In early August, the two international bodies representing social work will vote on a new global definition of the profession. These are the International Federation of Social Workers and the International Association of Schools of Social Work
Titled, “What is social work?“, this article glosses over some of the wider implications of the globalization of the social work profession. Rather than viewing this as a sign of the socialist forces at work in the world (the Nazis were socialists), promising wonderful things in the name of the collective/common good has become the mantra. How long before social workers see this as a good idea – as their idea?
Cultural competency is certainly important, and in the article they provide examples of how the social work profession has run over the rights of other cultures. Or, the individual rights of each person affected by policies, biases, approaches, and pretty much whatever somebody else thought was best for them. However, under the guise of doing what is best for the commons/common good in the east, what are the plans for the west? More good intentions paving the metaphorical road to a socialist hell?
Since its adoption, however, the 2000 definition has also come under considerable criticism. This centres on the perceived Western bias, with its emphasis on individual rights, and the lack of recognition of collective rights and the fundamental need for societies to achieve continuity, stability and social cohesion.
The writer provides the following summary:
“Social work is a practice-based profession and an academic discipline that promotes social change and development, social cohesion, and the empowerment and liberation of people. Principles of social justice, human rights, collective responsibility and respect for diversities are central to social work. Underpinned by theories of social work, social sciences, humanities and indigenous knowledges, social work engages people and structures to address life challenges and enhance wellbeing.”
Social cohesion and this so-called liberation should not be confused with liberty. They want to accomplish this via tax dollars, or taking your money for their cause. It is no wonder that the emerging socialist work definition (and the policies that will follow) considers western ideals and individual rights to be a problem. As things like this send me off looking for more clues, I find them. This one should be of concern to anybody who is awake, who follows the money, and who can see that where there is money there is power, and where there is power, there is corruption. Social workers may wish to think that they are above this, but a cursory look at the government systems that hinder their work on a daily basis should be enough to snap them out of their stupor. I say “should”, because it doesn’t seem to. Take a look at the following definition of the common good. The writer claims that the concept of social justice was invented by the Catholic Church:
“1928 Society ensures social justice when it provides the conditions that allow associations or individuals to obtain what is their due, according to their nature and their vocation. Social justice is linked to the common good and the exercise of authority.” (It could be argued that this is the original and only true definition of Social Justice since the conept [sic] was invented by the Catholic Church. ) Source
While the article continues to address the difficulties of attaining social justice within the hierarchies of governments, like most, the harm done in the name of religion and the common good is not addressed. The common good is presented as the highest ideal, and rather than toss out government, the focus becomes on how to get them out of the way. Has this worked in recent history? Is the trend of governments toward the less-intrusive? What world do these people think that they live in? “If we work with crooks and authorities, we can reduce theft and abuse of power.” Huh? Right. War leads to peace and freedom is slavery, too. Our “national” parks have been side aside in the interest of the common good. However, this means that our parks belong to everybody and nobody, at the same time. When Obama threw a fit over lack of funds while pretending to struggle with raising the debt ceiling, his administration went so far as to put up pylons on roads blocking views of Mt. Rushmore – from outside of the boundaries of the park. I digress. Take a deeper look at this. Reflect on it. Does an organization like the Vatican truly care about what is best for all people? The new, Jesuit Pope is sure talking a good talk, but words and deeds … words and deeds… World leaders bow to kiss his ring, just as they bow before the queen. I have seen where this leads. This is just my immediate response to get the conversation going. I am confident that further inquiry on the part of the reader will lead to being able to spot this crap, right on the surface. This is not a substitute for scholarly research, but after a while, socialism/fascism (whatever you wish to call it) has an odor that is recognizable. In that case, follow the stench.
The tribal notion of “the common good” has served as the moral justification of most social systems—and of all tyrannies—in history. The degree of a society’s enslavement or freedom corresponded to the degree to which that tribal slogan was invoked or ignored. “The common good” (or “the public interest”) is an undefined and undefinable concept: there is no such entity as “the tribe” or “the public”; the tribe (or the public or society) is only a number of individual men. Nothing can be good for the tribe as such; “good” and “value” pertain only to a living organism—to an individual living organism—not to a disembodied aggregate of relationships. “The common good” is a meaningless concept, unless taken literally, in which case its only possible meaning is: the sum of the good of all the individual men involved. But in that case, the concept is meaningless as a moral criterion: it leaves open the question of what is the good of individual men and how does one determine it? It is not, however, in its literal meaning that that concept is generally used. It is accepted precisely for its elastic, undefinable, mystical character which serves, not as a moral guide, but as an escape from morality. Since the good is not applicable to the disembodied, it becomes a moral blank check for those who attempt to embody it. When “the common good” of a society is regarded as something apart from and superior to the individual good of its members, it means that the good of some men takes precedence over the good of others, with those others consigned to the status of sacrificial animals. It is tacitly assumed, in such cases, that “the common good” means “the good of the majority” as against the minority or the individual. Observe the significant fact that that assumption is tacit: even the most collectivized mentalities seem to sense the impossibility of justifying it morally. But “the good of the majority,” too, is only a pretense and a delusion: since, in fact, the violation of an individual’s rights means the abrogation of all rights, it delivers the helpless majority into the power of any gang that proclaims itself to be “the voice of society” and proceeds to rule by means of physical force, until deposed by another gang employing the same means. If one begins by defining the good of individual men, one will accept as proper only a society in which that good is achieved and achievable. But if one begins by accepting “the common good” as an axiom and regarding individual good as its possible but not necessary consequence (not necessary in any particular case), one ends up with such a gruesome absurdity as Soviet Russia, a country professedly dedicated to “the common good,” where, with the exception of a minuscule clique of rulers, the entire population has existed in subhuman misery for over two generations.