judecorp | The few, the proud, the social workers.

Before I went to graduate school for social work, I had a preexisting idea about what social workers were like. After all, I'd read about people like Jane Addams, people who got down and dirty in their communities to make the world a better place. Perhaps the idea of Hull House sat inside my cranium and stewed until it grew in its idealism and glory, or perhaps my impassioned heart pumped life into my own visions of these privileged women giving their all for the common good. All I know is that if I expected anything at all, it's that social workers were two things: compassionate and liberal.

And then I went to a College of Social Work in the Midwest. Wow, what a life experience!

Let's forget about the woman in my first Public Policy class who stated that she did not agree with welfare. Let's go back to the first time I gasped out loud in the program: in my Women's Issues in Social Work class. My professor tried diligently to bring Women's Studies to the Midwestern social workers-to-be, but met with resistence in every class period. We spoke about marriage one day, a fairly straightforward topic. Women became infuriated and leapt out of their desks. "Marriage is not a patriarchal institution," they bellowed. "My husband and I have an egalitarian relationship!" (At this point I had to let them know that when my husband and I transferred our bank accounts to our new Midwestern bank, the lovely bank officials put all of OUR money in HIS name. And didn't send me an ATM card until he authorized it.)

But then I realized that people come to social work for a lot of different reasons, and only a minority of them because of my idealized notions of championing the disenfranchised and being a social change agent. One woman wanted to be a social worker out of feelings of helplessness due to her son's chronic mental illness. Many wanted to be therapists without a PhD in psychology. Still others had desires of administration and creation of public policy. And I learned that what I considered "moderate" in Southern New England was labeled "bleeding heart" in my program.

I guess I never understood, and still don't understand, why some "social workers" are so hung up on rooting out those people who "cheat the system." I can't fathom being a social worker and choosing to believe the Reagan-made myth of the "welfare mother who drives a Cadillac" any more than I can comprehend a social worker who forces her middle class ideals onto those of lower social status without any respect for the climate and culture in which they've lived and become socialized. It's as baffling as berating someone for spending $20 of her SSI check on getting her nails manicured while at the same time keeping thousands of dollars in credit card debt for larger unnecessary purchases.

I suppose in my mind social workers exist to reduce harm in the world, and sometimes harm reduction requires that some problems get overlooked in favor of more immediate needs. Should a person be denied warmth because he uses drugs? Should a person be denied food because she has a mental illness and chooses to be unmedicated? Any person who answers 'yes' to these or similar questions should never call himself or herself a social worker. And also stay the hell out of my way when I'm out saving the world.