Suchergebnisse

Introduction: This article explores contemporary Scottish child welfare policy and locates it in a neoliberal context. The existing national practice model known by the acronym GIRFEC (Getting it Right for Every Child) has been a feature of policy and legislation since early 2000. Its latest iteration is notable for two developments, one being the change in the threshold for state intervention in family life to the notion of wellbeing and secondly, the appointment of a state guardian (known as the named person scheme) for every child in Scotland. Method: Drawing from the concept of late modernity (Parton, 2006), I argue that these advances constitute a net widening approach that seeks to universalise state involvement in family life. The concept of the society of control (Deleuze, 1992) is utilised as a method of exploring how the named person scheme can be viewed as a universal surveillance mechanism which seeks to preserve and promote neoliberal hegemony. Conclusion: In the Scottish context the named person scheme is a vehicle for neoliberal state control. The scheme is underpinned by notions of normative compliance resulting in social work practice becoming distanced from its social change agenda, instead working on families rather than with families.

Abstract
This article explores Munther Amira's 'Pedagogy of Revolution', a unique approach of non-violent resistance that adopts the pedagogy of Paulo Freire and global social work values and principles, for educating, empowering and mobilising Palestinian refugees living in the Westbank, as a means for liberation from the oppression imposed by Israel's military occupation. The article begins by charting the history of Palestine, locating it as a place of violent upheaval and colonial occupation. It also pays particular attention to Britain's role in abandoning the Palestinian people describing how this decision contributed to the continuing unrest and violence in the region. Using narrative inquiry methods, and by deploying a lens of contemporary social theory, the article provides a deeper understanding of the lived experiences of Palestinian refugees through the lived experiences of Munther Amira, a Palestinian refugee, social worker and human rights defender. It concludes by showing that regardless of the exceptionalism (or otherwise) of the environment, globally social work should align itself with the defence of human rights through non-violence resistance and, as a matter of urgency, should adopt what we describe as a 'Pedagogy of Revolution'.

Introduction: The Counter-Terrorism and Security Act (2015) passed in the United Kingdom (UK) made it mandatory for social workers, as well as a wide range of caring professionals, to work within the PREVENT policy, originally introduced in 2002, as one strand of the UK's overall counter-terrorism policy. METHOD: The paper offers a theoretical account of how complex issues, like terrorism, that understandably impact on the safety and security of countries, are reduced to a series of assertions, claims and panics that centre on the notion of common sense. Implications: We theorise the concept of common sense and argue that such rhetorical devices have become part of the narrative that surrounds the PREVENT agenda in the UK, which co-opts social workers (and other public servants) into an increasingly securitised environment within the state. In other words, the appeal to common sense stifles critical debate, makes it hard to raise concerns and positions debates in a binary manner. We use the example of how there has been a decisive linking of traditional safeguarding social work practice with counter-terrorism activity. Conclusions: We posit that linkages such as this serve to advance a more closed society, resulting in a "chilling" of free speech, an increase in surveillance and the unchecked advancement of a neoliberal political agenda which promotes economic considerations over issues of social justice. This we argue, has implications for not only the UK, but for other countries where social workers are increasingly being tasked with counter-terrorism activities.

The Counter Terrorism and Security Act came into force in July 2015 in the UK. This places a statutory duty on many front-line organisations, for example, schools, social services and prisons, to work within the PREVENT agenda, a policy arising from Britain's overall counterterrorism policy, CONTEST. We argue that PREVENT is representative of increasingly securitised social policies that serve to: first, view people within particular individualised neoliberal discourses and thin narratives; and, second, coerce the profession of social work into hitherto unknown areas, namely, national security and counterterrorism. We note the unapologetic linkage of traditional forms of what we term here 'welfare safeguarding', customarily the domain of social work, with what we term 'security safeguarding'. If the profession of social work in the UK, and we suspect other Western regimes, wishes to avoid becoming a profession of 'downpressor men', the uncritical incursion into issues of national security and counterterrorism must be highlighted.

Taking a political stance in social work necessarily involves a close historical examination of the influence of social and economic structure as well as the constituting context of relations of domination. It also involves articulating an ontology of the political subject. We maintain that the proper conceptual space for understanding the possibility of taking a political stance is that of political ontology. In defining this space we draw on issues raised in The New Politics of Social Work (Gray and Webb, 2013) bringing together aspects of social structure and agency for radical social work. We ask against which principles a radical social work stance might be judged and question the extent to which it can be positioned as a counter-strategy to both neoliberal capitalism and mainstream social work. The article plots the implications and meaning of the 'new politics of social work' – conceived of as a 'New Social Work Left'.