender a necessidade de
revisão da perspectiva ortodoxa que preconiza o antagonismo ou natureza
irreconciliável de duas das maiores tradições do serviço social—o serviço social
de caso (ou abordagem psicossocial) e reforma social (ou abordagem
sociopolítica)—fundadas por duas das suas mais influentes figuras. Baseada em
fontes secundárias e primárias, o artigo foca a inseparável relação entre política
social e serviço social, claramente presente no pensamento e na intervenção
*Email: fnbranco@fch.lisboa.ucp.pt
© 2015 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
406
F. J. N. Branco
destas seminais autoras, e lança nova luz sobre debates em curso e o papel
contravertido da perspectiva da política social no serviço social profissional e a
articulação entre a intervenção direta com indivíduos, grupos e comunidades e a
prática política em serviço social.
Palavras-chave: Serviço Social; Política Social; Reforma Social; Addams;
Richmond
Social work did not evolve in a vacuum. A series of events affected its development and
will continue to shape social work in future ( … ). These events influenced decisions about
the extent to which this society would respond to its members’ social needs and, subsequently, to the social programs that would be supported. (Morales & Sheafor, 2002,
p. 51)
The socio-historical interpretation of the genesis and institutionalisation of the social
professions in general, and social work in particular, leads us to argue that these professions and occupations emerged in response to social needs and problems. Moreover,
the professions’ historical itinerary embodies societal projects that are both historical
and socially contextualised (Groulx, 2007; Mayer, 2002).
Modern social work lies in two important social movements that present themselves as a response to social and urban questions in industrial society: the Movement
of Charity Organizations Societies (COS) and the Settlements Movement. In addition,
modern social work constitutes itself as a professional discipline in social sciences, as a
‘sociatry’1 (Richmond, 1930, pp. 474–478), dedicated to the study of and intervention
in social problems. In this perspective, ‘l’effort social’ (Mayer, 2002) embodies the
indissoluble relationship between social policy and social work, understood in a
broad sense to includes not only public policy.
In the history of social work, the opposition between two conceptions, the psychosocial approach and the social reform (or socio-political approach), is embodied by its
most influential pioneers: Mary Richmond and Jane Addams. These two seminal personalities founded two traditions in social work, which have been, with repeated insistence, erected in antagonistic or irreconcilable visions. However, further analysis of
their civic engagement in the context of the Progressive Era and their thoughts and
works allow us to observe the blurring of the opposition and the possibilities for
fruitful articulation of their visions and approaches. Effectively, for Addams and
Richmond, there is, under distinct influences and forms, an awareness of the relationship of inseparability between social work and social policy.
Considering the nature and contextualisation of the research subject some preliminary notes are needed. Richmond and Addams were central figures to the development of social work in the USA but their thoughts and works were clearly
influenced by social movements, initiatives and figures that were born in UK. Generally speaking, the Settlements antecedents took place in England in 1854 with the
establishment of Working Men’s College in London by F. D. Maurice; this occurred
30 years before the establishment of the pivotal Toynbee Hall, Whitechapel (1884)
under the influence of Samuel Barnett.2 The same occurred with the COS Movement.
The first COS was founded in England in 1869 and spread in the USA between 1877
and 19203 (Carson, 1990, pp. 1–68; Lengermann & Niebrugge, 2007; Mink &
O’Connor, 2004, pp. 143, 656; Popple & Reid, 1999, pp. 9–29; Shaw, 2014; Woods
& Kennedy, 1911, p. x).
European Journal of Social Work
407
Despite the inspiration referred to, the transatlantic reciprocal influences and
observed commonalities, the development of social work in the USA, the UK and
other European countries presents singularities that should not be dissolved in a universal history (see, e.g. Lengermann & Niebrugge, 2007; Lengermann & NiebruggeBrantley, 2002 and Shaw’s 2014 research works on the relationship between sociology
and social work in the USA and the UK).
In line with this argument it is important to point out that the orthodox account on
the antagonistic or irreconcilable nature of the two major traditions founded by these
influential early figures of social work cannot be generalised. In some national and
international contexts this thesis could sound like a ‘straw man’ argument, one
denied by both the social work education and professional pathways.
A critical aspect in historical research is the risk of anachronism. As Seed (1973)
points out:
There is a difference between trying to understand the historical background to events
and traditions from which there is evidence that ideas about modern social work developed […] and simply claiming a piece of history as belonging to modern social work.
(p. x)
Or, as (Shaw, 2014, p. 125) emphasises, not avoiding ‘linguistic temporal elisions’. In
this sense it is important to more precisely clarify the use of some terms, notions and
concepts.
Not discussing here the dimensions and milestones that authorise the more accurate
use of terms like social work, sociology, social sciences, we mobilise the notion of pioneers, precursors or forerunners as adequate to qualify the ideas, initiatives and works
developed by these figures. From this point of view it is possible, for example, to
qualify Hull-House Maps and Papers as a work of social science (Schultz, 2007;
Sklar, 1998), ‘settlement sociology research’ or ‘science of social reform’ (Lengermann &
Niebrugge, 2007) and it will be acceptable to at least consider this kind of works (see
Lengermann & Niebrugge, 2007, Table 3.2.) as precursors of modern sociology.
Another important consideration is the use of ‘social policy’. Social policy as scientific discipline emerged in the context of the twentieth century under the great influence of the British school of social administration with Titmuss as a prominent
figure in the context of the London School of Economics. However, the use of
social policy is consistent with either the understanding that the establishment of
social policy as scientific discipline was preceded by earlier social work forerunner
initiatives for social reform or a broad conception of social policy nowadays (see
Alcock & Ferguson, 2012, p. 4).4 Is interesting to note that Marshal (1967, p. 33)
used the expression social reform policies to reference policies that acquired form in
the century transition period from XIX to XX. It is in this sense that we consider
the focus on the relationship between social work and social policy—more precisely,
the relationship between social work oriented toward creating public policies (see Lengermann & Niebrugge, 2007, p. 109) and direct intervention, in Addams’ and Richmond’s conceptions. Following this perspective, the policy practice is conceptualised
according to Wyers (1991):
Policy-practice in social work is an approach in which social policy and direct social work
practice are combined. […]. Requisite to policy practice behavior is the requirement that
408
F. J. N. Branco
direct service practitioners (including supervisors) understand and analyze the effects of
extant social policy on clients and participate in the modification of social policy that is
harmful to clients and in the elimination of policy deficits by working for new policy.
These behaviors are operationalized at several policy levels: the personal, the organizational, the community, and the legislative. (p. 246)
and by Gal and Weiss-Gal (2013):
Activities undertaken by social workers as an integral part of their professional activity in
diverse fields and types of practice, that focus on the formulation and implementation of
new policies as well as on existing policies, and suggested changes in them. These activities
seek to further policies on the organizational, local, national and international levels that
are in accord with social work values. (p. 5)
The Progressive Era and the social work pioneers involvement in social reform
If the Government can have a department to take such an interest in what is happening to
the cotton crop, why can’t it have a bureau to look after the nation’s child crop? (Assertion
assigned to Lillian Wald in 1903) (Bradbury, 1956; Muncy, 1991)
The lives and careers of Addams and Richmond largely coincided with the context of
the Progressive Era, a period of US history considered to be between the 1890s and the
early 1920s (Herrick, 2005; Maclean & Williams, 2012; Piott, 2011; Robertson, 2015):
Progressivism reflected a growing concern about the physical, economic, and moral problems created by industrialization, urbanization, and the concentration of economic
power [and express an impulse towards] to expand democracy, professionalize government, and make industrial capitalism more humane. (Robertson, 2015, p. 42)
According to Robertson (2015, pp. 42–43) several streams fed the progressive impulse:
(1) Industrialisation with the consequent rapid transformation of American
society.
(2) Social disruption caused by industrialisation, which gave rise to a profound
change in the social policy agenda.
(3) The dynamic innovation and reform spirit based on Christian values that
informed the Social Gospel movement in response to very complex context.
(4) The expansion of advocacy groups.
This hinge and reform period is indistinguishable from the emergence and institutionalisation of social work as a profession.
As Pittman-Munke (1985, p. 161) stresses, despite the extremely complexity of the
Progressive Movement there was agreement on major objectives, namely the political
reform and the betterment of social conditions, in which Addams and Richmond were,
differently, very involved.
Jane Addams had much larger public and social notoriety than Richmond. The
engagement of Jane Addams in social reform is relativity well known and recognised.
Social reform was one of the pillars of the Settlements Movement, particularly at HullHouse, one of the three «R’s» that formed the motto and the socio-political conception
of the movement: Research, Reform, Residence.
European Journal of Social Work
409
As James Hurt notes, in the introduction to the new edition Twenty years at HullHouse, Addams’ action as a social reformer had a significant impact:
The Hull-House reformers were not responsible, of course, for all turn-of-the-century
reforms—the abolition of child labour, the regulation of working hours and conditions
for women, enforcement of safe work conditions, reform juvenile law, and a large
number of others—but were responsible for a remarkable number of them, and many
others were inspired by the spirit of Hull-House. (p. ix)
For Addams, policy-oriented practice was an intrinsic and central element of social
work as ‘sociatry’, naturally without prejudice to other dimensions present in her
settlement projects.
In Twenty years at Hull-House (1912/1990)5 Addams very clearly describes not only
her vision of the place of research but presents several examples of research activity that
covered a broad spectrum of issues from the influence of health conditions in environmental and living conditions of immigrants, studies on children and young people in
school settings, and in factory work, as well as in many other areas such as housing conditions. The research activity carried out at the Hull-House had a set of very peculiar and
relevant characteristics: it was held by residents or employees linked to the University of
Chicago, involved the residents in various dimensions, sought to establish cooperation
with government departments from different domains, was understood as an essential
support for social reforms mediums and was long range. This is demonstrated in
Addams’ (1912/1990) formulation: ‘Settlement is led along from the concrete to the
abstract’ (p. 176). It should also be stressed that research was presented to Addams
and other residents as one of the vectors supporting the actions of social reform, particularly illustrated in the collective work Hull-House Maps and Papers (Residents &
Schultz, 1895/2007) as emphasised by (Lengermann & Niebrugge, 2007):
To be a successful advocate, settlement sociologists needed to build up, out of what they
learned as neighbors, information that would be accepted by a wider public as valid. In
this quest for accurate and graspable information, the settlement sociologists developed
a rich methodology. They used multiple research and data collection strategies,
drawing on both qualitative and quantitative techniques. They concretized social problems in terms of empirical experiences of human pain. They analytically demonstrated
that that pain occurred not randomly but in a pattern caused by social structure.
They presented their information and analysis in an accessible form for a general public.
And they concluded their research with proposals for change—actions to be taken and
policies to be enacted.
For American sociology they pioneered the use of many strategies now taken for granted
by academic sociologists: the survey, the interview, the questionnaire, personal budget
keeping, participant-observation, key informants, and secondary data analysis (which
included the census, legislation, memoirs and diaries, wage and cost-of-living records,
court reports, social worker reports, tax rolls, nursery rhymes, and industrial accident
reports). (pp. 102–103)
In the same direction Maclean and Williams (2012) note that the maps and papers are
the synthesis of the main features of Settlement Movement:
Settlements functioned as a vital link between the harsh realities of urban living and the
populations around them, often recently-arrived immigrants or rural migrants. They
410
F. J. N. Branco
provided adult education, meeting spaces for community groups and labor unions, and
assistance in the process of acculturation. They also collected data in the form of statistics
and systematic observations to advocate for needed services and social reforms. (p. 238,
emphasis added)
Addams was the central figure of the Chicago Reforming Cohort6 (Maclean &
Williams, 2012; Muncy, 1991) developing an influential leadership in the constitution
of a ‘female dominion’ (Muncy, 1991) of policy-making. This task was pivotal to the
establishment of several public agencies, at state and federal level, including the
paradigmatic Children’s Bureau of the Federal Labour Office, an agency created by
Congress in 1912 and headed between 1912 and 1920 by Julia Latrhop and Florence
Kelly between 1921 and 1934 (Lengermann & Niebrugge, 1998, (Figure 7–1)).
The engagement of Jane Addams as a social reformer is broader than her role as a
prominent figure of the Settlements Movement. In 1909, Jane Addams was elected
president of the National Conference of Charities and Corrections and was involved
with its Social Standards for Industry platform whose agenda included the demand for
the establishment of minimum standards of industry work conditions for working class
men, regulation of employment for women and child labour protection, and a system
of accident and old-age and unemployment insurance (Franklin, 1986, p. 513).
Despite this being an under acknowledged dimension of Mary Richmond’s profile,
she exercised a leading role in campaigns for social reform, for the adoption of legislation
in the areas of education, employment, housing, health care and public health and
women status, and was particularly active on welfare of children and women issues
(Agnew, 2004, p. 6, 97, 113; Pittman-Munke, 1985, p. 163; Richmond, 1930, p. 217).
Some of more relevant social reform activities that Richmond was involved in occurred
during the Philadelphia years (1900–1909) during her years as secretary of the Philadelphia Society for Organising Charity. In that period Mary Richmond elaborated the draft
of the Wife Desertion Law aiming to provide relief to women facing poverty and deprivation as a result of their husbands’ desertion. At the same time, she sponsored together
with the University of Pennsylvania a scholarship to promote the study of vagrancy and
homeless men (Agnew, 2004, pp. 107–108; Pittman-Munke, 1985, p. 163). Another very
important focus of Richmond’s attention during this era was her engagement with the
child protection activities and reforms contributing to the foundation of Pennsylvania
Child Labour Committee and child labour legislation, to establishing the Juvenile
Court and Children’s Bureau and to the reform of the Society to Protect Children
from Cruelty (Agnew, 2004, p. 113; Pittman-Munke, 1985, p. 164).
Later, during her position as director of the Russell Sage Foundation in New York,
despite the time devoted to the Social Diagnosis project and the training and social
work education, Mary Richmond remained active and involved both in research
and social reform. Her involvement is exemplified by the ‘Study of Nine Hundred
and Eighty-five Widows Known to Certain Charity Organization Societies in 1910’,
which drove Richmond to advocate reforms related with to health, old-age and unemployment insurance (Agnew, 2004, pp. 126–127).
According to Robertson (2015), despite the limitations experienced by these social
reform initiatives due to the federalist nature of the American political system, implying
that major initiatives have had a greater impact at the state level that at national level
and a significant heterogeneity, their legacy represents, without any doubt, an ‘archipelago of new precedents, strategies, groups, networks and social policies’ (2015, p. 55).
European Journal of Social Work
411
Social casework and social reform: parallels or intersecting paths
They were the same social needs that inspired the work of the pioneers of Social Casework
[Mary Richmond] and […] Jane Addams in the Settlements […]. (Paré, 1956/1961, p. xv)
Divergent social origins, backgrounds and itineraries may explain different affiliations
with the social movements within the Progressive Era, and ideological orientations
with expression in their thought concerning the urban poverty and other social
problems (Agnew, 2004; Franklin, 1986, p. 510). As Agnew (2004) notes ‘Richmond
differed in social background from many of her reform contemporaries, and yet she
shared their indebtedness to a core of values and a reform spirit that characterized
middle-class Victorian culture’ (p. 8). On the other hand:
Addams, more than other women in her times, symbolized the new woman who took her
place in the world of work. […] She also asserted the values of social cooperation against
the satisfaction of the individual, spoke against the laissez-fare policies that justified
industrial capitalism, endorsed woman suffrage, and supported welfare programmes.
(Franklin, 1986, p. 512)7
These differences were at the basis of the public debate between these two influent
leaders.
According to Agnew (2004, p. 10), Mary Richmond, in the Baltimore years, vacillated between a nostalgic and an innovative approach to poverty, between the traditional orientation of the COS Movement (based on the education and
development of the character of the poor) and social reform (under the impact of
the economic depressions and the influence of social gospels). Following the Agnew
argument,
like many late-nineteenth-century middle-class reformers, Richmond served as intermediary between religious and secular organizations, channeling her leadership skills towards
social reform within a secular context, while drawing on social gospel teachings in forging
a ‘middle’ way of reform. (2004, p.10)
Curtis (2001, pp. 1–16) gives us a very clear framework to understand the challenges faced by Victorian Protestantism:
The social gospel appeared at a critical moment in American history […]. Consequently,
social gospelers were among those who experienced anxiety when the matrix of beliefs
and values that had given life meaning in the nineteenth century began to make less
and less sense. Struggling to find religious and personal meaning themselves, they
gradually developed a social interpretation of religion that contributed to the formation
of the new culture that emerged in the twentieth century. An examination of the social gospel can reveal the intersection of faith and culture and demonstrate how social and cultural facts of life impinged on religion. […] Because of its origin in an era of cultural
transformation, the social gospel can help explain how a modern, secular, consumption-oriented culture took root and flourished in Protestant Victorian soil. (p. 6)
This was the ‘soil’ which also nurtured the growth and formation of the Unitarian
Richmond, which subsequently ‘provide Richmond’s impetus for reflecting on her
life, on society, and on constrictive social reform’ (Agnew, 2004, p. 46). In addition,
similarly to other members of the Protestant community, she embraces the social
412
F. J. N. Branco
gospel in a commitment to the ‘Kingdom of God’ on earth in this life, contrasting with
traditional Protestantism ‘next life’ (see Curtis, 2001; Horstman, 2005; MacLean & Williams, 2012).
Valuing social reform, Richmond not only acted according to her religion convictions but also consistently with her scientific elaboration. Richmond was influenced
by George Mead as well as Edwin Thomas when she formulated ‘the man in situation’
as a core concept of her theory. As Aranda (2004, p. 129) argues, the works of Mary
Richmond, from 1917, should be interpreted as influenced by interactionism, in
which she inspired to resolve the conflict between the individual and society, and not
in Freud’s psychoanalysis. This argument is consistent with the Hamilton (1951) statement in the second edition of Theory and practice of social casework, when she says,
‘Until the thirties, casework had not felt the impact of ego psychology as it has developed from psychoanalysis […]’ (p. v). In the same sense, Robinson (1930) also supports
this idea when she points out that ‘In spite of [the] statement of the psychological basis of
case work, however, it is the sociological rather than the psychological basis which
organizes and gives unity to her presentation in Social Diagnosis’ (p. 38).
Despite remaining convinced of the relevance of social casework with families,
Richmond, primarily during the Philadelphia years (1990/1909), progressively
changed her thought about the indispensability of broader reform of social conditions,
calling for a new and large ways of helping and developed her personal and practical
conception—the circle of social reform—to the linkage between individual and
family work and social reform. As Agnew emphasises, referring to her experience
with the research developed in the New York Years in the 1910s, ‘Richmond used
the evidence of her study on widows to promote other avenues of wholesale reform’
(Agnew, 2004, p. 126).
Then, in spite of the public debate and divergences relative to the Settlement Movement (and directly or indirectly to Addams), Richmond (1930) conceptualised the
articulation between ‘social work by individual by individual, and the social work
for the mass’, as her address at the National Conference of Charities and Correction,
in 1915, reveals:
Social case work does different things for and with different people—it specializes and
differentiates; social reform generalizes and simplifies by discovering ways of doing the
same thing for everybody. Together it is possible for them to achieve social well-being;
acting separately and more or less at cross purposes they achieve only the most partial
and transitory results. The only kind of social case work in which I believe, therefore,
and the only kind to which I shall refer today, may be defined as the art of doing different
things for and with people by co-operating with them to achieve at one and the same time
their own and society’s betterment. (pp. 374–375)
This is especially clear in what can be considered her mature work What is social case
work, which shows the recognition of the relevance of policy-oriented practice in social
work:
The other forms of social work, all of which interplay with case work, are three—group
work, social reform, and social research. Case work seeks to effect better social relations
by dealing with individuals one by one or within the intimate group of the family. But
social work also achieves the same general ends in these other ways. It includes a wide
variety of group activities—settlement work, recreational work, club, neighbourhood
and local community work […] By a method different from that employed in either
European Journal of Social Work
413
case or group work, though with the same end in view, social reform seeks to improve conditions in the mass, chiefly through social propaganda and social legislation. (Richmond,
1922, p. 223)
It can be seen too in claiming as one of the key roles of social casework its role of
‘observer of social life’:
No better advice could be given to family case workers, I believe, than to study and
develop their work at its point of intersection with social research, with group activities
and with social reform or mass betterment. This does not mean that they should drop
their work or slight it in order to make special studies or to engage in legislative campaigns, but it does mean that they should be more scientifically productive than they
now are, that they should be making social discoveries as a by-product of successful
case work […] and that they should be bearing faithful witness to the need of social
reforms wherever their daily work reveals the need. They should supply the pertinent
details necessary during the preliminary period of public education, and help later
to make any new legislative measures workable by applying them in their case work.
(Richmond, 1922, p. 225)
This orientation to intersecting paths is somewhat highlighted by Addams (1912/
1990):
In the earlier years of American Settlements, the residents were sometimes impatient with
the accepted methods of charitable administration and hoped, through residence in an
industrial neighbourhood, to discover more cooperative and advanced methods of
dealing with the problems of poverty, which are so dependent upon industrial mal-adjustment. But during twenty years, the Settlements have seen the charitable people, through
their very knowledge of the poor, constantly approach nearer to those methods formerly
designated as radical. (p. 177, emphasis added)
If there are documented conflicts between these two early influential strands of
American social work, for example the disputes about the orientation of social
work education programmes (see Lengermann & Niebrugge, 2007, pp. 90–93;
Muncy, 1991, pp. 66–92; Williams & MacLean, 2012, pp. 244–251), the limits of
the settlement approach and the necessity of coalition and networking between
these and other key actors for social reform achievements, they pragmatically
moved the settlements’ leaders to take the road of convergence in action and attenuated public divergences. As Addams (1912/1990) refers explicitly:
In the hearing before a Congressional Committee for the establishment of a Children’s
Bureau, residents in American Settlements joined their fellow philanthropists in urging
the need of this indispensable instrument for collecting and disseminating information,
which would make possible concerted intelligent action on behalf of children. (p. 178)
Muncy (1991) reports another example of this convergence in the creation of the
School of Social Service Administration (Chicago University). In this process
Abbott and Breckinridge came to dispute Graham Taylor regarding the professional
training and education orientation. Advocating for a social reform-oriented training
for social work, putting emphasis in social research and policy-making, Abbott
and Breckinridge diverged in Taylor’s vision (see Muncy, 1991, chapter 3; Williams
& MacLean, 2012, pp. 244–251) oriented to ‘the training of capable men and women
414
F. J. N. Branco
for professional and volunteer social, civic and philanthropic work’ (Taylor as cited
in Muncy, 1991, p. 74). However, although they devalue the caseworkers, according
to Muncy (1991), aiming to support the social work education project they:
needed to essay an infusion with case work heritage, reconciling different perspectives
within the profession, and considering the possible conciliation between case-work and
social reform, supporting the perspective that well-educated caseworkers could transform
their door-to-door experiences into scientific data and learn to become the policymakers.
(pp. 81–82 emphasis added)
In Abbot’s words:
The caseworker of today should become later … the Secretary of a Commission to redraft
the poor laws of a State or organize a new system of prison labor.
The social worker meets at every turn questions of social legislation, proposals for social
reform, and even the more immediate problems of inadequate wages, of trade unionism,
of insurance, of workmen’s compensation. She is called on to recommend revisions of the
poor law, of probation statutes, of the criminal law. (Abbot as cited in Muncy, 1991,
pp. 83–84)
The methods of reform
Mass betterment and individual betterment are interdependent … social reform and
social work of necessity progressing together. (Richmond 1917, p. 25)
In line with Richmond’s thought, it is interesting to consider her conceptualisation of
the ‘Cycle of Social Reform’. In an article published in the International Journal of
Ethics in 1906, called ‘The Retail Method of Reform’, but relatively unfamiliar,
Mary Richmond supports the idea that an effective social reform implies a double circular movement beginning with the direct intervention at the micro-level, introduced
using the figure of ‘ret
Categories: