Social Work and The Environment

Social Work and the Environment:
Understanding People and Place
9 People and PI
By Michael Kim Zapf, PhD, RSW, Professor, Faculty of Social Work,
University of Calgary, Calgary, AB
Abstract
As a profession with a long-standing declared focus on person-in-
environment, social work might be expected to play a leadership role in
interdisciplinary efforts to tackle environmental threats to human well-
being and continued existence, yet the profession has generally been
silent or less than relevant. This paper explores past and present neglect
of the natural environment within mainstream social work. The
profession s longstanding person-in-environment perspective 1s examined
for constraints that inhibit understanding of environmental issues and the
development of effective strategies. Alternative understandings of the
environment from specializations within the profession and related
disciplines are considered. The paper concludes with directions toward
new models of practice incorporating a view of people as place that may
help us towards a broader mission of learning to live well in place.
Introduction
Human beings may be entering very difficult times with the degradation
and potential destruction of our sustaining natural world. Collectively, we
may be facing a fundamental shift in values and approaches towards
living on and with this planet. Governments are beginning to respond.
There are suggestions that society could be in the initial stages of
constructing an environmental state much as we created the welfare state
in the last century (Meadowcroft, 2007). What relevance does social
work have as humankind faces these serious challenges? As a profession
with a long-standing declared focus on person-in-environment, social
work might be expected to play a leadership role in the planning stages of
any new environmental state. Yet we have generally been silent on these
serious threats to human well-being and continued existence.
How has the physical environment been perceived and conceptualized at

the core and at the margins of the discipline of social work? To what
extent have our foundational assessment and intervention strategies
incorporated the physical environment? In what ways might our
language, our assumptions, and our conventional knowledge-building
approaches be limiting our ability to perceive connections between
people and the world we inhabit? This paper attempts to address these
important questions, and concludes that it is time (or past time) for social
work to move beyond our conventional metaphor of person-in-
environment towards a new paradigm, a new understanding of the
relationship between people and the physical environment.
Morito (2002) clarified an important distinction between thinking about

ecology and thinking ecologically. Ecological issues cannot be relegated
to one separate discipline assigned exclusive responsibility for the
physical environment. Ecological thinking 1s a process, a worldview, a set
of principles, an awareness that must affect all approaches to enquiry and
practice 1f we are to survive. Following Morito’s distinction, the
following discussion 1s not about ecology from a social work perspective;
rather, the emphasis is on the importance of our profession learning to
think and act ecologically if we are to have relevance for addressing the
serious environmental concerns now facing humankind.
How the Environment became the Social Environment
Laying the conceptual foundations for the new profession of social work,
Mary Richmond (1922) acknowledged the physical environment as an
important contextual consideration for practice but perceived its
importance in terms of only its social aspects, asserting that the physical
environment “becomes part of the social environment” to the extent that
it “frequently has its social aspects” (p. 99). From the outset, the
profession of social work was more comfortable using social science
lenses to view the environment rather than perspectives from the physical
or natural sciences. What happened later when the profession adopted an
ecological perspective from the natural sciences? This ecological
perspective was distorted to re-affirm the profession's emphasis on the
social environment. Consider Gordon’s (1969) work that called attention
to social work’s newly declared “simultaneous dual focus on organism

and environment” (p. 6), a statement of the ecological perspective
perhaps in its purest form. Gordon, however, immediately went on to
declare his assumption that the organism would be “interpreted by
psychological theory” while the environment could be “interpreted by
sociological and economic theory” (p. 6). Similar to Richmond’s work,
here was another clear direction to understand the environment
exclusively in social terms. Gordon (1981) later asserted that “the
ultimate goal of social work is to bring about a balance between the
realities of a person's capabilities and a person’s social situation” (p.
136), with no mention of the physical environment at all.
Developing this ecological perspective into a functional systems

approach for social work, Pincus and Minahan (1973) proposed four
basic systems for practice, all of which were social (the change agent
system; the client system; the target system; and the action system). From
this systems perspective, “the focus of social work practice 1s on the
interactions between people and systems in the social environment” (p. 3)
with a goal of restoration of balance or equilibrium within immediate
social systems where there had been some disruption. Considerations of
the physical environment were beyond the scope of this approach.
Building on these foundations, a pattern was established in the
mainstream social work literature whereby the environment would be
transformed into the social environment, with the physical environment
disappearing altogether. No adequate rationale or explanation would be
offered, and the switch was generally unnoticed or unacknowledged.

Consider a few examples.
Yelaja (1985) presented the ecological metaphor as a major influence on

social work with its emphasis on “the reciprocal relationships between
the individual and the environment and the continuous adaptation of both
person and environment to each other” (p. 29). Yet the very next sentence
declared that “human growth and development constantly change in
relation to the social environment — and the social environment changes
in response to human factors” (p. 29). Notice the switch. Within two
sentences, the “environment” became the “social environment.” The
physical environment had disappeared without explanation, effectively
written out of the ecological equation.
Miley, O’Melia, and DuBois (2004) similarly set out a promising view of
transactions between people and their environments, explaining how
“people affect their environments and, likewise, the social and physical
environment affects people” (p. 34). On the very same page, however,
they reaffirmed “social work’s focus on social functioning” which they
presented as the balance between coping efforts and the demands of the
“social environment.” Once again, the physical environment was dropped
without explanation.
Heinonen and Spearman (2006) explained that “the primary focus of

social work should not be on psychological forces, the environment, or
the social structure, but on the interface or relationship between the
person and the social environment” (p. 182). In a single sentence, the
triad of person, environment, and social structure became the duality of
person and social environment. While this was an interesting and
relatively quick instance of the familiar switch, arguably the most
efficient example comes from a generalist practice textbook by Hull, Jr.
and Kirst-Ashman (2004). Under the index entry for “Environment” (p.
483), it simply says “See Social Environment.” The physical environment
was gone in only four words!
Not all social work authors left the physical environment completely
behind. A minority declared the physical environment to be an integral
component of their worldview and foundation for practice. Sadly, many
of these pronouncements were quickly undercut by less than full support
for the environment in subsequent applications. Ecological language 1s
frequently used only as window dressing for conventional approaches
that subsequently ignore the physical environment in their assessment
tools and practice models. Once again, selected examples illustrate the
pattern. Consider that Neugeboren’s (1996) book with the promising title
Environmental Practice in the Human Services included only one
paragraph (p. 251) that dealt directly with the physical environment, and
this was completely focused on agency physical space (with mention
made of lighting patterns, non-skid surfaces, safety features, and corridor
length).
Even when the physical environment is presented conceptually as an

important consideration for social work, it seldom makes the diagramme
practice model. Lehmann and Coady (2001) defined a client's
environment as “any aspect of the physical, social, and cultural
environment, and what ts most important will vary with individuals, tim
and geography” (p. 72). The physical environment here was an integral
component of the overall environment for social work practice and a
potential variable influencing human activity. For some unexplained
reason, however, the accompanying diagram of this ecological
perspective labeled social and cultural contexts while completely
ignoring the physical environment. Sheafor and Horejsi (2006) similarly
defined the environment broadly as “one’s surroundings - that multitude
of physical and social structures, forces, and processes that affect human
and all other life forms” (p. 9) but then made a distinction between the
“immediate environment” defined in terms of social systems, and the
“distant environment” which included features of “clean air, drinkable
water, shelter, and good soil to produce food” (p. 9). For no apparent
reason, nature was relegated to the distance as background. Three pages
later, the illustrated model of practice featured a background labeled onl
as “the social environment” (p. 12) with no mention whatsoever of the
physical environment. From central to background to obscurity in three
pages!
If the physical environment is consistently dropped from the diagramme

models of practice, it comes as no surprise that the assessment tools
offered in mainstream practice textbooks concentrate primarily on aspects

of social functioning, social networks, and social roles. The instruments,
worksheets, and interview schedules offered for conducting person-in-
environment assessments generally do not include elements of the
physical environment (Compton, Galaway, & Cournoyer, 2005; Garvin &
Seabury, 1997; Gilgun, 2005; Poulin, 2005; Sheafor & Horejsi, 2006).
Organizing data for an assessment using genograms and eco-maps limits
the view to the social environment. There ts little point declaring the
natural world to be an integral part of a person's environmental context if
the assessment tools used are not capable of recognizing or incorporating
these aspects.
Zastrow (2004) presented threats to the natural world and the associated
quality of human life as falling within the scope of environmentalism but
not social work. Perhaps this is the logical consequence of perceiving the
environment as a social environment: social workers are concerned with
the social environment while environmentalists are left to tackle issues of
the natural environment. Of course, some social workers could also be
environmentalists, but not necessarily. Returning to Morito’s (2002)
terminology, this 1s an example of thinking about ecology rather than
thinking ecologically.
Reclaiming the Environment in Social Work
which our meanings, identity, and survival are attached. Living well in
place is a process and not an end state.
The current generation of social work practitioners and builders of

knowledge has operated for over thirty years with models of practice
based on a metaphor of person-in-environment. Yet there have been great
changes since we adopted that metaphor. We are now confronted with the
formidable “inconvenient truth” (Gore, 2006) of climate change and other
environmental threats to our very existence, threats that were not
considered or even anticipated when we built our practice models. Those
models may no longer be adequate for coping with the challenges faced
by today’s societies and the planet itself. Coates (2003) put things very
clearly: “Social work has the choice of continuing to support a self-
defeating social order or recreating itself to work toward a just and
sustainable society” (p. 159). A new foundation metaphor of people as
place might help us focus on the crucial task of living well on this planet.

Social Work and The Environment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Social Work and The Environment

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Social Work and The Environment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Social Work and the Environment:

Understanding People and Place

How has the physical environment been perceived and conceptualized at

Morito (2002) clarified an important distinction between thinking about

to social work’s newly declared “simultaneous dual focus on organism

Developing this ecological perspective into a functional systems

offered, and the switch was generally unnoticed or unacknowledged.

Yelaja (1985) presented the ecological metaphor as a major influence on

Heinonen and Spearman (2006) explained that “the primary focus of

Even when the physical environment is presented conceptually as an

If the physical environment is consistently dropped from the diagramme

offered in mainstream practice textbooks concentrate primarily on aspects

Reclaiming the Environment in Social Work

The current generation of social work practitioners and builders of

You might also like