revolved around empiricism, instrumental reasoning and objectivity (Leung 2010). As Fook so rightfully puts it: rationale for professional objectivity may be the belief that “The clients are best helped by someone they see as a respected authority who is not emotionally involved with them. Like many functional this has true and false components” (Fook 1993: 63). Looking at the practice of Balay with this understanding of professionalism in mind it seems difficult to argue that they are acting in a professional way. They are constantly breaking down the gap between the client and the helper by being emotionally attached and by persistently pursuing a relationship based on equality and confidentiality. However a more postmodern view stretches the boundaries for what professionalism is, as it acknowledges that we are fundamentally social beings, and always intertwined with the world which we live in. As such social workers could be said to move along a continuum between the role of an expert at one end, and a friend in the other. The position the social worker chose is deliberate and influenced by the context and the concrete situation (Green et al. 2006). This understanding correlates better with what define professionalism at Balay. Being able to attend to the needs of the partners demands a certain kind of relationship where the boundaries between being the professional expert and in lack of better word, friend, is blurred and dynamic. The reason why the term friend might not be the best one to use, is that although the social workers seem to emotionally involve themselves in the lives of the partners, they still maintain some boundaries concerning how much they involve the partners in their lives. It was very rare to hear the social workers disclose much information about their lives with the partners. As such the client/helper dichotomy is maintained as the relation revolves the needs of the partners.
revolved around empiricism, instrumental reasoning and objectivity (Leung 2010). As Fook so rightfully puts it: “The rationale for professional objectivity may be the belief that clients are best helped by someone they see as a respected authority who is not emotionally involved with them. Like many functional this has true and false components” (Fook 1993: 63). Looking at the practice of Balay with this understanding of professionalism in mind it seems difficult to argue that they are acting in a professional way. They are constantly breaking down the gap between the client and the helper by being emotionally attached and by persistently pursuing a relationship based on equality and confidentiality. However a more postmodern view stretches the boundaries for what professionalism is, as it acknowledges that we are fundamentally social beings, and always intertwined with the world which we live in. As such social workers could be said to move along a continuum between the role of an expert at one end, and a friend in the other. The position the social worker chose is deliberate and influenced by the context and the concrete situation (Green et al. 2006). This understanding correlates better with what define professionalism at Balay. Being able to attend to the needs of the partners demands a certain kind of relationship where the boundaries between being the professional expert and in lack of better word, friend, is blurred and dynamic. The reason why the term friend might not be the best one to use, is that although the social workers seem to emotionally involve themselves in the lives of the partners, they still maintain some boundaries concerning how much they involve the partners in their lives. It was very rare to hear the social workers disclose much information about their lives with the partners. As such the client/helper dichotomy is maintained as the relation revolves the needs of the partners.
Social_work_behind_bars.docx