Let me now review briefly the six
criteria which we have mentioned; professions involve essentially
intellectual operations with large individual responsibility; they
derive their raw material from science and learning; this material
they work up to a practical and definite end; they possess an educationally
communicable technique; they tend to self-organization; they are
becoming increasingly altruistic in motivation. . . .
Is social work a profession in the technical and strict sense of
the term? The Bulletin of the New York School of Philanthropy under
the title The Profession of Social Work makes the following explanation:
The School of Philanthropy is primarily a professional training
school, of graduate rank, for civic and social work. The word
philanthropy is to be understood in the broadest and
deepest sense as including every kind of social work, whether
under public or private auspices. By social work is meant any
form of persistent and deliberate effort to improve living or
working conditions in the community, or to relieve, diminish,
or prevent distress, whether due to weakness of character or to
pressure of external circumstances. All such efforts may be conceived
as falling under the heads of charity, education, or justice,
and the same action may sometimes appear as one or another according
to the point of view.
The activities in these words are obviously intellectual, not mechanical,
not routine in character. The worker must possess fine powers of
analysis and discrimination, breadth and flexibility of sympathy,
sound judgment, skill in utilizing whatever resources are available,
facility in devising new combinations. These operations are assuredly
of intellectual quality. . . .
I have made the point that all the established and recognized professions
have definite and specific ends: medicine, law, architecture, engineering—one
can draw a clear line of demarcation about their respective fields.
This is not true of social work. It appears not so much a definite
field as an aspect of work in many fields. An aspect of medicine
belongs to social work, as do certain aspects of law, education,
architecture, etc. . . .
If social work fails to conform to some professional criteria,
it very readily satisfies others. No question can be raised as to
the source from which the social worker derives his material—it
comes obviously from science and learning, from economics, ethics,
religion and medicine; nor is there any doubt on the score of the
rapid evolution of a professional self-consciousness, as these annual
conferences abundantly testify. Finally, in the one respect in which
most professions still fall short, social work is fairly on the
same level as education, for the rewards of the social worker are
in his own conscience and in heaven. His life is marked by devotion
to impersonal ends and his own satisfaction is largely through the
satisfactions procured by his efforts for others. . . .
But, after all, what matters most is professional spirit. All activities
may be prosecuted in the genuine professional spirit. In so far
as accepted professions are prosecuted at a mercenary or selfish
level, law and medicine are ethically no better than trades. In
so far as trades are honestly carried on, they tend to rise toward
the professional level. Social work appeals strongly to the humanitarian
and spiritual element. It holds out no inducement to the worldly—neither
comfort, glory, nor money. The unselfish devotion of those who have
chosen to give themselves to making the world a fitter place to
live in can fill social work with the professional spirit and thus
to some extent lift it above all the distinctions which I have been
at such pains to make. In the long run, the first, main and indispensable
criterion of a profession will be the possession of a professional
spirit, and that test social work may, if it will, fully satisfy. |