Lessons from the First International Conference on Social Work

Abstract

This article presents the history of the First International Conference on Social Work in 1928 and explores five themes from the conference proceedings: cross-disciplinary collaborations, international activity that respects national identities, increasing professionalism in social work education, personal relationships, and a sense of both urgency and optimism. Implications for international efforts in social work today are briefly explored.

Keywords

Collaboration education First International Conference on Social Work history international social work

Introduction

The history of international social work is sometimes characterized in the literature as having three ‘waves’. The first came at the end of the 19th and early 20th century, the second after World War II, and the third with the rise of globalization (Trygged, 2010). This article examines one of the seminal moments of the first wave, the First International Conference on Social Work, for lessons that might help guide the current wave of international interest.

International (or global) social work is in the midst of many important debates. These include issues like the universality of human rights language and the importance of localized indigenous knowledge (Healy, 2007), the role of the nation-state, and whether a true global citizenship is possible (Rotabi et al., 2006). In addition, there are practical questions of how best to pursue collaborative activities such as research, exchanges, and international field placements (Healy et al., 2003). While there are certainly new concerns among these, and important nuances to older questions, there remains much to be learned from the pioneers of global social work. Many of the insights of the First International Conference remain relevant today. As Katherine Kendall, a former secretary general of the International Association of Schools of Social Work and a pioneer in international social work herself (Brandwein, 2005), has stated, ‘Mining the rich heritage of social work internationally could produce an unanticipated wealth of insights as we struggle to find a significant role and essential place for the profession in a globally interdependent world’ (Kendall, 2005: 499).

However, despite the importance of the event at the time, and the presence or involvement of many of the luminaries of the then nascent profession, relatively little has been written about the gathering (Burt, 2008; Eilers, 2003; Healy, 2008; Healy and Hall, 2007, Kniephoff-Knebel and Seibel, 2008). Following a brief historical snapshot of the conference, this article explores five themes from the conference proceedings that may offer wisdom for current considerations: cross-disciplinary collaborations, international activity that respects national identities, increasing professionalism in social work education, personal relationships, and a sense of both urgency and optimism.

History of the conference

The First International Conference of Social Work (FICSW) was held in Paris, France, from 8 to 13 July 1928. It was part of the larger International Social Welfare Fortnight, which included meetings of the International Child Welfare Congress, the International Congress on Voluntary and Statutory Assistance, the International Conference of Social Work, the International Housing and Town Planning Congress and the International Exhibition of Housing and Social Progress (FICSW, 1929: 7). Altogether, Fortnight attendees numbered close to 5000. Notably, at the time conference participants gathered, Paris was one of the largest cities in the world (Cole, 2008).

The First International Conference on Social Work was the largest draw of the wider Fortnight, bringing together 2481 delegates from 42 countries in Europe, Asia, Africa and the Americas. While this number, and the larger number of 5000 Fortnight attendees, have been widely reported (Eilers, 2003; Healy, 2008; Healy and Hall, 2007) it is worth noting that almost half, 1084, of the participants hailed from the host country of France. Still, this was in every way an international affair. The United States had the second largest contingent, with 279 in attendance, followed by Germany with 225, Poland with 138, Belgium with 130 and Great Britain with 106. Italy, Switzerland, Chile, and Czechoslovakia rounded out the top ten. Fewer delegates came from nations outside of Europe or North America. Three South American nations brought significant numbers of delegates: Argentina with 24, Chile with 53, and Uruguay with 33. The 21 Japanese delegates were the largest group without linguistic or colonial ties to Europe or North America. While there were a great many nations present, 23 of the 42 nations in attendance had ten delegates or fewer, including the only two African nations present, Egypt and South Africa (FICSW, 1929: 14–15).

The actual conference sessions were held at the Salle Pleyel, a concert hall at 252, rue du Faubourg-Saint-Honoré, in Paris. Inside the Pleyel, meetings were held in the Chopin and Debussy concert halls, along with two other galleries ‘temporarily christened’ Saint-Vincent-de-Paul and Florence Nightingale (FICSW, 1929: 13). The venue is still an orchestral concert hall today.

The conference was planned over the course of about five years, and began as a grassroots effort. The idea to hold an international conference ‘arose naturally in the minds’ of European and Japanese social workers who had attended the National Conferences of Social Work in Atlantic City in 1919 and Washington in 1923 (FICSW, 1929: 5). The conference proceedings indicate that the proposal was first made ‘unofficially’ by Dr Clotilde Mulon of Paris in 1919 and gained traction after a 15 January 1923 letter from Dr Rene Sand of Belgium to Julia Lathrop, who from 1912 to 1921 had served as the first female head of a federal bureau in the US, the Children’s Bureau (Parker and Carpenter, 1981). Rene Sand made a presentation at the 1923 National Conference of Social Work at the invitation of then president Homer Folks, and at the 1924 National Conference in Toronto formed a committee to begin planning (FICSW, 1929: 6).

That same year the League of Red Cross Societies general council approved the idea of sponsoring the conference, and the League’s Board of Governors signed off on the idea on 24 June 1925. The ‘Provisional Organization Committee’ for the conference met in Paris on 27 and 28 September 1926, travel for US members of the committee having been subsidized by the Russell Sage Foundation. After two subsequent meetings, one in Paris and one in Prague, an Executive Committee of the expanded International Fortnight was constituted in November 1927 under the leadership of Paul Strauss, the French former Minister of Labour, Health, and Social Welfare (FICSW, 1929: 6–7).

The conference received support from governments around the globe. The French railways granted reduced rates to members of the Fortnight (FICSW, 1929: 12). The president of the French Republic, M. Gaston Doumergue, made an official visit to the Exhibition of Housing and Social Progress on 7 July, the day before the social work conference began, and the Minister of Labour, Health, and Social Welfare, along with the Under-Secretary of State, was present at the opening sessions of the Congresses and Conferences involved (1929: 10). In a move unthinkable in our present age, all members of the Congress were granted exemptions from having to obtain passport visas (1929: 10). In addition to French support, the various national organizing committees were peppered with high-ranking governmental officials, from Argentinian vice-admirals and members of parliament to the People’s Commissar of Health from the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics (USSR) (1929: 29, 62).

The conference also enjoyed extensive support from the private sector, particularly from some of the premier international non-governmental organizations of the day. The League of Red Cross Societies played an especially prominent role. As mentioned, the conference itself was organized by Dr Rene Sand, then serving as Technical Counselor for the League of Red Cross Societies. The president of the conference was Dr Alice Masarykova, president of the Czechoslovakian Red Cross, the treasurer general for the conference, M. Andre Pallain, also served as treasurer general for the Red Cross (FICSW, 1929: 26). Save the Children, then known as the Save the Children Fund International Union, was also extensively involved. Save the Children had been founded only nine years earlier by sisters Eglantyne Jebb and Dorothy Buxton in order to provide aid to children affected by the Great War and the post-war blockades in Germany and Austria-Hungary.

The conference was funded in large part by donations from the League of Red Cross Societies, the Czechoslovakian and Japanese Red Cross Societies in particular, a variety of national committees including the National Conference of Social Work in the US, the Carnegie Foundation, the Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial, the Milbank Foundation, and the Russell Sage Foundation (FICSW, 1929: 7). Representatives from several of the major US foundations attended, and Percy Alden, of Great Britain, noted in the minutes of one meeting that ‘We owe much to the United States in this respect, and I think Dr. Sand would agree with me that financially we should have been in a bad way if it had not been for America’ (1929: 595).

Eilers has pointed out that ‘the very list of participants reads like a ‘‘Who’s who’’ of European and international representatives of social work’ (2003: 120). It is somewhat difficult to determine who was actually in attendance, as the conference proceedings list conference ‘members’ not actual attendees. Eilers mentions that icons of the profession in the United States such as Jane Addams, Mary Richmond, and Edith and Grace Abbott ‘took part’ in the conference, listing their names and noting that ‘This list could easily be continued for other countries, which illustrates that well-known representatives took part in the conference’ (2003: 120). All four women were indeed sponsoring members of the conference, along with other icons of the profession in America including Dr Richard Cabot, Edward Devine, Homer Folks, John Lapp, Julia Lathrop, Porter Lee and Lillian Wald (FICSW, 1929: 130–9). However, conference proceedings make it clear that Jane Addams, Julia Lathrop, Lillian Wald, Mary Richmond, Grace Abbott, and Edward Devine were not present, noting that a motion, universally approved, was raised in the opening business meeting on 9 July to send ‘telegrams expressing the admiration and gratification of the Conference. . . to the pioneers of social work in America who had been prevented from attending’ and listing their names (1929: 162). Homer Folks was definitely present, offering a stirring speech later that day on the ‘Definition and Progress of Social Work’ (1929: 632). It remains unclear from conference proceedings alone whether the others were present or not.

It is worth noting that women played an unusually prominent role for the time period (Eilers, 2003). In this way it was indicative of social work’s counter-cultural role, and what Katherine Kendall has noted as the ‘dominance of talented women, sometimes in partnership with men, but more often acting alone in shaping social welfare and social work education in Europe’ at the beginning of the 20th century (Kendall, 2005: 497).

The conference had a wide range of academic members, including faculty and representatives from many of the American schools involved in social work training at the time, and many others, including: the University of Chicago, Bryn Mawr, Fordham, American University, Harvard, the University of Minnesota, Columbia, the newly renamed New York School of Social Work, Yale, Sarah Lawrence, Johns Hopkins, Tulane, Loyola, College of William and Mary, Marquette University, Simmons College, and Michigan State Normal College, which is now Eastern Michigan University (FICSW, 1929: 130–9).

The Great War

It is impossible to understand the First International Conference on Social Work apart from either its specific history, as has been discussed, or its position within the wider scope of world history. The conference came at a time when the Great War, the war to end all wars, was receding from view but still very much felt. It is perched at the end of the roaring twenties, with the economic catastrophe epitomized by ‘Black Tuesday’ in October 1929 still more than a year away. The conference proceedings reflect this. There is a sober recognition of the effects of the Great War on the social welfare of millions around the globe, a thread which is often invoked to emphasize the importance of solidarity and peace. However, there is also a tremendous optimism for the future of the world, and for the role of the League of Nations and other international bodies, an optimism that would seem oddly out of place in only a few years as the world economy slumped and Hitler began his rise to power in Germany and it became clearer that the USSR was not the communal utopia it purported to be.

The aftermath of the Great War comes through most clearly in reports from the defeated nations, Austria, Hungary, Germany, and to an extent, Turkey. The country report from Germany talks extensively about ‘disabled soldiers and war widows and dependents’ (Polligkeit, 1929: 357). One of the delegates, Dr Horion, spoke at length about the nation’s increased reliance on social services for those injured during the war and for the families of those killed (1929: 619). He goes on to warn that:

If production in Germany decreases, and if larger and larger sums have to be transferred abroad in the form of reparation payments, welfare work will be endangered. And this is a danger not only for the individuals who are at present enjoying the benefits of welfare work, but for the whole nation. . . . Therefore it is to the interest not only of Germany, but of all other countries, that German welfare work and social policy should be preserved in their essentials, through the difficult years through which Germany has to pass now and in the near future. (Horion, 1929: 631)

While it is clear that the post-war situation in several nations remained dire, even in these nations, and in many others, the Great War was seen by social workers as impetus for improved social services. This was especially true of social security measures (Eilers, 2003). Dr Julius Axmann, the Administrative Chief of the Government Department for Lower Austria, Vienna, states:

Before its political collapse, Austria, like other States took part. . . in the general development of social work, either by individual social action, or by the useful exchange of social experiences with other States. Since the war, she has experienced, like all the other States which took part in the Great War, a powerful impetus in this direction. (Axmann, 1929: 175)

In his remarks, Dr Polligkeit noted that the war had resulted in a much greater interest in social work among the general public (Polligkeit, 1929: 378).

Despite cautionary notes from the German delegation, the general optimism for the future in the conference proceedings is palpable. One of the conference aims was to cement or establish national conferences and committees around the globe that would provide resources and coordination for ‘the all too scattered forces of social work’ (1929: 28). In opening remarks the conference chairman, Paul Strauss, remarked the he was ‘full of hope, because I discover every day that altruism is gaining ground, that kindness is growing everywhere’ (Strauss, 1929: 144).

The conference proceedings

At the First International Conference on Social Work there were a number of debates about social work definitions. Indeed, an entire day’s meetings were devoted to the topic (FICSW, 1929: 595–725), but the conference did proceed under an official definition. Social work was defined broadly (Eilers, 2003: 121), but in what we might today label more universal terms, as:

Every effort to relieve distress due to poverty, to restore individuals and families to normal conditions of living, to prevent social scourges and to improve the social and living conditions of the community, through social case work, through group activities, through community action in legislation and administration, and through social research. Social work consequently includes not only relief, insurance and social activities, but also, up to a certain point, health work and education. (FICSW, 1929: 174)

The conference was filled with detailed country reports on the state of social work and social welfare efforts in the various nations represented, built around this definition. For the purposes of this article, a selection of conference reports and plenaries will be examined which illustrate five themes related to the role international collaborations played in discussions on how to operationalize the above definition around the globe.

Cross-disciplinary collaborations

The International Fortnight brought together a wide range of professions and disciplines. There were urban planners, union officials, child welfare specialists, midwives, medical doctors, nurses and public health officials, professors of economics, sociology, and other disciplines, government officials and members of the armed services of many nations, prison officials, bishops, rabbis and members of various religious orders, heads of philanthropic foundations and international NGOs. It would be difficult to overstate how eclectic and influential the attendees were, gathered as they were from ‘the four corners of the earth’ (Strauss, 1929: 143) to carve out an international role for the nascent profession of social work.

In his opening remarks on the night of Sunday the 8th, conference chairman Paul Strauss was adamant that the future of international efforts in the social work arena necessitated such a broad and interdisciplinary approach:

What we wish to make clear – I shall say it in a few words – is the necessity of unity between all our organizations, between public administrations and private work; the danger of dissociating our efforts, and our obligation not to shut ourselves up in water-tight compartments, if we wish fully to understand the whole extent of the philanthropic and social field of activity. (Strauss, 1929: 143)

Strauss went on to stress that ‘Social service, which brings us today a satisfying collaboration, cannot be separated from the manifestations of altruism, of preventative medicine, or of social hygiene and solidarity’ (Strauss, 1929: 143). This approach echoes through the country reports, which reported efforts and statistics on a wide range of social problems and programs, from tuberculosis and venereal disease to town planning to trade union laws, to social welfare programs for everyone from infants to the aged. Strauss closed his opening remarks with the proclamation that:

We are all ready to work together with a single purpose for the disinherited, for those in the depths, in order that the world may move on towards the realization of the noblest and most glorious dream, that of future universal peace and human brotherhood. (Strauss, 1929: 144)

International activity that respects national identities

A second major theme centered on the necessity of international collaborations that transcended cultures and contexts while still respecting them. M. Draudt, the Vice President of the League of Red Cross Societies, also addressed the opening session on the night of the 8th, and stressed that, ‘There is much talk today of internationalism; but there can be no genuine and fruitful international work if the understanding and respect of essentially national values are not retained’ (FICSW, 1929: 154). The president of the conference, Dr Alice Masarykova, stressed similar themes in her opening remarks:

Today, in opening the International Conference of Social Work, I have one burning desire: To put aside with a light touch those dangerous indecisions which make us ask: Should I be either egoistic or altruistic, individualistic or socialized, aristocratic or democratic, scientific or charitable in social work, national or international, eastern or western? Indeed, these ‘either – ors’ are dangerous. (FICSW, 1929: 155)

It is clear that conference organizers intended for social work to be both national and international, that a move to focus on international social work was not intended to replace or usurp the role of work at the national level, and indeed that patriotism and engagement with one’s own nation equipped one for international endeavors. As Dr Masarykova put it, ‘A nation true to its soil and traditions has the capacity to give to other nations as well as to draw from them’ (Masarykova, 1929: 156).

Increasing professionalism in social work education

Virtually all of the country reports mentioned a lack of properly trained social workers, especially given the post-war need in many European societies (Eilers, 2003). Presenting on ‘Social Work in France’, Mademoiselle Delagrange, Directress of the Central Bureau of Nurses in Paris, noted that ‘The need for technical, practical and theoretical training for the workers attached in various capacities to the organizations of social work is being felt increasingly in France as time goes on’ (Delagrange, 1929: 339). In Germany, Dr Polligkeit noted, ‘The present state of welfare work is distinguished by a stronger emphasis on the need of professional and specially trained workers’ (Polligkeit, 1929: 363).

In particular, representatives mentioned that as social work professionalized, and moved away from models of charity and volunteerism, there was a need for more formalized education. A representative from Japan, then a rising superpower in Asia, notes that the growth of the profession in Japan demonstrates ‘the insufficiency of volunteers with spiritual zeal’ and necessitates ‘specialized knowledge’ (‘Social Work in Japan’, 1929: 465). In the newly minted nation of Turkey, Dr Hussameddin and Dr Ismael made similar points, stating:

The need for instruction is even more apparent where it is a question of non-medical social workers. Mere goodwill is no longer sufficient to make a good social service worker, for the field has become so extended in its scope in recent years that a special course of training is necessary. (Hussameddin and Ismael, 1929: 531)

Around the globe, there were realizations that, although a necessary and fitting component of social work, goodwill or altruistic intentions were no longer sufficient.

While many nations were concerned with establishing any sort of formalized education for social work, it is worth noting that in certain nations where social work had enjoyed a longer history, such as Germany and the United States, conversations were more comprehensive. Sophonisba Breckinridge, professor of social economy at the Graduate School of Social Service Administration, University of Chicago, pointed out similarities in the struggle for professional identity between social work and medicine and law, noting that a key difference was that ‘there is as yet no requirement in social work that the practitioner shall be registered or licensed as in the case in those two professions or in nursing’ (Breckinridge, 1929: 589). So while most of the conversation focused on the introduction of professional education, there were also discussions on professional organizations, accrediting bodies, and licensure.

Still, the conference represents social work education in its very early stages. Dr Alice Salomon, one of the key figures in German social work education, points out in her memoir that:

There was no ‘ready-to-buy’ science of social work which we could use in teaching. The staff had to develop it themselves. There were no text books – we had to write them. Ours was genuine team-work, a most intimate cooperation, coloring the school with the peculiar character that education for social work needs. (2004: 73)

It should be noted that Salomon would play a pivotal role in translating the conference into meaningful international action, and helped found the International Committee for Schools of Social Work that same year, serving as its first chair. The conference as a whole made the case for social work education with a strong international dimension (Eilers, 2003: 126).

Personal relationships

One of the conference’s central purposes was personal relationships. The conference’s Constitution stated ‘The aim of the International Conference is to facilitate personal contacts, to provide for exchange of information and to promote discussion among social workers and social agencies throughout the world’ (FICSW, 1929: 23). Throughout proceedings, there are several tongue-in-cheek acknowledgments that some may view such a purpose as not worthy, or certainly not worthy of the expense of travelling from across the globe. In one of the opening meetings, Professor E. Gorter of the Netherlands acknowledges that:

…the general public is not always convinced of the importance of a congress such as that which we are inaugurating today. When taking leave of one’s compatriots, if one informs them that one is going to take part in a congress, it is not unusual to see a faint smile on their lips. (FICSW, 1929: 149)

The notion that a conference focused on international connections was misguided or wasteful was strongly repudiated by several of the key speakers, including Paul Strauss, who argued vociferously during the inaugural meeting that ‘Manifestations such as this Social Fortnight are not a mere parade: they are of profound usefulness for better fortifying all civilizations against the different forms of human misery’ (FICSW, 1929: 144). A summary of the closing meeting held on Friday 13 July 4 p.m. stated in eloquent terms that:

The deliberations of the Conference had shed light on important problems. But the most tangible result lay in the personal relations which had been established between those taking part in the Congress, drawn from forty-two different countries. They would contribute to the harmony of international relations, to the development of a pacific and fraternal spirit among the nations. When they had been separated by war, they had all passed through the same sufferings. Let them work together now to restore happiness in all countries. (FICSW, 1929: 170–1)

Urgency and optimism

The conference recognized the urgency of the need for international collaboration. This is perhaps best captured in the words of Eglantyne Jebb. Jebb prepared a speech for the conference that she was never able to give, having fallen ill and finding herself unable to attend. Jebb ultimately died soon after the conference had closed. Her presentation, offered in her absence, is one of the most powerful of the conference. She states the ‘problem of international relationship is one of the most urgent confronting us today’ (Jebb, 1929: 637). Jebb highlights the role of what we might term globalization, ‘vast technical, economic and social changes’ that have ‘created problems of international relationship such as did not exist for our ancestors in their narrower spheres and more restricted world’ (Jebb, 1929: 637).

The social problems that Jebb sees around the globe are not national problems; they are international problems, she notes, ‘the very daily bread of the average man depends upon the work and prosperity of his fellows in distant, unknown lands’ (Jebb, 1929: 638). She goes on to emphasize that ‘If it is an international social evil, if it springs from international causes, then surely its solution must lie along international lines’ (Jebb, 1929: 654). Her words ring with a prophetic urgency as she declares that:

Our technical achievements can be used for destruction as well as for mutual aid. We can fight each other instead of fighting poverty, ignorance, sickness and death. The weapons forged by our creative inventiveness can be instruments of healing or of slaughter, according to our will. Our common social heritage we can use wisely or foolishly, just as the son can spend wisely or squander foolishly the inherited wealth of his parents. (Jebb, 1929: 639)

Coupled with her urgency Jebb brought a sense of optimism to her remarks. As co-founder of Save the Children she knew what was possible when people came together to reach out to vulnerable populations. On the whole, the conference presents as more optimistic than urgent, and particularly optimistic about the role of the social work profession.

Social work at the time of the first international conference was a profession in ascendency. Paul Strauss proclaimed that ‘There is room everywhere for social work’ (Strauss, 1929: 596). The profession was heard in the halls of power, it was gaining respect among the established professions. Social work was helping reshape the way the world looked at poverty, and some earnestly believed that poverty itself could be largely overcome. There were debates about the scope of social work, what amount of services was too much, or might create dependency, but the predominant position seemed to be that social work would ‘accept no doctrine of a saturation point in giving so long as the distribution of wealth is so largely determined by those into whose hands the great gains come’ (Breckenridge, 1929: 591).

The conference was seen as the gateway to a new era, one of wide and ‘most cheering vistas’ (Strauss, 1929: 597). There was tremendous optimism for the future. Percy Alden closed his contribution at one of the plenaries with the a quote from Victor Hugo:

‘There is one thing,’ said Victor Hugo, ‘that is stronger than armies, an idea whose time has come,’ and it is this idea of conscious cooperative effort which makes the future full of hope and lends countenance to the belief that the worst evils of the industrial revolution which for a long time were the despair of social reformer are now gradually being overcome. (Strauss, 1929: 607)

Social work’s time had come, and it was assumed that the conference would naturally lead to cooperation and collaboration around the globe to end a wide variety of social problems. As Homer Folks put it, the only question was how long it would take for the ‘leaven to permeate the lump’ (Folks, 1929: 636).

After the conference

Subsequent international conferences were held in Frankfurt in 1932 and London in 1936 before being interrupted by the outbreak of the Second World War. The optimism of the First International Conference on Social Work was largely lost as the globe descended once more into chaos and violence.

After the Second World War, a second wave of internationalism in social work emerged, with a prominent role for the United States. The position of the US as a true global superpower and the development of the United Nations contributed to the exportation of US social work curricula around the world (Razack, 2009; Trygged, 2010). This second wave also benefited from the wave of national independences that swept through the global South (Midgley, 2001: 23). This period included the first international conference of social work held outside of Europe and North America, in newly independent India in 1952 (Hoffer, 1955). In contrast to some of the ideals from the original conference, the professional literature presents this period as the exportation of a largely clinical, individualistic psycho-pathological approach by those in the North to countries and cultures where the role of community and collective decision-making were more important (Caragata and Sanchez, 2002: 220).

The third wave, beginning in either the 1980s or 1990s, has paralleled the spread of globalization, both as a concept and as a reality. This wave has benefitted tremendously from developments in communications, information technology, and transportation. With an increase in interest, historic organizations in the international field have experienced new growth. The International Association of Schools of Social Work (IASSW), originally known as Alice Salomon’s International Committee of Schools of Social Work, traces its roots back to the 1928 conference (Healy and Hall, 2007; Kniephoff-Knebel and Seibel, 2008). Alongside the educationally focused IASSW, the International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW), which also had roots in 1928, works to bring practitioners together around the globe. The IASSW, IFSW, and the International Council on Social Welfare (ICSW) jointly publish the journal International Social Work.

There has also been an increase in collaborations between schools of social work. There is wider acceptance of the global nature of social work practice, grounded in the resurgent belief that ‘All social work is therefore international social work’ (Ife, 2001: 13). The Council on Social Work Education (CSWE), in its 2001 standards, emphasized that students should ‘recognize the global context of social work practice’. The global nature of the profession is tied to globalization, which is itself a contested reality within social work (Barbera, 2006; Midgley, 2001; Sewpaul, 2006). At the same time, many would argue that it has, without a doubt, encouraged the internationalization of social work and social work education (Estes, 1992; Johnson, 2004; Midgley, 1990; Rotabi et al., 2007; Tesoriero and Rajaratnam, 2001).

The current social work literature is sometimes less optimistic about the role of social work in the international arena than the first conference was. Webb argues that ‘social work has at best a minimal role to play with any new global order, should such an order exist’ and that ‘any notion of global or trans-national social work is little more than a vanity’ (2003: 191). Some characterize the current debates in the literature on the relationship between globalization and social work as unhelpful (Pugh and Gould, 2000; Webb, 2003), and Webb blasts the profession for positing itself as a ‘potential solution to some of the ills of an alienating and immoral global force’ (2003: 191). These authors question the ‘omnipotence’ of globalization as a construct and the consequent necessity of social work to account for it. Instead, Webb argues for reflexivity at the local level and asserts ‘reports of the death of the nation-state and national autonomy are greatly exaggerated’ (2003: 192).

Concerns about the motivations and consequences of international collaborations are important, but will not and should not stop social workers from pursuing them. Nor should social work abandon the broad sweeping impulses of the 1928 conference. As Midgley concisely states ‘The social work profession has historically been committed to formulating a set of universal value principles’ (2001: 30).

Both universalism and indigenization have associated perils and a middle ground is most likely the best option (Healy, 2007; Trygged, 2010). Social work should not abandon the idea that we share some universal truths and rights as human beings. Neither should the profession assume that all the ideas and practices of any one nation are automatically superior or even appropriate in another context. Culture provides important context, but cannot be seen as a legitimation of any and all actions. Healy warns of ‘the ethical dangers in viewing culture as sacrosanct’ (2007: 23). Healy also points out that culture is not immutable. Social workers are, and always have been, obligated to question and challenge culture. For example, to accept discrimination against women or lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) populations internationally would be to potentially ignore North America’s own history and struggles.

In debates on the scope and limitations of social work in the global arena, more attention should be paid to the work of early pioneers. As Pugh and Gould point out, ‘Unfortunately, some proponents of globalization display the postmodernist propensity to ignore history’ (2000: 130). The authors argue, ‘a core element of the professional ideology of social work has been a modernist optimism – that is, a belief that social change could be achieved, societies improved, and social problems solved’ (2000: 132).

Conclusion

This article explored five themes from the First International Conference on Social Work: cross-disciplinary collaborations, international activity that respects national identities, increasing professionalism in social work education, personal relationships, and a sense of both urgency and optimism. Each of these has something to say to international efforts today. Many of the implications are self-evident. Social work at the international level must regain some of the influence it once wielded. One way to do this is to collaborate more closely with other professions, to not become isolated within a ‘water-tight’ compartment of professional identity. International social work must respect national and indigenous identities while advocating for real and universal global human rights. Social work education must increasingly incorporate international content and perspectives into every course. Social work at the international level must be both an area for academic inquiry and a real network of human relationships, where social workers collaborate in meaningful and reciprocal ways.

Most importantly, perhaps, social work must regain a sense of urgency about international matters, coupled with a guarded optimism. At the first conference, Eglantyne Jebb was not the starry-eyed idealist some of her quotes might seem to make her, she was clear that:

In advocating international cooperation therefore, we are not actuated by some distant and abstract ideal which we wish to impose upon mankind for its good. We do not pretend to have discovered some magic panacea which hundreds of years hence will prove a solution for all our difficulties. Our aim is not the spread of sentimentalism throughout the world; it is the recognition of certain iron laws governing human history, laws which have been revealed in all our social, political and economic affairs. (Jebb, 1929: 641)

Jebb had a clear commitment to basic human rights, to a conception of a degree of universality in theories of justice. She also makes clear that international social work is work. It is difficult and messy, and only more so as it attempts to bridge across cultures and borders. Yet it is also urgent work, work that must be done. There are reasons why national efforts to alleviate problems often fail in isolation. Already in 1928, Jebb asked:

Why is it however that nevertheless we have made so little progress? One answer to this question undoubtedly is that we are perpetually endeavoring to alleviate distress inside the nation which is due to causes outside the nation, distress which therefore must continue to prevail to a greater or less degree in spite of all our palliatives, until its causes are removed by action in the international field. (Jebb, 1929: 643)

What was true then is even more true now. There are problems which are beyond the capabilities of single nations to address, for example: climate change and all of its socioeconomic impacts, human trafficking, the global network of narcotics and the violence that accompanies it, HIV/AIDS, and fundamentalism and extremism (Healy, 2008). While some of the problems we face today are indeed 21st-century challenges, there remain lessons to be learned from those six days in Paris for those that will listen. At the closing meeting of the conference Friday 13 July 1928, at 4 p.m. the minutes noted that those in attendance ‘should rise in homage to their personal friends who had left them for ever. They had left them to serve as their guides’ (FICSW, 1929: 171). Perhaps social workers today should do likewise.

Footnotes

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author biography

Joseph Kuilema is Professor in the Department of Sociology and Social Work, Calvin College, Grand Rapids, MI, USA.

References

Alden

(1929) ‘Definition and Progress of Social Work’, in First International Conference of Social Work Proceedings Vol. I, pp. 597–606. First Conference, Paris, 8–13 July 1928.

Axmann

(1929) ‘Social Work in Austria’, in First International Conference of Social Work Proceedings Vol. I, pp. 175–98. First Conference, Paris, 8–13 July 1928.

Barbera

R.A.

(2006) ‘Understanding Globalization through Short-Term International Field Experiences’, The Journal of Baccalaureate Social Work 12(1): 287–302.

Brandwein

(2005) ‘Katherine Kendall: A Social Work Institution’, Affilia 20(1): 103–10.

Breckinridge

(1929) ‘Social Work in the United States’, in First International Conference of Social Work Proceedings, Vol. I, pp. 555–94. First Conference, Paris, 8–13 July 1928.

Burt

(2008) ‘Social Work Occupations in England, 1900–39: Changing the Focus’, International Social Work 51(6): 749–62.

Caragata

Sanchez

(2002) ‘Globalization and Global Need’, International Social Work 45(2): 217–38.

Cole

(2008) A Traveler’s History of Paris. Brooklyn, NY: Interlink Books.

Delagrange

(1929) ‘Social Work in France’, in First International Conference of Social Work Proceedings, Vol. I, pp. 335–54. First Conference, Paris, 8–13 July 1928.

10.

Eilers

(2003) ‘Social Policy and Social Work in 1928: The First International Conference of Social Work in Paris Takes Stock’, in Hering

Waaldijk

(eds) History of Social Work in Europe (1900–1960): Female Pioneers, pp. 119–28. Opladen, Germany: Leske & Budrich.

11.

Estes

R.J.

(1992) Internationalizing Social Work Education: A Guide to Resources for a New Century. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, School of Social Work.

12.

First International Conference of Social Work (FICSW) (1929) Proceedings, Vol. I, pp. 1–929. First Conference, Paris, 8–13 July 1928.

13.

Folks

(1929) ‘Definition and Progress of Social Work’, in First International Conference of Social Work Proceedings, Vol. I, pp. 632–6. First Conference, Paris, 8–13 July 1928.

14.

Healy

L.M.

(2007) ‘Universalism and Cultural Relativism in Social Work Ethics’, International Social Work 50(1): 11–26.

15.

Healy

L.M.

(2008) International Social Work: Professional Action in an Interdependent World, 2nd edn. New York: Oxford University Press.

16.

Healy

L.M.

Hall

(2007) ‘International Organizations in Social Work’, in Wagner

Lutz

(eds) Internationale Perspektiven Sozialer Arbeit [International Perspectives in Social Work], pp. 223–42. Frankfurt: IKO-Verlag.

17.

Healy

L.M.

Asamoah

Y.W.

Hokenstad

M.C.

(2003) Models of International Collaboration in Social Work Education. Alexandria, VA: Council on Social Work Education.

18.

Hoffer

(1955) ‘Introduction’, in Self-Help in Social Welfare: Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference of Social Work Proceedings, pp. i–iii. Seventh Conference, Toronto, June–July 1954.

19.

Horion

(1929) ‘Definition and Progress of Social Work’, in First International Conference of Social Work Proceedings, Vol. I, pp. 607–30. First Conference, Paris, 8–13 July 1928.

20.

Hussameddin

Ismael

(1929) ‘Social Work in Turkey’, in First International Conference of Social Work Proceedings, Vol. I, pp. 523–32. First Conference, Paris, 8–13 July 1928.

21.

Ife

(2001) ‘Local and Global Practice: Relocating Social Work as a Human Rights Profession in the New Global Order, Eileen Younghusband Memorial Lecture, IFSW/IASSW Biennial Conference, Montreal, 31 July 2000’, European Journal of Social Work 4(1): 5–15.

22.

Jebb

(1929) ‘International Social Service’, in First International Conference of Social Work Proceedings, Vol. I, pp. 637–55. First Conference, Paris, 8–13 July 1928.

23.

Johnson

A.K.

(2004) ‘Increasing Internationalization in Social Work Programs’, International Social Work 47(1): 7–23.

24.

Kendall

(2005) ‘Book Review: History of Social Work in Europe (1900–1960)’, Affilia 20(4): 497–9.

25.

Kniephoff-Knebel

Seibel

(2008) ‘Establishing International Cooperation in Social Work Education: The First Decade of the International Committee of Schools for Social Work (ICSSW)’, International Social Work 51(6): 790–812.

26.

Midgley

(1990) ‘International Social Work: Learning from the Third World’, Social Work 35(4): 295–301.

27.

Midgley

(2001) ‘Issues in International Social Work’, Journal of Social Work 1(1): 21–35.

28.

Parker

Carpenter

(1981) ‘Julia Lathrop and the Children’s Bureau: The Emergence of an Institution’, Social Service Review 55(1): 60–77.

29.

Polligkeit

(1929) ‘Social Work in Germany’, in First International Conference of Social Work Proceedings, Vol. I, pp. 355–79. First Conference, Paris, 8–13 July 1928.

30.

Pugh

Gould

(2000) ‘Globalization, Social Work, and Social Welfare’, European Journal of Social Work 3(2): 123–38.

31.

Razack

(2009) ‘Decolonizing the Pedagogy and Practice of International Social Work’, International Social Work 52(1): 9–21.

32.

Rotabi

K.S.

Gammonley

Gamble

D.N.

(2006) ‘Ethical Guidelines for Study Abroad: Can We Transform Ugly Americans into Engaged Global Citizens?’, British Journal of Social Work 36(3): 451–65.

33.

Rotabi

K.S.

Gammonley

Gamble

D.N.

(2007) ‘Toward Respectful Engagement: Reflections and Recommendations from Host Country Facilitators in Short-term Study Abroad’, Reflections: Narratives of Professional Helping 13(4): 5–17.

34.

Salomon

Lees

(2004) Character is Destiny: The Autobiography of Alice Salomon. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

35.

Sewpaul

(2006) ‘The Global–Local Dialectic: Challenges for African Scholarship and Social Work in a Post-colonial World’, British Journal of Social Work 36(3): 419–34.

36.

‘Social Work in Japan’ (1929) In First International Conference of Social Work Proceedings, Vol. I, pp. 459–82. First Conference, Paris, 8–13 July 1928.

37.

Strauss

(1929) ‘Definition and Progress of Social Work’, in First International Conference of Social Work Proceedings, Vol. I, pp. 595–6. First Conference, Paris, 8–13 July 1928.

38.

Tesoriero

Rajaratnam

(2001) ‘Partnership in Education’, International Social Work 44(1): 31–41.

39.

Trygged

(2010) ‘Balancing the Global and the Local: Some Normative Reflections on International Social Work’, International Social Work 53(5): 644–55.

40.

Webb

S.A.

(2003) ‘Local Orders and Global Chaos in Social Work’, European Journal of Social Work 6(2): 191–204.