![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
On Identity
May. 8th, 2004 01:58 pmThe National Association of Social Workers (NASW) is the professional social work organization. They accredit university programs of social work, create licensing exams for licensed social workers, and generally create (hopefully thoughtful) blanket statements about The Opinions Of Social Workers. My school for social work makes sure we feel well-tied to the NASW and bound by their decisions. As future social workers, they say, we have a responsibility to act as social workers.
And I can understand this. I think it's responsible of them to have Official Social Work Standards. But, you know, I went to the School of Social Work telling myself, "I'm not going to be brainwashed into following a party line."
A fairly basic tenet of my personal sense of religion was beautifully expressed by a fellow congregant at the synagogue in which I grew up. He was a Reform Jew, he said, because he did not want to give someone else custody of his conscience. (I hope I don't start a flame war by repeating that. I don't think this opinion is only applicable to Reform Jews, nor do I think it is the ideal statement of morally responsible religion. I don't even think it's necessarily a statement indicating morally responsible religion. Really, I just think it describes the nature of my fairly blasphemous opinions on multiple subjects.)
I heard a fascinating speaker the other day: a Lutheran minister who works in hospices. There's a particular statement, she says, that she has heard so often she now takes it as proof that she is doing something right. "And you call yourself a Christian?"
Then there's Emerson, whose essay The American Scholar discusses the highly theoretical difference between a farmer, whose identity is circumscribed by rote, and a man, farming.
So I doubt I will be any more deliberately faithful to the NASW's precepts than I am to anything else.
On the other hand, one of the NASW's major precepts is self-determination. I'm not convinced that ignoring the standards now and then isn't an unspoken part of the expectations. I do think that some of their ethical standards exist as a check or for the purpose of saving political face. For example, we are told not to accept any kind of gift, ever, from a client. And although no one thinks it is appropriate to take advantage of a client by accepting exorbitant gifts, it is also well understood that to refuse all gifts categorically is a Really Bad Idea therapeutically.
Isn't it a good thing that you don't need a conclusion if you are writing a livejournal entry?
And I can understand this. I think it's responsible of them to have Official Social Work Standards. But, you know, I went to the School of Social Work telling myself, "I'm not going to be brainwashed into following a party line."
A fairly basic tenet of my personal sense of religion was beautifully expressed by a fellow congregant at the synagogue in which I grew up. He was a Reform Jew, he said, because he did not want to give someone else custody of his conscience. (I hope I don't start a flame war by repeating that. I don't think this opinion is only applicable to Reform Jews, nor do I think it is the ideal statement of morally responsible religion. I don't even think it's necessarily a statement indicating morally responsible religion. Really, I just think it describes the nature of my fairly blasphemous opinions on multiple subjects.)
I heard a fascinating speaker the other day: a Lutheran minister who works in hospices. There's a particular statement, she says, that she has heard so often she now takes it as proof that she is doing something right. "And you call yourself a Christian?"
Then there's Emerson, whose essay The American Scholar discusses the highly theoretical difference between a farmer, whose identity is circumscribed by rote, and a man, farming.
So I doubt I will be any more deliberately faithful to the NASW's precepts than I am to anything else.
On the other hand, one of the NASW's major precepts is self-determination. I'm not convinced that ignoring the standards now and then isn't an unspoken part of the expectations. I do think that some of their ethical standards exist as a check or for the purpose of saving political face. For example, we are told not to accept any kind of gift, ever, from a client. And although no one thinks it is appropriate to take advantage of a client by accepting exorbitant gifts, it is also well understood that to refuse all gifts categorically is a Really Bad Idea therapeutically.
Isn't it a good thing that you don't need a conclusion if you are writing a livejournal entry?
