Bagsiden af recovery - omsorgssvigt: Rehabilitering af omsorgen i det sociale arbejde og socialarbejdernes frihed hertil

Abstract

Specialet tager sit afsæt i en indledende problematisering af det sociale arbejdes paradoks; hvorfor iværksætte en foranstaltning, der indebærer en forventning om en aktiv, ansvarstagende bruger, når bevillingen heraf forudsætter en nedsat evne hertil? Medfører dette, at nogle brugere ikke får den hjælp, de reelt har brug for? Den indledende problematisering knyttes til definitionen af socialt arbejde, herunder at socialt arbejde er interventioner mod sociale problemer. Disse interventioner kan under et samlebegreb betegnes rehabiliterende indsatser. De rehabiliterende indsatser har igennem tiden ændret form, og der er således sket en bevægelse fra en traditionel rehabiliteringsforståelse til en moderne betegnet recovery. Når det vedrører ansvaret for at komme sig, er der med bevægelsen sket et paradigmatisk skifte – konstrueret af en neoliberal metadiskurs med en tilhørende ansvarlighedsdiskurs – hvormed ansvaret i nutidens sociale arbejde er placeret hos brugerne selv. Det indledende paradoks er således relateret til dette paradigmatiske skifte, som jeg videre i de indledende kapitler problematiserer ud fra en forståelse af, at der er brugere med reelle behov for, at andre tager ansvar for deres situation. I relation hertil udvikler jeg analytisk en omsorgsdiskurs, som bringer mig frem til et ønske om at undersøge, hvordan de to diskurser får deres liv i praksis, og dermed hvordan det sociale arbejdes praksis er konstitueret og konstituerende, samt hvordan problemer forbundet med praksis kan forklares i relation hertil. I min besvarelse af specialets problemformulering supplerer jeg Faircloughs critical discourse analysis with Smiths institutional etnography. Jeg sidestiller Faircloughs sociale praksis dimension med Smiths translokale forhold samt Faircloughs diskursive praksis dimension med Smiths etnografiske niveau, og får derved mulighed for at undersøge forholdet mellem det partikulære og det generelle. Min analyse viser, at hegemoni udfordres i en diskursiv kamp mellem ansvarligheds- og omsorgsdiskurs, og at denne kamp er forbundet med ambivalens, hvilket kan betragtes som et udtryk for ansvarlighedsdiskursens dominans. Det samme gør sig gældende for de problemer, socialarbejderne oplever, der er forbundet med deres praksis; ansvarlighedsdiskursen er så dominerende, at dens konstruktive effekter overskriver socialarbejdernes applicering af omsorgsdiskursens subjektiveringsformer. Mine analyser frembringer således et alternativt, og nødvendigt perspektiv i socialt arbejde, og advokerer i den forbindelse for, at omsorgen i det sociale arbejde rehabiliteres, da bagsiden af recovery er omsorgssvigt.

This thesis takes its starting point in an initial questioning of the social work paradoxy: Why implement a form of action that involves an expectation of an active, responsible user, when granting this action requires a reduced ability? Does this mean that some users are not getting the help they actually need? The initial query is linked to the definition of social work, which includes social work as actual interventions against social problems. In general terms, these interventions could be termed rehabilitative efforts. Over time, these rehabilitative interventions have changed in form, and the general understanding of the term has moved from an understanding of traditional rehabilitation to a modernly termed recovery. Concerning the responsibility of recovery, the change in terminology has brought about a paradigmatic shift - composed by a neo-liberal meta-discourse with an associated accountability discourse - in which the responsibility in today's social work is placed upon the users themselves. Hence, the initial paradoxy is related to this paradigmatic shift. A shift, I continuously problematize during the introductory chapters, based on an assumption that there are users with an actual pressing need for someone else to take responsibility for the situation. In relation to this, I have developed an analytical caring discourse, which brings about a desire to further explore how the two given discourses play out in real life, and thus how social work practice is both constituted and constituent, and how then issues associated with everyday practice can be explained. In my assessment of the thesis problem, I supplement Fairclough's critical discourse analysis with Smith’s institutional ethnography. I equate the social practice dimension of Fairclough with Smith's trans-local conditions and Fairclough's discursive practice dimension with Smith's ethnographic level. Thereby, gaining the opportunity to examine the relationship between the particular and the general. My analyses show that hegemony is challenged in a discursive struggle between the discourses of responsibility and care - and that the struggle is associated with ambivalence, which can be regarded as an expression of the dominance of the responsibility discourse. The same is true, when looking at the problems social workers experience in practice - the responsibility discourse is so dominant that its constructive effects overrule the social workers application of the subjectification forms of the care discourse. Thus, my analyses produce an alternative and necessary perspective into social work, and within the context, they advocate that care in social work must be rehabilitated because the downside to recovery is neglect.

A master thesis from Aalborg University

Bagsiden af recovery - omsorgssvigt: Rehabilitering af omsorgen i det sociale arbejde og socialarbejdernes frihed hertil

[The downside to recovery - neglect: Rehabilitation of care in social work and the social workers freedom to do so]