At
the turn of the new century, the operations of Canadian
social services face a renewed attack. Conventional
thinking and common myths about "clients" or "caseloads"
negate their egalitarian efforts. Business leaders and
governments continue to fuel their self-destruction.
Subject to government policies, public ambivalence, and
corporate elitism, social service workers are looking for
ways to create a system far more democratic,
interdependent, and caring than today.
Recently,
I sat down with Ben Carniol, author of
Case
Critical: Challenging Social Services in
Canada
to discuss the current experiences of both users and
providers of Canada's social services. In this fourth
edition, Carniol examines the obstacles to clients
receiving decent services, as well as the so-called
inevitability of the widening margin between the rich and
the poor. Calling for a move towards a participatory
democracy, in addition to a personal and political
liberation from corporate control, Carniol had strong
feelings to share about the current direction of Canada's
social programs.
Candice
Carto:
As a veteran within the field of social work, what
would you say are some of the most difficult obstacles
that face young people entering the field
today?
Ben
Carniol:
Students entering social work, for the most part, come
out of high school with distorted impressions about
Canada's social services and programs. They are under
false illusions about the system, and believe, rather
erroneously, that there are sufficient resources for
those people who are in need. This type of naivete about
the system, however, is dangerous as it only serves to
propagate the notion that the clients themselves are to
blame.
CC:
What
can be done to remedy such misconceptions?
BC:
Newcomers to this field need to realize there is a
balance in play here. Certainly, some people with severe
mental or addiction problems have more difficulty
escaping their current plight. But, there are strongly
entrenched problems, such as racism, ageism, and sexism
that cannot be ignored. Ultimately, new students must
reassess the width of their lens of analysis. Sadly, for
many of them, it remains quite narrow.
CC:
It seems that within the field of social work a
hierarchy exists among "clients," where some are deemed
more deserving of our time, effort, and ultimately, tax
dollars.
BC:
Yes,
unfortunately that's true.
CC:
From where does such a notion derive?
BC:
Today, people like to think in terms of the worthy and
unworthy poor. For example, abused or impoverished
children are seen as innocent bystanders or victims.
Then, there are the homeless, often seen as creators of
their own problems. People who make these kinds of
assumptions are not looking at the big picture. They are
not looking at the real personal biographies of these
individuals. One must consider what a person has been
through or experienced before making such rash judgments.
CC:
Speaking of rash judgements, recently there has been
controversy and debate concerning Globe and Mail
reporter, John Stackhouse and his three-part series on
the homelessness situation in Canada. What are your
thoughts about his seven-day experiment on the streets of
Toronto?
BC:
For starters, I think his experiment was far too limited,
superficial. Perhaps if he remained on the streets for
six months, or even a year, maybe then his conclusions
would have more validity. But to "live" on the streets
for a week… Not only does it do a disservice to
people living on the streets, but it also feeds into the
negative impression of the homeless altogether. People do
not live on the streets because it is their choice to do
so. Nothing could be further from the truth.
CC:
In the new edition of Case Critical, you explain how
your own experiences as a foster child led you to a
career in social work. Do you think others coming into
the field are motivated by similar first-hand experiences
with Canada's social system?
BC:
Yes, I think it's a definite possibility. Yet, different
people handle trauma and personal affliction in different
ways. There are some people who prefer to forget, or turn
their backs on their past traumas. And then there are
those like myself, who use the hurts and pains from the
past to their advantage. They rely on their own
experiences to better understand and help others through
their own personal difficulties. For me, the latter of
the two is more effective. This is how one learns to grow
and heal. Negating issues from the past only causes them
to re-surface in the future.
CC:
What does it mean to be a "professional" social
worker?
BC:
The professional social worker is one who is able to
recognize the limitation of his/her own power. By that I
mean, they are able to realize that bigger forces at
work, a larger structure that must be continually
re-examined and re-assessed. Professional social workers
must also acknowledge the partnership they form with the
client. The relationship needs to be mutual and
reciprocal. Not elitist. The social worker must always
keep in mind that he/she must work with, rather than for,
the client in question.
CC:
You mention that one of the most important functions
of your book is that it "gives clients a stronger voice."
In what other ways are clients able to achieve such
strength?
BC:
Clients are also able to gain a stronger voice by
becoming aware that a lot of their hurts and wounds are
the result of an unjust society. Having said that, they
also need to be conscious that they cannot only look to
the government to bring about changes. The real motors or
initiators of change come from grassroots, community
networks who have developed a critical consciousness
about what is wrong and how to change it. These are the
groups who recognize the negative impact of corporate
elites--not only within Canada but globally. When these
grassroots networks decide to take action, they often put
pressure on the larger political and corporate
structures. The recent large-scale demonstration in
Seattle against the World Trade Organization proved this.
To achieve a higher priority for individual and community
well-being, we need to translate democracy from rhetoric
into action.
CC:
Some might argue that your book only pertains to
social workers and academics within this field. Why do
you say that Case Critical is also meant for the general
public as well?
BC:
While it's true that the book is grounded in a social
science analysis, the topics addressed within its covers
- education, health care, affordable housing, daycare --
apply to everyone, regardless of age, sex, colour,
religion, and sexual preference. This book deals with a
fundamental question: What kind of society do we want to
build? This is a question not owned by just social
workers or professors. It affects everyone. We all have a
responsibility to be active in shaping the future of our
entire global arena. Citizenship is not
restricted.
CC:
In this forthcoming edition, you include more personal
anecdotes and experiences as they relate to the context
of social work. What's the value of this?
BC:
In this edition, I tried to share with readers what keeps
me going. I wanted to show people how to hang in there,
despite the myriad obstacles within the social system.
For me, maintaining a spiritual focus has been the key.
Too often, religions have supported the powers-that-be
that have oppressed people. At the same time, within
various faith communities, there are individuals who tap
into their spirituality to challenge unjust practices.
Fortunately, I have found such people within my own
Jewish community--they are courageous people willing to
go against the grain and speak out for social justice.
I'm trying to do the same as it relates to the crisis of
our social services. It is my hope that through writing
this book, I can provide some of that same motivation and
incentive for others too.
CC:
In the last chapter of the book you maintain that a
strong link must be established among all areas of social
movements if ever we expect to ensure real, global social
change.
BC:
Absolutely. Alone, various social movements can succeed
to certain degree. However, unless we identify the common
threads and form alliances, in the end, we'll all just be
spinning our wheels.
CC:
Some might argue that this notion, while admirable, is
quite unrealistic.
BC:
No one has access to a crystal ball. It all comes down to
how we view ourselves as humans. If we believe that all
humans are inherently selfish and that we are only out to
serve ourselves, well then we will remain as such --
self-serving and completely egotistic. However, if we
have a different understanding of humans, if we believe
that we are interdependent creatures not isolated from
one another, we will act in accordance with this
perception.
CC:
What about the cynics who may continue to argue that
forming such a social coalition cannot be
done?
BC:
Time and time again, the cynics of the world have been
proven wrong. Look at the case of the Women's Movement.
For a long time, no one believed women would ever get the
vote. But they did. Why? Because they recognized the need
for interdependence and they leaned on each other. In the
end, they were victorious and the cynics were proven
wrong. Look at the apartheid issue in South Africa.
Again, people believed that the situation would never
change, but it did. Why? Because people pulled together
and fought for what they believed was right. And so, the
cynics were proven wrong once again.
CC:
Sounds
like you're a firm believer in perseverance and the power
of positive thinking?
BC:
(nods and smiles) Definitely, but it's more than that.
When push comes to shove, I will take my chances with the
visionaries. People who support the notion that it is
well within our basic human nature to pull together to
bring about a greater health of the world. People who
believe strongly that change is possible. That's where
our future lies.
Ben
Carniol
is a Professor of Social Work at Ryerson Polytechnic
University in Toronto. He spent over thirty years in
advocacy within social services and is active with
several community groups, including the Metro Network for
Social Justice.
|
|
|
About
Case Critical
|
|
|
Events
|
|
|
|
|
|
