The ecosocial paradigm in social work : Striving for planetary well-being
Full text
This is a self-archived version of an original article. This version may differ from the original in pagination and typographic details. Author(s): Title: Year: Version: Copyright: Rights: Rights url: Please cite the original version: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ The ecosocial paradigm in social work : Striving for planetary well-being © 2024 selection and editorial matter, Merja Elo, Jonne Hytönen, Sanna Karkulehto, Teea Kortetmäki, Janne S. Kotiaho, Mikael Puurtinen, and Miikka Salo; individual chapters, the contributors Published version Stamm, Ingo; Ranta-Tyrkkö, Satu; Matthies, Aila-Leena; Närhi, Kati Stamm, I., Ranta-Tyrkkö, S., Matthies, A.-L., & Närhi, K. (2024). The ecosocial paradigm in social work : Striving for planetary well-being. In M. Elo, J. Hytönen, S. Karkulehto, T. Kortetmäki, J. S. Kotiaho, M. Puurtinen, & M. Salo (Eds.), Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Planetary Well-Being (pp. 177-188). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003334002-18 2024
Introduction The chapter focuses on the planetary well-being concept from the perspective of socialworkandisstructuredinfourmainparts.First,wewillbrieflyintroducesocial work as a practice-oriented profession and academic discipline that has many different forms globally. Second, we will describe the new paradigm of ecosocial work. Ecosocial work attempts to readjust the professions´ main emphasis on social problems of and between human beings to a position that puts humanity’s dependence on the natural environment at its centre. Third, we will examine how the planetary well-being concept can be a fruitful addition to ecosocial work concepts and social work in general. Here we will focus on the implications of the planetary well-being concept for social work ethics. We argue that social work, as a human-centred profession and discipline, must strike a balance between critical anthropocentric and non-anthropocentricperspectives.Inthefourthandfinalpart,wediscusscritically what ethical dilemmas could arise if the idea of planetary well-being would be fully implemented in social work practice. In conclusion, we identify planetary well-being as a useful addition to current discussions in social work. Social work as an academic discipline and a practice-oriented profession Social work simultaneously refers to many things: An academic discipline, a researchbased, practice-oriented profession combined with a related service system, as well as social movements committed to the enhancement of human well-being. The groups andindividualsthatsocialworkfocusesonandcollaborateswithareoftenidentified as vulnerable, oppressed, or living in poverty. In their own ways, from the premise 13 THE ECOSOCIAL PARADIGM IN SOCIAL WORK Striving for planetary well-being Ingo Stamm, Satu Ranta-Tyrkkö, Aila-Leena Matthies and Kati Närhi DOI: 10.4324/9781003334002-18
178 Ingo Stamm et al. of collective responsibility, the different branches of social work aspire to promote social change, social cohesion, and empowerment. While many other professions and disciplines share similar ideals of social justice, the strong foundation in an ethical and moral discourse is a distinctive feature of social work (International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW), 2018; Witkin, 2003, p. 239). With origins in the practices of both state and religion-based forms of organized care and support for those in need, social work has its roots in philanthropic work, community-organizing, and social movements. As an academic discipline, however, social work has only been formed globally over the last 50 years, with significant differences between countries. During this time, it has seen a long developmentofprofessionalizationandanextensionofitsfieldsofactionand responsibilities. Although an academic discipline in its own right, social work has interfaces with many other disciplines, such as psychology or social and public policy, and it employs theoretical and methodological inputs from other social and behaviouralsciences.Whilesocialworkhasalsobeenidentifiedaspartofsocial movements or as voluntary work, globally the trend has been a gradual professionalization of social work practice and academicization of social work education. Especially in the Nordic welfare states such as Finland, social work is closely entwined with the public system of welfare services. As a profession, social work has its own ethical standards, manifested in internationalandnationalsocialworkcodesofethics.Accordingtotheglobaldefinition of the social work profession (IFSW and International Association of Schools of Social Work (IASSW), 2014), the principles of social justice, human rights, collective responsibility, and respect for diversities are central to social work. On a general level, social workers cooperate with people in attempts to solve social problems and provide support for individuals and communities, ideally promoting social change on a structural and political level. Whatever the status and local organizational structures, social work is expected to encompass community work, health care services, and political processes for greater equality and inclusiveness of societies (e.g., Ranta-Tyrkkö, 2010, p. 307). However, in the service infrastructures of modern welfare states, social workers are mainly directed to work at the micro level with individual service-users, and less on the community level. The ecosocial paradigm in social work The acknowledgement of the importance of the physical environment in social work can be traced back to its early beginnings as a profession and discipline (Närhi and Matthies, 2016; Stamm, 2021b; Staub-Bernasconi, 1989). During that time, in the late 19th century, urban or built environments started to be a concern for the forerunners of today’s social workers. This included, among other issues, questions regarding air and water quality, waste removal, sanitation, and healthy food (e.g., Waris, 2016). In the USA, these early, environmentally aware social workers, among them Jane Addams, often had strong links to the Chicago School
The ecosocial paradigm in social work 179 of Sociology and especially urban sociology. They analyzed the living conditions of (migrant) workers in cities and developed methods and interventions to tackle problems of the urban environment in cooperation with the inhabitants. These methods and interventions led to a gradual improvement in the living conditions of the urban poor in industrialized countries. However, after World War II, in the globally hegemonic western social work, notions of the environment narrowed to perceiving it primarily as social, cultural, and economic, but excluding to a greater extent any connection to the natural environment (Närhi and Matthies, 2016). Ecosocial work, overlapping with concepts such as environmental, ecological, or green social work, is built on the premise that humans are part of, and dependent on, the web of life on Earth. Hence, the human responsibility is to safeguard, and at a minimum not overly harm, the delicate balance of ecosystems and other complex interconnected systems that life on Earth depends on. Thus, ecosocial work has been critically questioning the growth-based economic foundation of the existing welfare states and social work (Matthies, 2001). For the time being, concurrentecologicalcrises,whicharechieflycausedbyextractivistoverconsumption of natural resources, particularly by overconsuming population groups and economic sectors globally, endanger the continuity of many life forms, and in thelongrunhumanityitself.Whilethisalonechallengestheethicaljustification and meaningfulness of extractivist relationships with “nature” (Pihlström, 2020), it contradicts social work’s mission to protect those who are vulnerable, marginalized, or in poverty. Rather, the environmental crises both deepen and cause new forms of vulnerability and marginalization (Ranta-Tyrkkö and Närhi, 2021). Furthermore, social work must deal with the possible negative consequences of environmental policies, such as rising energy poverty, for marginalized and vulnerable groups. Ecosocial work strives to contribute to a profound and fair sustainability transition, as well as the widespread adoption of an ecosocial paradigm in social work and societies at large (Matthies and Närhi, 2017). Therefore, ecosocial work aspires to a deeper and transformative approach to sustainability in social work practice, including a critical evaluation of its own views of the world and subsequent reconfigurationoftheplaceofhumanswithinthenaturalworld(Boettoet al., 2020). The climate crisis and other life-threatening planetary scale environmental changes illustratethathumanbeingsneedtofundamentallyreconfiguretheirrelationship to planet Earth and its life forms. However, for modern social work, which stems largely from the same anthropocentric and modernist worldview as the current environmental problems, this presents a paradigmatic, and thus immense ontological, institutional, and practical challenge. Nonetheless, while still far from mainstreamandnotwidelyidentifiedwithinthesocialworkprofession,recognitionof and interest in ecosocial work has rapidly grown during the past two decades as a research area and theoretical development, having an increasing impact on education and practice developments (ibid.; Krings et al., 2018; Matthies, Krings and Stamm, 2020; Ranta-Tyrkkö and Närhi, 2021).
180 Ingo Stamm et al. The ecosocial framework has much in common with the critical, structural, indigenous,andfeministapproachesinthefieldofsocialwork,allofwhichcarry a broad understanding of the person-in-environment concept and an interest in the dynamics of power (Coates, 2003; Coates and Gray, 2012; Närhi and Matthies, 2016). Moreover, they are linked with and contribute to currently evolving, interdisciplinary discussions on post-anthropocentric and posthuman (e.g., Bozalek and Pease, 2021), as well as decolonizing social work (Clarke and Yellow Bird, 2021). Recognizing that even global change is made locally, the task of ecosocial work is to pursue a variety of locally meaningful pathways towards greater sustainability. In doing so, one of its priorities is to ensure that social work clients, and in general people with lesser resources and political and economic power, have both access to and a say over sustainable choices and lifestyles. In other words, sustainability and environmental justice can be considered as parallel and aligned principles of social work, together with human rights and social justice (see also Ife, 2018). Notwithstanding the clear need for a comprehensive systemic renewal, ecosocial work has heretofore proceeded mostly from within existing systems. Often, ecosocial work has meant promoting or downright organizing niches of fairer and more sustainable everyday practices, income earning possibilities, relationships, and well-being. Ecosocialworkidentifiesonapracticallevel,first,astronglinkbetweensocial and environmental problems, because marginalized groups often suffer from both environmental and social injustice. Second, regarding solutions, the ecosocial framework brings the social and the environmental dimension together. This means, among other things, that nature can be seen as a resource that could be (re)discovered by social workers, for example, by recognizing and utilizing the healing power of the natural environment and animal companions, such as in various forms of nature and/or animal-assisted care. Moreover, various activities have been organized, for example, around reand upcycling, to provide both sustainable income opportunities and to promote resource-sparing ways of life. Third, ecosocial work involves an obligation to social workers, together with their clients, to contribute to more sustainable societies, which can mean considering planetary well-being as a new goal of the profession (cf., Stamm, 2021a). This proposed obligationcanbeidentifiedindependentofthesocialworkapproach.Itcanplayarole in individual, clinical social work, in group-based or community approaches but also in structural or political social work aspiring for change at societal and policy levels (Boetto, 2017; Närhi and Matthies, 2018). Planetary well-being and its relationship with the ecosocial paradigm in social work As a goal, planetary well-being overlaps in numerous ways with the objectives of ecosocial work. Emphasizing the integrity of the Earth system and ecosystem processes as the foundation of life, it brings together both social, humanistic, and natural scientific knowledge. In line with the concept of planetary well-being
The ecosocial paradigm in social work 181 (Kortetmäki et al., 2021), proponents of ecosocial work often stipulate a shift from an anthropocentric worldview to an ecocentric (or simply ecosocial) one (cf., Gray and Coates, 2012; Powers and Rinkel, 2019; Rambaree, Powers and Smith, 2019). Social work further relies heavily on needs theories and emphasizes their connections to human rights and social justice. The focus on systems and processes, inherent in the planetary well-being concept as a precondition for the satisfaction of needs, is also familiar to social work (e.g., Hollstein-Brinkmann and StaubBernasconi, 2005). However, the focus usually remains on the individual person, and systems are often used to describe various aspects of the social environment of a social work client, such as the family system, the work life system or the cultural or religious system that a person is embedded in. Finally, the planetary well-being approach addresses the problem of global inequality, which is an important issue for social work globally. However, for the time being, social work is largely stuck in national frameworks that do not support and instead actually hinder global views and problem-solving (Ranta-Tyrkkö, 2017, p. 115). The overlap between the concept of planetary well-being and the ecosocial paradigm in social work is already manifested in the concept of well-being. The term ishighlightedinthecurrentglobaldefinitionofthesocialworkprofession.Thelast sentence of this global focal point for social workers states: “Underpinned by theories of social work, social sciences, humanities and Indigenous knowledge, social work engages people and structures to address life challenges and enhance wellbeing” (IFSW and IASSW, 2014). As with the term environment, in social work the notion of well-being is mostly understood as human well-being, emphasizing human needs (Gamble, 2012). However, based on the assumption that well-being is a fundamentally important concept of social work, many scholars and advocates of the ecosocial paradigm have made attempts to further develop the understanding of well-being in social work (Peeters, 2016; Powers, Rinkel and Kumar, 2021). Peeters, for example, argues that in times of the ecological crisis the idea that wellbeing follows from high material prosperity must be revised. The emphasis should be on the quality of human relationships and the relationship with nature (Peeters, 2016, p. 178). Other scholars suggest the introduction of concepts such as holistic or mutual well-being, or “true well-being for the Web of Life” (Powers, Rinkel and Kumar, 2021, p. 5). To strive for holistic well-being in social work would mean to shift towards a non-anthropocentric, or ecocentric worldview (cf., Rambaree, Powers and Smith, 2019). The guiding principle for such a worldview would be ecological justice, which seeks to preserve the integrity of the natural world, among other things, and ascribes to nonhuman nature an intrinsic value irrespective of its value for human beings (Gray et al., 2013, p. 321). The underlying ethical principle is the equality of all living beings (Sterba, 2014). The concept of environmental justice can be seen as subordinated or anthropocentric because it adheres to a human perspective, emphasizing distributional, representational, and procedural justice (cf., Kivimaa et al., 2021; Schlosberg, 2007). Environmental justice is a concept strongly connected to the US-American context,
182 Ingo Stamm et al. where it originated in the Black civil rights movement. Later, it also incorporated other marginalized groups that faced both racism and environmental hazards at the same time (Krings and Copic, 2020). In the context of the climate crisis, environmental justice has been incorporated into the concept of climate justice. Given that the different effects of global warming on different countries and peoples are well documented, climate justice points to imbalances in bearing the brunt of the climate crisis both within and between nation states. Globally, people living in poverty are commonly affected more harshly by the changing climate, with the impact of extreme weather conditions, such as heat wavesorfloods,aswellasbyclimatechangemitigationmeasures,suchasincreasing energy costs. In social work, increasing numbers of scholars insist on taking these effects more seriously and integrating them in assessments and the methods of social work practitioners. Both principles, environmental and ecological justice, follow the same direction but simultaneously deviate in some regards. Both go beyond the traditional notions of social justice in social work, which do not consider relations to the natural environment, and both ascribe an intrinsic value to the natural world. Combined with the principle of sustainability, environmental justice must also be widened (as intergenerational justice) to accommodate the needs and rights of future people (Stamm, 2021b). In summary, the concept of planetary well-being and the ecosocial paradigm in social work share a lot of common ground. This includes a holistic view on wellbeing, which goes beyond human needs and seeks to achieve ecological justice. At least in theory, also global inequalities are highlighted in both approaches. The questionofwhoseneedsshouldbefulfilledindividuallytoabolishinequalities among humans, while at the same time considering the well-being of other forms of life, remains open. These dilemmas are partly discussed in the next section. Challenges in applying the planetary well-being concept in social work To apply the planetary well-being concept in social work would mean to reconsider social work ethics. In global social work statements on ethics, as well as in national codes of ethics in general, human rights and social justice are laid down as the main principles. In practice, however, much of the ethical deliberation focuses on worker–client relations in an implicitly national context (Ranta-Tyrkkö, 2017). Theplanetarywell-beingconcept,asthemorespecificecosocialparadigm,would stipulate to go beyond these traditional principles and values of social work, and to build bridges to the natural environment and recognize its value for social work. In environmental ethics, which the planetary well-being concept is partly based on, thesetwoperspectivesareidentifiedasanthropocentricandnon-anthropocentric ethics (Boylan, 2014; Light and Rolston, 2003). For social work, as a humancentred profession and discipline, striking a balance between the (moral) anthropocentric and the non-anthropocentric perspectives seems crucial.
The ecosocial paradigm in social work 183 Sterba (2014) argues that a reconciliation between anthropocentric and nonanthropocentric ethics is possible. His line of reasoning is of value also for social work and its connection to the planetary well-being concept. As a starting point, he acknowledges the intrinsic value of all species but he argues that in certain circumstances the value of human beings, or in other words the well-being of humans, can be prioritized. He introduces three principles that could be seen as common ground between the two described ethical perspectives, allowing a reconciliation between both: 1 A Principle of Human Defence: Actions that defend oneself and other human beings against harmful aggression are permissible even when they necessitate killingorharminganimalsorplants(Sterba,2014,pp.164‒166). 2 A Principle of Human Preservation: Actions that are necessary for meeting one’s basic needs or the basic needs of other human beings are permissible even when they require aggressing against the basic needs of animals and plants (ibid.). 3 A Principle of Disproportionality: Actions that meet nonbasic or luxury needs of humans are prohibited when they aggress against the basic needs of animals and plants (ibid.). Even though his argumentation is challenged by other environmental ethics scholars (cf., Steverson, 2014), it can serve as a starting point for a revised social work ethic that would still focus on human well-being but acknowledge the intrinsic value of the natural world as well. Regarding the third principle, there has been a related debate in social work theory (Staub-Bernasconi, 2018). Apart from the needs of animals and plants, an important question is what basic and luxury needs are. In social work this difference has also been discussed using the terms needs versus wishes (ibid.). Some scholars oppose the idea of any objective needs. Ife, for example, suggests that needs are “by their very nature, value-laden” (Ife, 2012, p. 126). They depend, according to Ife, to a great extent on individual views of the clients of social work as well as on the values of social workers themselves. Without having the space to elaborate the theoretical foundations and standpoints of the debate here, it could be concluded based on Sterba’s argumentation that social work would, in the future, not only have to differentiate between basic and luxury needs of humans but would have to consider the needs of the natural world as well (where only basic needs exist). Notably, in the planetary well-being framework, only basic needs are referred to as needs. Taking the position that the needs of the natural world could be allowed to be subordinated only if basic human needs are at stake could pave the way for a critical anthropocentrism in social work (Grunwald, 2016). The task of reconciliation between (moral) anthropocentric and non-anthropocentric ethics can also be used for linking environmental and ecological justice. On a general level, both conceptpairs share a common ground. We argue that for social work theory and social work ethics a better understanding of these concepts and their overlap is needed.
184 Ingo Stamm et al. This could then serve as a basis for discussions on the concrete implications of the planetary well-being concept for social work. The implications or challenges for social work practice are manifold. First, it must be stated that social workers take action based on certain mandates. Traditionally, the common understanding was that of a double mandate between support and control: One by the state, which was associated with the term control, and the second one coming from the clients, which represented support. Social workers in this respect had to balance and handle tensions between the two tasks—supporting and controlling. Swiss social work scholar, Staub-Bernasconi, has added a third mandate to these. She argues for a self-given, professional mandate that is based on bothsocialwork´sscientificknowledgebaseandanethicalfoundation.Thelatter consists mainly of social work’s main principles of human rights and social justice and is broadly laid down in international and national ethic statements and codes (Staub-Bernasconi, 2016, 2018). In recent years, an extension or adjustment of the third mandate, to include the natural environment and sustainability goals, has been suggested (Stamm, 2021b). However, a direct mandate from plants or animals cannot be given. All three mandates might only implicitly include a consideration of the intrinsic value of the nonhuman nature. To date, however, this component has been rarely discussed. While some social work codes of ethics already mention environmental justice asaprinciple,theconceptassuchisleftundefinedandwithoutoperationalizingfor social work practice. This makes it hard for social workers in the current situation to know what they could or should do in regard to environmental justice or promoting the well-being of nonhuman nature. Moreover, as they are trained to consider human well-being, knowledge about other species or the natural environment is usually not part of their education. When some social workers or social work organizations nonetheless pay attention to the natural environment, the reasoning behind this is usually that it is integral to the social environment of the clients. The above notwithstanding, many social workers, professional and non-professional, are very likely to be concerned with the well-being of nonhuman nature but lack knowledge of how to take it into account and promote it in their own work (RantaTyrkkö and Närhi, 2021). Part of a classical social work diagnosis is an assessment phase, in which a problemisidentifiedtogetherwiththeclients.Suchanassessmentcanhavedifferent components, such as looking at the needs, rights, and resources of clients (cf., Arnegger, 2005). Based on the assessment, generally certain goals are set, linked with methods to achieve them. In individualized forms of social work, the natural environment might play a role, but only when it comes to environmental hazards or amenities. This can mean a combined form of social and environmental or ecological justice from the perspective of individual problems. Regarding the above-mentioned principle of disproportionality, in most cases the needs of social work clients can be considered basic needs. However, the implementation of the planetary well-being concept might be more likely to be