Social work perplexity: Dissonance,uncertainty,and growth in Kazakhstan

Abstract

Social work pioneer Jane Addams wrote of her experiences living and working with immigrant populations at the Hull-House in Chicago. In her writings, she describes a state of perplexity in which her personal and professional assumptions about the world were transformed through her interactions with that community. Perplexity is a liminal or in-between state of being in professional social work practice settings, which encourages the recognition of uncertainty, honors the dissonance between past assumptions and new understandings, and creates opportunities for meaningful relationships, personal growth, and social reform. This approach employs methods of mutual transformation through individual interpretations of experience, and holistic, critical practice. Our article argues that perplexity offers a useful alternative to social work approaches primarily based in mastery and expertise and is a good fit for the complex and diverse practice situations common to social work. By providing opportunities for truly collaborative understanding, engaging perplexity in social work is an innovative alternative to more linear, cause-and-effect thinking in the field. Specific elements of perplexity are discussed and paired with a case example from social work practice in Kazakhstan with implications for social work practice in other contexts.

Keywords

Jane Addams social work practice perplexity transformation Kazakhstan

Social workers work in spaces of transition, which are characterized by a purposeful focus on process, shifting perspectives, and change. Because social workers are working at the intersection between clients and their environments, social workers are more likely to experience various novel situations where there is a lack of clarity regarding how to proceed. Transition practice situations, e.g. where a client loses a job, a teenager wants to come out to parents as a lesbian, a family member becomes ill, a child is born to a young couple, a woman experiences intimate partner violence, occur in both local and international contexts, but are particularly visible in cross-cultural, or migratory contexts (Williams and Graham, 2014). These spaces can be fertile for transformation and learning, and also they can be uncomfortable and unsettling. Social workers respond to marginalization and oppression that may occur in these changing transitions. Holding the tension between opportunity and challenge, they provide an unusual opportunity for social workers to accompany clients in ways that are respectful to their journey and can be mutually transformative. It is in these spaces where we experience perplexity.

Perplexity is a state of being in professional social work practice settings, which encourages the recognition of uncertainty, honors the dissonance between past assumptions and new understandings, and creates opportunities for meaningful relationships, personal growth, and social reform. This approach employs methods of mutual transformation through individual interpretation of experience, and holistic, critical practice.

Addams (1902/2002) used the term perplexity to describe some of her transformative work in the Settlement House Movement and specifically in the Hull-House community. In her writings, Addams describes the “perplexity” in which her personal and professional assumptions about the world were transformed through her interactions with the residents of Hull-House, and her understandings of their perspectives. Her ability to entangle herself in these challenges allowed for a mutually transformative process of change. She argued this was both a foundation for personal change and also led to larger social reform. According to Addams, perplexity insists on self-reflection, prioritization of local knowledge, consideration of power and context, and an emphasis on self-determination, collaborative relationships, and the promotion of change.

This article proposes a re-examination of perplexity as a process in social work, which fosters a deep understanding and compassion with others that allows for collaborative and transformative growth. By providing opportunities for truly collaborative understanding, social workers can use perplexity as an innovative alternative to positivist momentum in the field. Addams’ refreshing methodology for culturally sensitive and responsive practice in the early 1900s suggests a compelling approach for increasingly diverse practice situations today.

For the purposes of this discussion, the authors suggest that perplexity involves five essential elements, including:

Exposure and immersion into an unfamiliar context;

A critical perspective that examines privilege and power in collaborative relationships;

An experience of dissonance or discomfort;

Patience and persistence in not knowing; and

Transformation of prior understandings by which growth and change occur.

What follows is an introduction to Jane Addams and her understanding of perplexity, a discussion of the current relevance of perplexity to social work, a description and application of these five elements to international social work practice in Kazakhstan, and implications for social work practice in diverse contexts.

Jane Addams and perplexity

Perplexity is a major theme in Addams’ (1902/2002), Democracy and Social Ethics. Addams applies perplexity to a variety of situations as she describes her theory of democratic social reform. In the introduction to this book, philosopher Charlotte Seigfried (2002) defines perplexity:

“perplexity” refers to someone’s personal involvement in a situation that baffles and confuses her, because her usual understanding and responses are inadequate to explain or transform a troubling situation. She can either continue to hold on to her assumptions or begin to call them into question. But in order to resolve the problematic situation in fact and not subjectively, she must first undergo a painful process of rethinking her presuppositions and values. (xxv–xxvi)

After a long struggle and period of uncertainty about her future, Jane Addams made a decision to break the familial expectation that she would return home after college to teach and take care of family. Her newly formed worldview, developed from her experiences in college and courageous trips to Europe, clashed with her parents and pushed her increasingly into a space of discovery and independence. She addressed her struggle through this transition in her 1883 Rockford commencement speech, entitled, To the Uncomfortableness of Transition, in which she argued that the willingness to shift away from former assumptions into a broader range of ideas and scholarship is difficult. She decided, along with her friend Ellen Gates Starr, to start a settlement house (as her new home and place of work) with people who were dramatically different from her, both in culture and economic status. Her experience in this environment contrasted dramatically from her own upbringing, and challenged her to move towards deep curiosity and learning. Addams argued that her perplexity in this situation helped her to gain new “sensibilities” that attuned her to problematic social situations and motivated her to move toward changing them. This approach led to transformative practice for all involved.

The first area of perplexity highlighted by Addams includes a strategy of open, sustained curiosity when interacting with communities (Cromie, 2015). She was committed to a humble stance of prioritizing deep listening and sustained dialogue (Lake, 2014), and to being a participant rather than observer (Whipps, 2010). For example, Addams encouraged immigrant visitors to Hull-house to share their cultural traditions with one another in the form of food, music, art, and social customs. She soon learned that there was as much for her to learn from them as there was for her to teach them. From her work with struggling immigrant communities, she learned that her displacement and exposure to these new environments provided “unusual mental alertness” (Fischer, 2006). More recent feminist or indigenous theorists speak of a similar process described as “borderlands space,” which is a prime place for transformation, and conocimiento, the development of new knowledge (Anzaldúa and Keating, 2013; Wuthnow, 2002).

Second, Addams argued that perplexity creates “sensibilities,” which attuned her to realities in unfamiliar contexts in which she was interacting with groups of people different from herself and that this facilitated movement towards reform. Sensibilities, according to Addams, can only be gained through (a) shared tasks of daily living (which included the affective and aesthetic); (b) trust and solidarity; and (c) opportunities for exposure to complex/challenging situations leading to reflective reconstruction of experience (Fischer, 2006). This was not simple for her and required a great deal of persistence (Morton, 2002). It also required that she examine her own privilege, history, and social status, a substantially radical move for the time (Lake, 2014). She wrote that if we avoid perplexity, staying in our normal realm of assumptions, we “lose contact with a great source of vitality” (Addams, 1902/2002: 119). Engaging in perplexity and the resulting sensibilities allows us to develop a social ethic “where all must turn out for one another, and at least see the size of one another’s burdens” (Addams, 1902/2002: 8). Addams was persistent in this commitment toward personal and social transformation, even when it meant setting aside her professionalism in order to effect mutual growth.

Finally, Addams’ work reflected an early feminist perspective, which acknowledged power dynamics in relationships as opposed to more traditional charity approaches. She describes perplexity in both personal and professional contexts, suggesting that this way of being is a powerful holistic ingredient for social reform (Foust, 2008; Thompson, Koenig, & Spano, 2017). Her advocacy for an integrated approach aligns with binary divisions refuted by feminist scholars. Additionally, she argued that the women in the Settlement House communities had particular expertise as co-actors and “grit” that worked in favor of community organizing and social reform. She was one of the earliest scholars to recognize the importance of the intersectionality, and she was anti-individualistic, process-oriented, and insisted on local knowledge (Fischer, 2006; Whipps, 2010). Addams rejected the sentiment common to many other suffragettes that women simply needed equal rights or saw the world differently. Instead, she embraced the notion that women had unique knowledge, and expertise from their lived experience that contributed to more peaceful systems of governance (Fischer, 2006). Addams demonstrated that engaging in perplexity gives us opportunities for expanded choices by encouraging non-habitual responses (Lake, 2014).

Relevance of perplexity to social work practice

Currently, social workers face tremendous challenges in the field. Locally, they struggle with increasing work demands related to accountability, empiricism, and expertise which, in turn, counter the personal satisfaction and joy they experience in practice situations where there are ample opportunities for self-reflection and spaces for meaning-making and growth (Pooler et al., 2014; Radey and Figley, 2007). Stress-related burnout can result in practitioners who are unmotivated and fatigued (Beck, 1987; Thomas, 2013). Simultaneously, increases in global migration and transnationalism create a context where practitioners must engage in policy issues and culturally sensitive practice. Social workers are intellectually and emotionally challenged to develop complex connections between direct practice and political, economic, or cultural norms.

Increases in migration and globalization also require practitioners to be sensitive to cultural nuances and creative in their intervention strategies. This demands social work that honors the expertise of clients’ lived experience and relies on the use of self in critical exploration of discomfort, uncertainty, and transformation. Due to these shifting norms, we need to renew and increase our reliance on intuition, curiosity, and authentic connection with others. We can do this through the use of perplexity.

Tensions continue between positivist, evidence-based approaches and perspectives on social work practice that integrate social workers’ personal values, intuition, beliefs, and perceptions, as well as interpersonal relationships. The current shift toward professionalism and increased use of scientific approaches leaves a schism in social work practice that denies a process of engagement that is personal and effective (Schön, 1983; Weick, 1987). In order to better understand this intuitive and relational process, the following section will describe and apply each particular element of perplexity to social work practice within the international context of Kazakhstan.

Perplexity and social work practice

Understanding an approach to social work practice requires the recognition of various layers of influence including personal, relational, and environmental. For the purposes of definition and analysis in this article, perplexity is explained by describing particular elements that acknowledge all of these layers. It is important to note that the elements of perplexity do not necessarily occur sequentially. Rather, they illustrate an iterative process of growth and development. Building on interpretations from other authors, the five previously delineated elements together propose an understanding of perplexity in the context of social work practice. In the following section, a case example of international social work experiences in Kazakhstan is discussed in light of each element of perplexity.

Exposure and immersion into an unfamiliar context

Shortly upon arrival in Astana, Kazakhstan, the second author was exposed to and immersed in an unfamiliar cultural context as a Fulbright scholar (Koenig, 2011; Koenig et al., 2017).

In the summer of 2011, I accepted a Fulbright scholarship to conduct a qualitative study on the role and development of social work in Kazakhstan and to teach social policy at Eurasian National University in the capital city of Astana, Kazakhstan. During this time, I was exposed to a starkly different cultural context than my own. In many ways, I knew it would be challenging. I had prepared by having numerous conversations with my Kazakh daughter-in-law, Kuanysh, and her friends; and by studying Russian for two years with a tutor to learn to speak, read, and write.

On my first day in-country I needed to be able to ride the bus in Astana, which has over a million people in it, and I needed to navigate my way on that bus to get from the edge of the city to the center, to where the University was. I broke out in a sweat while on a very crowded bus when I realized I could not read street signs because they included non-Cyrillic letters. I later learned that the street signs had been newly created using the Kazakh language which continues to go through several contested revisions to its written script (e.g. Arabic, Latin, Cyrillic and modified Cyrillic). It quickly became clear to me that I couldn’t find my way easily into the University. I felt it was important for me to be able to function in the city, geographically and linguistically: to be independent in getting to meetings and competent in my university teaching with social work students (albeit through reliance on two language interpreters – one for the Kazakh language and the other interpreter for the Russian language). This scenario, in addition to ongoing lack of clarity on assigned classrooms, felt chaotic and out of my control, but it was also part of my reality of teaching and conducting research abroad.

This first element of perplexity includes exposure to an unfamiliar or unexpected context, and immersion into that context. Traveling by bus in a large, international city and attempting to draw upon the author’s newly developed Russian language skills created a major disruption in her habitual practices and sparked questions related to her preparedness and expertise in this Kazakhstani cultural context (Cromie, 2015). Differences between expected norms and assumptions were evident within the city and university environments. During this time, there was an experiential shift where the author was literally immersed within a sea of people on a crowded bus within the city and where she walked with her university students “like a school of fish” to obtain, unsuccessfully at times, an assigned classroom. Her personal perceptions intermingled and interacted with members of the city and university. This immersion included the physical: where the author spent extended time living and working in this Kazakhstani environment and the personal: where she engaged in the use of herself and her senses (including intuition) to navigate a new social work practice context. This exposure and immersion involved a relaxation of rigorous boundaries between the personal and professional realms of everyday living (Addams, 1902/2002; Schön, 1983) and required that the author go beyond typical sources of comfort and routine in order to stretch herself. In general, this kind of exposure and immersion makes room for uncertainty and warrants a curious and humble stance.

A critical perspective that examines privilege and power in collaborative relationships

Thirty-five percent of the Kazakhstani¹ population is ethnic Russian and 100 nationalities are represented in Kazakhstan (many of whom were forced by the Soviet Union to move to Kazakhstan which was treated by Stalin as a “second Siberia”), so there were plenty of people on the bus and city streets who looked like me, but they did not walk, talk, or use nonverbal communication the way I did. As a tall, Nordic-built, American woman, I was more verbally demonstrative and took up more physical space than they did. Most people who are ethnic Kazakh are much smaller in stature and speak in quieter tones than I do. I stood out.

When I got off at the wrong stop, I tried to ask for help. I had people shoo me away or move away from me when I asked for help, I think, because I looked so physically different. In addition to my physical stature, language was really difficult. I attempted to approach an older woman but she seemed frightened by me and would not stop to help.

This second element of perplexity involves a critical perspective in asking questions of self-examination, including an analysis of privilege and power in relationships. The experience of getting lost and being shunned when asking for help forced the author to reflect on her own privileged status and how Kazakhstani people on the street and in the university might view her. She also questioned her preconceived assumptions about how best to communicate within this new environment and was faced with a parallel question of the status quo. If things are not as they have always been, or were predicted to be, then how will I be able to navigate this unfamiliar situation, let alone teach, and conduct a research study? Getting lost and struggling to communicate with local citizens, forced her to question her own authority, professional knowledge, and confidence in what she had learned about Kazakh culture and customs. Questioning one’s authority is a foundational concept in notions of critical theory and in the development of a critical consciousness. During this element, a shared struggle, even interdependence, between practitioner and community member is recognized. Asking, “What is my part in this social situation?” or “How does my own history or background interact with this community?” is an important part of this element.

Haraway (1988) argued that the most appropriate practice standpoint is that of situated, local knowledge and expertise of lived experience, honoring the idea that individuals have the best understanding of themselves. She described a visual “vantage point of the subjugated” (583) stating that locating oneself from below gives better perspective than locating oneself from above: the capacities to see are deeper and more complete. Through this questioning of her own authority or knowledge, the author, who could not easily navigate the bus or communicate with local people, was in a better position to begin to listen “from below” and to take into account the narratives and knowledge of resilient Kazakhstani people who had experienced oppression due to Soviet colonization.

“Subjugated standpoints” give more “adequate, sustained, objective, [and] transforming accounts of the world” (584). Like Addams, Haraway (1988) connects this practice approach to social reform. Subjugated standpoints offer critical knowledge that create “webs of connections called solidarity in politics and shared conversations, providing understandings, frames of reference and systems of knowledge that are transformative” (584–585). Critical theories which examine the status quo frame a practice approach that integrates an evaluation of power with a commitment to process and mutual growth (Behar and Gordon, 1995; Wuthnow, 2002). The avoidance of binary thinking and integrative processes of mutuality set a framework that fits well with perplexity. This means that the practitioner’s personal experience as well as her/his power in relationship to those with whom she/he is interacting must be taken into account in functioning as a professional social worker. There is an integration of the personal and professional self.

An experience of dissonance or discomfort

I felt panicked and lost. I could not make connections with people to figure out what bus I needed to get back on. The basic power that I previously held, in terms of finding my way around or communicating with others was dramatically reduced. I felt a sense of urgency, a need to persevere and figure it out. If I could not find my way to the University on my own, I could not meet the very basic requirements for teaching and conducting the research study. There were many people expecting me to be there and the social work director had insisted that I learn to navigate the bus system by myself. In that moment, I decided to call my adult daughter and ask her for help. I felt angry with myself because I wanted to be independently competent, or at least be able to rely on someone local, and I could not.

As the questions from the prior section about privilege and power are being evaluated, a third element of perplexity relating to disruption, dissonance or discomfort becomes evident. The author felt discomfort and substantial internal conflict because she could not use social, communication, or language skills in finding her way by bus to the university. Her previously applicable knowledge or skills did not work in this situation and left her feeling uncertain, doubtful, and afraid (Chödrön, 2007; Cromie, 2015). Imre (1982) suggests that perhaps the most difficult thing for people to do is to let go of their frame of reference, of their understanding of the way the world works and be open to a shift in this oftentimes rigid paradigm. It is much easier to remain in a world of certainty and validated knowledge. However, the dissonance helps social workers to be open to new awareness and insight. Addams (1902/2002) suggested that these are the spaces in which we develop sensibilities that attune us to client needs and guide our practice.

Patience and persistence in not knowing

In retrospect, I did not have a tremendous amount of persistence on that first day when I was trying to navigate my way to the University. I did make numerous attempts to understand the street signs, approached strangers on the streets, and eventually got assistance from my daughter. However, the sense of “not knowing,” and feeling lost remained long after that first commute. I realized that I would need on-going help in order to navigate the city and meet all of my obligations there. So, I hired one of my classroom interpreters, Tokhtar, for future trips as a driver. However, this did not address the inconsistent or unpredictable nature of reliably getting from one place to another. In Kazakh culture, things came up that interrupted his ability to be there on time. This inconsistent help continued to cause me dissonance. Instead of pushing back against that dissonance, I settled into an acceptance that this was the way it was going to work. I came to know that the “not knowing” would be part of my journey. Long conversations with Tokhtar, before and after travel, led to a deeper, trusting relationship in which I became the learner, not just an instructor. I became very curious about his story and perspectives on broader cultural and societal issues.

I continued to have dissonance even after I got to know Tokhtar and his wife, Aislu. During one visit to his home, I had taken off my shoes, as expected, by the door. We were getting ready to leave and so I had put my shoes back on in anticipation of our leaving. However, their infant daughter began to cry and both Tokhtar and Aislu were busy cleaning in the kitchen. So, I went to check on the baby. Aislu got really angry with me and hurried me back to the door because I had my shoes on and this behavior as a guest was viewed as disrespectful to their home. I had literally and metaphorically stepped into spaces that were considered inappropriate.

The fourth element of perplexity involves a willingness to remain in the state of discomfort without hurriedly seeking solutions or mastery. As a social work practitioner and scholar, the author struggled to learn to live with uncertainty, but in turn, was invited to explore her Kazakh interpreter’s family life and customs. By stepping into uncertainty, the author deepened her potential for understanding and self-reflection. Theorists who encourage us to “live into the questions” (Rilke, 1903) understand the power of a curious, even uncertain stance and the energy and stamina this takes. Saleebey (2006) described the strengths-oriented practitioner as needing to intentionally take on a “not knowing stance” in working with clients and communities. He noted that professionals must stretch themselves to learn from the expertise and lived experiences of clients and communities. Koenig and Spano (1998) suggested that the Taoist concept of wu wei (being in a state of not-knowing) when coupled with the strengths perspective can function as an important process for professional social workers. This ontological struggle requires the social worker to be open and receptive to input from external sources, especially the client.

Transformation of prior understandings by which growth and change occur

This fifth element of perplexity involved the author’s transformation or change in many of her previously held assumptions.

My reliance on Tokhtar as a driver led to growth in ways that were not expected. In the context of being invited into Tokhtar’s home, I learned about a powerful blending of Shamanic/Islamic views. Tokhtar and Aislu demonstrated their Kazakh beliefs about parenting an infant: wrapping the child in a silk cloth onto a kind of papoose referred to in Kazakh as a besek which was held in place by a six foot pole used by nomadic Kazakhs for carrying a child during migratory movements. Tokhtar and Aislu also explained the shamanic symbolism of eagle feathers that dangled above their baby, Erke’s, head as an omen for protection. These feathers had also been blessed by their Islamic priest.

I learned quickly that there were limits to my competencies as an individual. I needed this friendship, and it became mutually beneficial. I became very curious about their stories, their perspectives, and this particular blending of Shamanic/Islamic cultures. My prior understanding of Shamanism was that it was ancient, or more “magical” than it was real. This relationship gave me a new understanding of Shamanism as humans’ deep connection to nature. In my conservative Lutheran tradition, this “worshipping of nature” was viewed as heresy because it interfered with a direct belief in an external God. The blending of Shamanic and Islamic beliefs challenged me and helped me deepen my own spiritual beliefs. I think it was through these conversations and new frames of reference that I ended up taking up cycling, spending long periods of time outside with red-tailed hawks, wild turkeys and the steep tall grass hills of northeastern Kansas. I felt much more whole when I was connected with nature.

When I was a young child, I found a tree to climb during each season of the year. From 14 years onward and as a long distance runner who sought silence in golden wheat fields, I knew something about using exercise as a form of meditation. However, my relationship with Tokhtar and Aislu taught be to be even quieter, to sit completely still, keep my mouth shut and listen. I gained a sense of humility: I needed to make myself smaller. The long-term impact of this changed how I interact with people in other cultures. I moved to a place that is more nondescript. I learned that as a very assertive, gregarious person, I needed to turn the volume down.

My curiosity about others led me to be curious about my own history and personal/global power as a Germanic descendent whose ancestors were rebellious Friesen (who harbored pirates that attacked the established Hanseatic League of traders), and lived on the North Sea. In the same way that Tokhtar had proudly described his forgotten ancestors as linked to Attila the Hun, I had discovered my ancestors.

When I came back from Kazakhstan, I noted a difference between myself and many of my social work colleagues. Most were not interested in hearing about my experiences of growth. I also paid attention to contextual nuances related to culture and began to stand out for my deep interest in other cultures and perspectives. This changed the way I taught about diversity. I started encouraging my students to take a deeper look into who they are in relation to others; I increased conversations about power in the classroom and developed a focused interest in critical theories and Marxism, and how larger social structures affect personal experience. Now I understand this better. I also increased my understanding of political and historical contexts, taking into account why an event is taking place at this particular moment in time as part of developing a critical perspective. It was a process of “waking up.” Overall, this experience improved my comfort with “not knowing” and letting others take the lead.

As I anticipate international social work again, I am much more aware of global events than I used to be. This increased awareness sparked a closer examination of what Americans do and why, including how this might be perceived by people from other cultures. This experience challenged my views of the merits of our own social institutions. Exploring people and contexts that are markedly different from yourself provides new lenses for examining your current situation. There is no shortcut, or clear navigation to that. It is wrought with a whole lot of dialogue, relies heavily on mutuality, and insists that my personal perspective is always incomplete, and I know it.

This fifth element of perplexity not only involves transformation in one’s assumptions, but it includes an interior ability for simultaneous engagement in personal and professional social change (Mezirow, 1997; Ruch, 2009; Weick, 1987). For the authors and many others, this happens through an iterative process of self-reflection and dialogue. According to transformative learning theory, a frame of reference includes two dimensions: the habits of mind and a point of view. The habits of mind relate to the norms or understandings we have assumed based on our cultural, social, economic, political, spiritual or psychological background. They are more fixed and difficult to understand without opportunities to compare and contrast with the norms or understandings of other worldviews. A person’s point of view is more subject to change based on reflections of experiences, our problem solving and exposure to challenges (Mezirow, 1997). The second author had ample opportunities to compare Kazakh cultural, spiritual and political beliefs with her own habits of mind and to change or deepen her views based on her reflections of a variety of experiences and dialogue with Kazakh colleagues, students and community members. Perplexity as a process of experience, self-reflection and dialogue has the potential to transform our frame of reference. Following this transformation, there is an epistemological shift recognized by the practitioner and an awareness of growth.

Perplexity happens in spaces of transition or uncertainty, and as the case example illustrates, the practitioner/participant then is in a position to experience movement and growth. Practitioners can find deeply, fertile spaces for perplexity in diverse contexts affected by oppression; spaces with increased likelihood of immersion or involving affective and aesthetic components of daily life. And, this perplexity can occur if the practitioner is willing to be vulnerable or adaptable, taking on a humble stance of “learner.” Theorists agree that perplexity as a practice approach is extremely challenging and requires authentic vulnerability, critique, and openness to change (Chödrön, 2007; Morton, 2002; Schön, 1983).

Implications for social work practice

Pema Chödrön (2002) wrote, “To be fully human and completely awake is to be continually thrown out of the nest” (28). Many social work practice settings, in international and local contexts, demand routine responses to particular social problems in the name of accountability and evidence (Gitterman and Knight, 2013). Perplexity, as both an approach and worldview, challenges these routine professional actions and requires that we look to non-habitual responses and learn from community members who hold expertise in their own stories. In some instances, this requires us to be “thrown from our nest” of familiarity. In this place, it is important to maintain curiosity and resist judgment or immediate solutions. Most authors describe this as a difficult, personally challenging process that requires moment-to-moment self-awareness, including a cognitive and affective analysis of self (Lake, 2014; Morton, 2002; Schön, 1983).

In social work practice, perplexity can lead to at least three areas of transformative practice. While all involve transformative practice, each area may include several of our proposed elements of perplexity (i.e. exposure and immersion into an unfamiliar context; a critical perspective that examines privilege and power in collaborative relationships; an experience of dissonance or discomfort; patience and persistence in not knowing; and transformation of prior understandings by which growth and change occur). In this section, the authors share local social work practice examples to highlight benefits of perplexity that can be nurtured in every-day social work practice settings as well as more unfamiliar or international social work practice contexts.

First, perplexity in social work practice challenges the sterile rigidity of personal-professional boundaries and requires a stepping in to liminal space of transformation. This can be viewed as a benefit and connects to the following elements of perplexity: involving exposure and immersion in an unfamiliar context, dissonance and discomfort, and patience and persistence in not-knowing. For example, when social workers make a home visit, they step into clients’ intimate physical and often emotional spaces; the structure of a home visit may be less contained or rigid, which may make the social worker and client uncomfortable. However, this in turn, may lead to impactful and intimate social worker/client interactions. Addams said that when there is a connection between the realms of personal and public, there is “reconstructive transformation of both, preventing the oppression of either” (Foust, 2008: 151). It allows for practice to be mutually beneficial and transformative.

Second, the use of perplexity allows for a higher degree of transparency in helping relationships. This benefit illustrates the following elements of perplexity: critical examination of power and privilege; and transformation of prior understandings. Canadian psychologist Sidney Jourard (1971) writes about “the transparent way” of being with clients. He argues that our transparency as social workers is indicative by our disclosure to the people with whom we work. For example, a female social worker works with male veterans who do not think women should make their own decisions, e.g. buy a car, manage a budget, or go back to school. As she gets to know her clients better and when appropriate to their work together, the social worker challenges her male clients on their views of women. After all, she has worked her way through graduate school and just bought her first car. Her male clients see her walk into work every day with her car keys in hand. Some express discomfort with the social worker’s choices, but others are curious and want to get to know her better. This disclosure not only involves words, but our actions, expressions, and anything that reveals part of ourselves in the helping relationship. Jourard writes:

If I make myself transparent, I suspend my concepts, my expectancies as to how things and people are, and let myself perceive (that is, receive the transmissions of) their being…I let my changing being present itself to my experience, necessitating a changed concept of myself. (180–181)

Transparency requires openness, and a willingness to take a risk to be vulnerable.

Finally, perplexity involves taking risks to learn and grow along with the people with whom we work. This benefit illustrates the following elements of perplexity: patience and persistence in not-knowing; and transformation of prior understandings. Perlman (1979) refers to this when she writes, “All new learning involves risk. It requires some change in us, some shifting about of comfortable assumptions or sets of habits; it means moving from the known to the unfamiliar…” (90). We are therefore not asking clients to be sole learners/initiators of change, but as professionals, we engage in a transformative process along with them. For example, a social worker did not know anything about building a homemade radio. However, a nursing home resident did have the knowledge to build the radio and really want to do so to reconnect with fellow ham operators, yet he was worried that the nursing home wouldn’t give him permission to locate the radio antenna on the building grounds. Advocating for the client’s radio antenna may be unfamiliar territory and may stretch the social worker, but if accomplished, can be satisfying for both the client and social worker. So while the impetus for the helping relationship needs to be focused on the client, the outcome of the helping relationship is oftentimes mutually transformative.

Despite the benefits outlined above, when social workers draw on perplexity, they can also experience tensions in the field. Agency contexts vary according to the type and length of contact that is allowed with clients, which in turn may limit possibilities for perplexity. Also, social workers fulfill various roles within agency contexts (e.g. juvenile detention center or emergency room) that can dampen flexibility and creativity in their work with clients. These structural limitations may restrict social workers’ capacities to engage in the daily lives of clients or “lean into” strategies that could facilitate growth and change.

When agencies do not encourage growth for both practitioners and clients, social workers’ may experience limitations in their ability and freedom to engage in perplexity. Further, tensions may emerge among professionals who work within the same agency. Any time that a person challenges assumptions about privilege and power, this may trigger discomfort for another. In practice contexts where client outcomes and evidence are prioritized, perplexity may be viewed as too soft or risky, with unknown predictions about what transformation is to come.

Ideological connections between perplexity and social work are clear. The profession of social work is predicated by contact with ordinary people in community settings. Honoring local knowledge, consideration of context, and an emphasis on client and community self-determination, collaborative relationships, and promoting change all connect to historical efforts within social work. The person-in-environment or ecological perspective itself sets a standard for contextual approaches to practice (Gitterman, 2011). The dictate to “start where the client is” calls us to shift our focus from expert-driven knowledge to responsive practice. Additionally, perplexity aligns nicely with the strengths perspective, because it honors the potential for individuals to realize change through collaborative relational approaches and it focuses on health and positive growth (Saleebey, 2006; Weick, 1987).

When new social workers work within social institutions, engaging in complex, difficult case scenarios, it is easy for them to cling to power and distance themselves in order to cope with stressful situations. Our attempts at self-protection increase as our work environment becomes more stressful. However, the more removed we are from an authentic helping relationship, the less effective we become. It is increasingly important for social workers to maintain their curiosity and be comfortable as learners, engaging in perplexity as a strategy for new understanding. This will allow them to be more effective in helping relationships, and will ultimately facilitate social change. This is the work of social workers in transformative practice.

More than a century ago, Jane Addams discovered a powerful approach to practice, which honored the experiences of the Hull-House community members and led to both personal growth and social reform. While many scholars have highlighted her work as an important historical contribution to the field, there are little efforts to incorporate her methods into current social work practice. Perplexity is one way this could happen. Addams argued that without perplexity, there is no growth (Cromie, 2015). In her intentional stretch beyond her own comfort zone, she recognized the connectedness in the helping relationship between the helper and the helped, and the existence of mutual transformation for both.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Note

References

Addams

(1902/2002) Democracy and Social Ethics, Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

Anzaldúa

Keating

(2013) This Bridge We Call Home: Radical Visions for Transformation, New York: Routledge.

Beck FD (1987) Counselor burnout in family service agencies. Social Casework 68: 3–15.

Behar

Gordon

(1995) Women Writing Culture, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Cromie

(2015) Jane Addams and the “devil baby tales”: The usefulness of perplexity in “sympathetic understanding,” a tool in learning empathy. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association 63: 101–136.

Chödrön

(2007) The Places That Scare You: A Guide to Fearlessness in Difficult Times, Boston: Shambhala Publications.

Fischer

(2006) Addams’s internationalist pacifism and the rhetoric of maternalism. National Women’s Studies Association Journal 18(3): 1–19.

Foust

(2008) Perplexities of filiality: Confucius and Jane Addams on the private/public distinction. Asian Philosophy 18(2): 149–166.

Gitterman

Knight

(2013) Evidence-guided practice: Integrating the science and art of social work. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services 94(2): 70–78.

10.

Gitterman

(2011) Advances in the life model of social work practice. In: Turner

(ed.) Social Work Treatment: Interlocking Theoretical Approaches, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 279–291.

11.

Haraway

(1988) Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies 15(3): 575–599.

12.

Imre

(1982) Knowing and Caring: Philosophical Issues in Social Work, New York: University Press of America.

13.

Jourard

(1971) Self-Disclosure: An Experimental Analysis of the Transparent Self, New York: Wiley-Interscience.

14.

Koenig

Spano

(1998) Taoism and the strengths perspective. Social Thought 18: 47–65.

15.

Koenig

(2011) Cross-Cultural Social Policy: Social Work, Social Policies and Social Services in Kazakhstan, Astana, Kazakhstan: Eurasian National University.

16.

Koenig

Spano

Kaufman

et al. (2017) A Freirean analysis of Kazakhstani social work education. International Social Work 60(1): 156–169.

17.

Lake

(2014) Jane Addams and wicked problems: Putting the pragmatic method to use. The Pluralist 9(3): 77–94.

18.

Mezirow

(1997) Transformative learning: Theory to practice. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education 74: 5–12.

19.

Morton

(2002) Making meaning: Reflections on community, service, and learning. In: Devine

et al. (eds) From Cloister to Commons: Concepts and Models for Service-Learning in Religious Studies, Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education, pp. 41–53.

20.

Perlman

(1979) Relationship: The Heart of Helping People, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

21.

Pooler

et al. (2014) Finding joy in social work II: Intrapersonal sources. Social Work 59(3): 213–221.

22.

Radey

Figley

(2007) The social psychology of compassion. Clinical Social Work Journal 35(3): 207–214.

23.

Rilke

(1903/2011) Letters to a Young Poet, United Kingdom: Penguin Press.

24.

Ruch

(2009) Identifying ‘the critical’ in a relationship-based model of reflection. European Journal of Social Work 12(3): 349–362.

25.

Saleebey

(2006) The Strengths Perspective in Social Work Practice, Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

26.

Schön

(1983) The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action, New York: Basic Books.

27.

Seigfried C (2002) Introduction. Democracy and Social Ethics. University of Illinois Press.

28.

Thomas

(2013) Association of personal distress with burnout, compassion fatigue, and compassion satisfaction among clinical social workers. Journal of Social Service Research 39(3): 365–379.

29.

Thompson JB, Spano R and Koenig TL (2017) Back to Addams and Richmond: Was social work really a divided house in the beginning? (unpublished manuscript).

30.

Weick

(1987) Reconceptualizing the philosophical perspective of social work. The Social Service Review 61(2): 218–230.

31.

Whipps

(2010) Examining Addams’ democratic theory through a postcolonial feminist lens. In: Hamington

(ed.) Feminist Interpretations of Jane Addams, University Park, PA: Pennsylavania State University Press, pp. 275–292.

32.

Williams

Graham

(2014) ‘A world on the move’: Migration, mobilities and social work. British Journal of Social Work 44(Supplement 1): i1–i19.

33.

Wuthnow

(2002) Deleuze in the postcolonial: On nomads and indigenous politics. Feminist Theory 3(2): 183–200.