BJSW Advance Access first published online on March 17, 2008
This version published online on April 28, 2008
British Journal of Social Work, doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcn026
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Questioning Habermasian Social Work: A Note on Some Alternative Theoretical Resources
Paul Michael Garrett is the author of Remaking Social Work with Children and Families (Routledge, 2003) and Social Work with Irish Children and Families in Britain (Policy Press, 2004). His work has also appeared in academic journals across a range of disciplines. For a number of years he has been a member of the Critical Social Policy editorial collective. He is also a member of the editorial board of the European Journal of Social Work and is a consulting editor for the US-based Journal of Progressive Human Services
Correspondence to: Dr Paul Michael Garrett, School of Political Science & Sociology, National University of Ireland, Galway, Republic of Ireland. Email: PM.Garrett{at}nuigalway.ie
 |
Abstract |
|---|
It has been maintained that the social theory of Jurgen Habermas may assist social workers, and others, involved in child protection and related forms of endeavour. Whilst welcoming Hayes and Houston's willingness to utilize social theory, it is argued that Habermas' work is also problematic because of an unsatisfactory approach to issues connected to power differentials. In this context, it will be suggested that there is a need to be wary about the emphasis which Habermas places on the possibilities for unconstrained dialogue. Moreover, the work of a number of other European writers may help to illuminate key factors which Habermas neglects and also provide alternative theoretical resources for social workers and those working in associated fields.
Keywords: Social theory, Bourdieu, Bakhtin, Gramsci
The following amendments have been made to this paper:
On page 13 line 2, the reference to Agnes Heller (1982) now has the correct page citings, pp. 21-22. On line 5 the reference quoted has also been changed to only Goode (2005).
On page 10 the word "neoliberalism" has been moved to line 444 to show that it is not "neo-liberalism"
The following changes have been made to this article:
Page 13 line 4: The speechmark has been deleted and should now read:
‘the sensuous experiences of hope and despair, of venture and humiliation ... the creature-like aspects of human beings are missing’. It is a subject with ‘no body, no feelings; the ‘structure of personality’ is identified with cognition, language and interaction.... [One] gets the impression the ‘good life’ consists solely of rational communication and needs that can be argued for without being felt (see also Goode, 2005, p. 48).
Page 10 line 38: neoliberalism has been replaced with neoliberal