Skip to main content
How Social Work Pioneers Set Out to Take Over Families

Though they will never admit it because of childish anti-Americanism, one of the parents of modern social work is the influence of reforming protestantism in the United States. In the late nineteenth century, opponents of child labour combined with believers in 'scientific' court processes to establish the right of the state to reform families and to take children away. An invaluable chapter in Christopher Lasch's Culture of Narcissism makes the points for me, and I want to acknowledge it in this post.

For instance, I found this quote from Sophonisba P. Breckenridge--not a Marx Brothers character but a 'social reformer' and an honourable woman by many lights--the other day.
To the competent parent all aid should be given; but to the degraded parent, no concessions should be made....

Breckenridge was one of a number of reformers who wanted to 'socialise' workingmen and their children rather than allow them to become class-conscious or, for that matter, catholic. By the mid-1920s, prison reformer Miriam Van Waters was arguing that the state had
an obligation to protect children not merely against broken homes which bred crime but against parents whose treatment resulted in a crippled or warped personality

It isn't that far from that mentality, aided by science, to the apparent view of Tony Blair that 'problem' children should be tracked from the womb. Van Waters eventually despaired at the 'incurable loyalty of children to unworthy adults' rather than the state. Some social workers decided to move on not just from establishing secret courts that snatched children and 'reeducated' them, but to the state education of parents;

It is the most astonishing thing that mother love has been found by science inherently dangerous, and some [mothers] grow panicky as they let the significance of the new teaching sink into their thoughts...[new teaching should enable parents to convey the] blessing of freedom from emotional bondage to parents....

The above quote is from the Social work pioneers Ernest and Gladys Groves.

And so on, and so forth. The British contributions to this sort of thing seem to consist largely of a highly damaging addition of powerful, locally protected bureaucracy with a lower middle class fetish for disguised, class-conscious eugenics. That written, this Vermont webpage suggests how Atlantic the project was.

The ultimate effect in England and Wales has been to establish in social workers' minds the ideas that it is meet and just to engineer the family to fit their own preconceptions. The family law system has also become one in which hearsay cannot apply, courts meet in secret, rules of evidence are out the window and what the state says generally goes; a very model for the creeping imprisonment of each and every one of us within the state as citizens.

The highly unlikely pairing of Camilla Cavendish and The Exile have been running separate but linked campaigns lately pointing this all out. They also draw attention, as separate bloggers, to how the system fails so frequently. Occasionally, social work disasters become public, but the tide of human misery and class-oppression represented by the efforts of that 'industrial sector' is legion. I think that it always will fail frequently because the state is no satisfactory psychological substitute for families and never will be.

This society needs to reestablish families. Before anyone says it, I am uninterested in some chilling attempt to return to the nuclear family. Children need love and role models and can get this from extended groups, from single parents and from unconventional parents. It is the state that, given its record, has no right to say that it can automatically provide that love, or that it knows how to give it.

So--my fourth proposal of the Reentree this September, after school vouchers, more prisons and public ownership is quite simple. Lets ask ourselves, as a society, if the whole structure of social work and family law is not misconceived. We can begin in that by asking ourselves how many social workers we should disemploy.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

I resign from the Labour Party The likes of Andy Burnham, Hazel Blears, Mary Honeyball and Luke Akehurst are now representative of the Labour Party. They have at least given me a clear mind in recent days, and for that, I suppose, I should be grateful. I have been a Labour member since I was 16, in a steeltown. I can just about accept that student union hacks with no proper job experience can spend their time undercutting unions and selling public administration to their mates, because something could arise that may be better. I can also accept that some immigrants, because of a misplaced desire to avoid the appearance of racism, are more 'acceptable' to the Left than others, so my own family's Irish Catholicism can be something to be sneered at by the ranks of Labour activists. I can accept that there may be a fiscal case for not taxing the super rich with capital gains, but not for truckling to them or sucking up to the likes of Rupert Murdoch. I can accept that there mig...
11 comments
Read more

What really happened to JFK and America in Dallas?

 I realised some time ago that my students do not understand references to the events of November 1963 in Dallas anymore. So I have been using a break to compile a briefing book on the events, the use of commissions and enquiries to pursue particular narratives, and the embedding of the JFK assassination in American culture. This is the first chapter. It is a very long read. All mistakes are my own.  Before the Assassination Lee Harvey Oswald was a US Marine and radar operator at the Atsugi naval base, carrying an elevated clearance. He was also learning Russian and loudly proclaiming his Marxist-Leninist sympathies. These were not investigated or treated as a security risk. [1] Whilst at Atsugi, Oswald probably became one of a number of American marines in a programme to identify moles within the security establishment. This required him to cut his Marine service short by suggesting that he had to look after a sick mother, and also that he wished to seek higher education ...
Post a Comment
Read more
A Jacksonian Republican Party Democrats in the United States frequently lay claim to the heritage of Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson. They present the two as tribunes of the revolutionary people, and Jefferson-Jackson dinners are often occasions at which aspiring candidates can strut their demotic stuff, as it were. Both Presidents were opposed to coalitions made up of those they saw as 'elitists' and federal empire-builders, in the Federalist or Whig Parties. J-J (to employ a short and composite form, a bit like the creators of San Trovaso in Venice) were nationalists, tough on foreign crime, sure of their often violent support, and ferocious in the support of presidents who protected the republic. They upheld gun rights and, those of the traditional holders of property, emphasised the rights of States, and an armed citzenry, and in general thought all opposed to them belonged to some conspiracy, probably associated with Europe, to take away their Scots-Irish and democrat...
12 comments
Read more