Organizations as professional communities in the post-modern era
| Author | Adrian Oosterloo |
| Position | Academy for social studies, Christian University Ede, Holland. |
| Pages | 99-106 |
Page 99
When asked about the organization they work for, several Dutch psychologists or social workers will provide different answers, such as "Working with patients is tough but also very challenging", "the caseload is too high", "the team can more or less get along with each other and the senior management understands little".
Annoyance usually forms a gap between managers and the social workers. The different perspectives they have on the organization barely seem reconcilable. In a time, when care is becoming more businesslike, when social work is needed but at the same time too expensive, this isn‟t very surprising.
It is not unique that reality is full of contradictions like these; it is perhaps a social given which is partly determined by the politics. This contemplative article is not about these contradictions, but wants to give an answer to the question of what the meaning of the Dutch social context is for the connection between individual social workers and their organizations. It also offers a possible answer to the changing social context in which these organizations operate. The article does not go in on the trend of accountability, on becoming more businesslike and scaling, but zooms in on what is going on inside the walls of the organization and what is happening with the employees. It ends with a plea for new types of organization communities, which continually know how to find an appropriate connection with the changing reality.
The Dutch society characterizes itself by the growing diversity. Postmodernism determines the current social view on diversity in Holland. Robbin (in Geuijen [7]) focuses on this and argues that pluralism is inherent to postmodernism. With conceptsPage 100such as truth, predictability, continuity and know-ability, which both social workers and clients often strongly need, postmodernism gives a lot of tension.
Time, however, seems to dim these contradictions because more recent relativities and synthesis are taking place. In my opinion, the growing interest for Wisdom Literature is a sign for that. The time of paradigm is disappearing. "And-and‟ is now more important instead of "or-or‟ (Quinn)[16]. With this last movement, the tension named above becomes milder, but does not diminish.
Schnabel [18] describes individualization as a historical, social and cultural process, which has been active and perceptible in the western society for several centuries. He defines individualization as "the process in which the dependency of the individual, economically and normatively, is shifted from its direct social environment to farther anonymous links through partial relationships, making the power ratio between the individual and his direct social environment equal. It then doesn't necessarily lessen the influence of the social environment but lessens the guiding ability.'
In Holland, the process of individualization started long ago. The reformation can be seen as a metaphysical individualization whereby man is responsible to His Creator as an individual. Here he can‟t delegate his responsibility towards the religious community that he is part of or towards their leaders.
Afterwards, the equal mind of The Enlightenment did its job and individualization continued because of industrialization and increasing prosperity. In the last century, the process of individualization manifests itself through the growing number of one-person households; married women that use their maiden name; partners who, in decreasingly degree, have control of each other‟s finances and who have different friends. Children have their own room and can isolate themselves from the rest of the family there because of the arrival of central heating.
Thus, individualization becomes visible as a social process in the independence of people compared to others. People are able to make choices which are relatively separated from those surrounding them. What characterizes the modern and emancipated individual is that the uniqueness of the individual finds its expression in a strictly personal and held together whole of roles and functions, which is not standard in that combination. The question is whether or not this process will further develop towards an atomistic society. Where the company can be freely chosen, there is talk of recollectivities, which is shown in the small growth of living areas and carpooling. By considerations, values such as freedom are disposed of against security, privacy against availability of a listening ear, career opportunities against the desire to have children and divorce against the continuation of the relationship. The freedom of choice and autonomy are values that are considered of great importance.
By thinking more about pluralism, I first consulted Emmanuel Levinas. Levinas wrote about pluralism, (in)dependency, and justice as needed conditions for dealing responsibly and ethically. "Which conditions need to be fulfilled to make goodness possible?‟ Levinas‟ philosophy looks for answers to this question. Pluralism is one condition that Levinas names. After all, the possibility of well-being as a responsibility assumes a relationship with someone, whom you can direct your care on. That is why Levinas calls well-being a relationship term. By being responsible, I acknowledge the existence of someone apart from myself. Real pluralism is only possible when there is freedom and independence. There is talk of own identities. Only an identity with a demonstrable autonomy, someone with freedom of choice, with an ability to decide, with an own will, is sane. It is, however,Page 101impossible for someone to be in a relationship when he is entirely independent and stands on his own. Every relationship means that there is a connection, which indicates "bondage‟. Thus, apart from independence, another condition for dealing ethically is dependency.
Independency and dependency (in terms of Levinas: autonomy and heteronomy) are both crucial. These are exactly the terms that characterize the tension of the whole organization and the individuality of the workers. This ambivalence connects to Levinas‟ ambivalent image of humans, the ones who are both free and not free. Levinas puts the human in light of well-being. Both dependency and independency are needed for well-being.
Dependency is also needed for well-being. Dependency...
To continue reading
Request your trial