A definition of social work: A thesis in sociology

								

The president of the conference in 1920 referred to a “belief in human
improvableness and a willingness to tackle the job.”[36] That is as far
as the conference usually philosophises in this direction. And this
is the sort of phraseology that makes one forget that social work is
extending benefits--this casual reference to tackling the job. It is
another of the paradoxes in the development of social work (we have
already noted science rescuing personality), that when charity offered
only a minimum of rough food, uniform raiment and herded shelter to the
utterly destitute there was much made of the generosity of the donor,
but now when social work has been carried to a point where it often
provides for the handicapped a great deal better than the rank and file
manage to provide for themselves it is taken to be a case of noblesse
oblige.
We may read in the “Observations of a Philanthropist” penned a century
ago that “It’s greatly for the interests of charity that the objects of
it should be respectful and grateful. We think our kindness in a manner
repaid when it is thankfully received; it’s a pleasure then to have
done it and an incitement to do more,”[37] or in a “hospital” report
that “the number of proper objects are amply sufficient to employ the
bounty of the rich.”[38]
The difference here indicated is not accounted for by the fact that
these were the observations of philanthropists while the conference is
composed of professional social workers for whom benefaction is all in
the day’s work. As has been already indicated, the papers read at the
conference are not all by social workers. Furthermore, the “incitement”
now employed to get from all manner of men financial support for the
undertakings of social work is of a very different order. Let any
one consider the appeals which come to his desk. They contain little
to rouse his vanity and the offer of an opportunity to acquire merit
is almost as uncommon. The degree of need and the certainty of
accomplishment are the things never omitted.
This suggests the cause for change. A century ago need might equally
well have been urged, but what could then have been promised of
accomplishment? All that was then expected was surcease of the
hour’s suffering. That is a fit subject of congratulation as when
a complaisant philanthropist wrote of the London of his time there
“is not a disease that can afflict human nature nor a want which the
varying conditions of man can require but finds an open asylum, a
resort ready prepared with the needful accommodation for reception,
comfort, instruction and cure, and with the exception of a few cases
entirely free of expense.”[39]
But what is that compared with the great modern adventure of
eliminating poverty and holding disease at bay? Science has brought
to charity faith and hope in terrestrial terms. The historian who
unearthed the above statement remarks, “In theory, society consists of