A definition of social work: A thesis in sociology

								

of that development there is hope of enlightenment as to the essential
nature of social work.
Charity in one sense is the name of a human quality--that which
“suffereth long and is kind.” With this sense of the word the present
inquiry is not concerned but with a more completely objective meaning.
The dictionaries give it as “benevolence, liberality in relieving
the wants of others, philanthropy,”[8] or “liberality to the poor,
to benevolent institutions or worthy causes.”[9] The wording varies
little. Philanthropy where it is described any differently from charity
is merely a broader term not confined to the succor of the especially
unfortunate, as “love of mankind especially as evinced in deeds of
practical beneficence.”[10]
If we look at this “charity” in action we find its performance to be
directed to the same ends even though we follow it back through two
millenniums of Christianity and Paganism.[11] Motive and policy vary,
but the tasks of charity are recrudescent and impose themselves on each
successive generation in terms of the contemporary conscience. We seem,
for example, to have forgotten the question which haunted sixteenth
century motivation--whether faith without works avails for salvation,
but we might still subscribe to a contemporaneous plan of action
which demanded “the suppression of vagrant beggars, the punishment of
impostors” and “a rational organization of benefits under the control
of the municipal authorities.”[12] The task is still with us.
This so adaptable and so perdurable “charity,” while constantly
changing its terms remains always in essence a free will offering made
to those who are in some fashion especially in need. It may consist
of material benefits or of services. An authoritative historian of
English philanthropy says in his nearest approach to a definition
that “Philanthropy, in common with other terms in general use, is
difficult, or more probably incapable of strict definition. We may
perhaps safely say that it proceeds from the free will of the agent,
and not in response to any claim of legal right on the part of the
recipient.” “The greater part of philanthropy may be said to consist in
contributions of money, service or thought, such as the recipient has
no strict claim to demand and the donor is not compelled to render.”[13]
Does this characterization hold good in our own country and time?
First, must the gift be free? Where a service is exacted by law do we
ever consider it charity? Free education while supported by voluntary
contribution was considered a form of charity but when it came to
be supported by taxes its connection with charity lapsed and was
forgotten.[14] The upkeep of highways and bridges has been an object
of charitable bequest--a benefit which the fortunate might out of his
abundance bestow upon his neighbors.[15] The establishment of public
responsibility for the highways has lifted this sort of benevolence