Abstract
The contested relationship between the social and the individual is, of course, a core focus for social work, as well as the social sciences more generally, and only partly resolved via the widely referenced person-in-environment formulation and the useful notion of the psycho-social subject. The strength and respective weightings of social influences on individuals and the (probably reciprocal) influence of individual factors within social circumstances and relationships represent the axes around which many of the enduring debates that characterise the history and development of social work revolve. Although psycho-social models have obvious merit, their equally clear limitations allow proponents of either social or individual approaches to understanding and intervening in social problems to continue to propound strongly deterministic explanations for individual behaviour and social circumstances. Generally, these disregard the merits of alternative accounts, and the necessity of integrated approaches, as evident, for example, in the strong advocacy of structural methods that characterises contemporary radicalism (e.g. Lavalette, 2011; Wilkinson and Pickett, 2010) as well as the moves towards mono-therapeuticism that the claimed efficacy of cognitive behavioural approaches has provoked in some services (Layard and Clarke, 2014).
In many respects, these are contemporary manifestations of ever-present issues, albeit subject to fluctuations of emphasis and dominance according to setting and context, and unlikely (by definition) to be resolved in any definitive fashion in the near future. They are also evident in the positions that particular practitioners and authors have taken regarding how best to understand and undertake social work. As is clear from other papers in this issue of the journal, Noel Timms played a major role in social work as a disciplinary endeavour, especially in the UK. The reissue of his The sociology of social problems (2014) provides an apt opportunity to explore further the enduring relevance of his thinking for the contemporary practice of social work. Maria Appel Nissen makes clear that as well as remaining a useful primer for social problems scholars, there are themes and issues in this text which resonate for contemporary social workers and social scientists. In particular, she makes a convincing case for a more thorough integration of time as a concept via which our understanding of the nature of contemporary practice can be enhanced. Time is also a theme in our second review, in which Noel Timms himself reflects – not uncritically – on the biography of another major figure in the history and development of social work in the UK, Olive Stevenson. The role that individuals play in institutional and disciplinary developments is by its nature a tricky one to capture. Biography – and autobiography in particular – sheds light on the role that events, beliefs and values play in the formation of ideas, practices and movements in ways which formalised scholarship is less likely to uncover. Stevenson was a major figure whose work was often prescient, and her account of her life enriches our understanding of many issues and debates in ways which reinforce her professional and disciplinary contribution. She was also closely associated with a particular theoretical approach to practice, which Timms finds less than convincing. With enviable prose, his review locates Stevenson’s contribution towards one pole of the individual-social continuum and, in doing so, highlights the ‘apparent rejection of anything approaching pluralistic ways of thinking’. His judgement here may provoke debate. As Shaw (2014) has recently made clear, there is a sometime tendency when reflecting on historical (i.e. non-contemporaneous) matters to too readily accept generalisations – of thought, positions and practices – despite awareness of their innate limitations. Like Timms’ own work, Stevenson’s contribution to social work was significant and, as Timms’ review demonstrates, continues to provoke debate today.