Flapping on clipped wings: Social work ethics in the age of activism

Abstract

This article somewhat recklessly assumes that social workers can act ethically. It agrees in other words that Husband's notion of the morally active practitioner is possible, under the right conditions (Husband 1995, ch.5). The paper also assumes that ethical principles can and should be conflicted over, as they have been throughout human history. With great caution and reservation the paper also accepts that virtue can be regulated and ethical action codified, and that such codification can act as a moral lighthouse for social workers. What it does not accept is that ethical principles can de-contextualised as they are in the Code of Ethics of the AASW. The paper also critiques the Code for its pretensions to inclusivity. It argues that social work does not have a moral centre, and that the activist part of the profession is disenfranchised. The paper profiles the case of an activist social worker who suffered mightily for her principles. She fell victim to trumped up allegations of code violation, hence revealing a dark and unexplored aspect of the new moralism sweeping the professions (De Maria 1995a). Her story illustrates the tragic plight for a vulnerable minority in the profession. This narrow and authoritarian moralism is seen as widely manifested in mainstream social work. In this ethical climate, activist lions are thrown to the Christians. The article advocates for codified ethical diversity and concludes with a push for an ethic of activism to share equal moral billing with the more dominant ethic of care.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 10 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.