Relational ethics as enrichment of social justice: Applying elements of contextual therapy to social work

Introduction

‘Social workers are the unheralded pioneers of what later became the field of family therapy’ (Broderick and Schrader, 1991: 5; Goldenberg and Goldenberg, 2008: 108; Wood, 1996). Some of the first family therapists were social workers (Broderick and Schrader, 1991; Herman, 2001; Kamphuis, 1977; Verheij and Loon, 1989; Wood and Geismar, 1989), and social work and family therapy still share the premise that the family and its social context are important elements for relational and psychological health. One of those family therapy modalities is contextual therapy, founded by Ivan Boszormenyi-Nagy and his associates (henceforth: Nagy). As with social work, justice is the central theme in contextual therapy. It was developed during the emergence of family therapy in the previous century and focuses on relationships with the assumption that justice is the driving force (van Heusden and van den Eerenbeemt, 1983: 22). This premise, called 'relational ethics,' forms the core of the contextual theory and is applied to a methodology and interventions. Social work and contextual therapy share the premise that human well-being is strongly connected with, if not dependent on justice.

Social work focuses on social justice. It stands up for those who suffer from presumably unintended but unjust consequences of developments and situations on a macro level. This aligns with the ‘Global Definition of the Social Work Profession’, which speaks of promoting ‘social change and development, social cohesion, and the empowerment and liberation of people’ (International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW), 2017). Consequently, social justice is often approached from a political perspective.

Contextual theory approaches justice as a vital element of the fundamental nature of human relationships (Boszormenyi-Nagy, 1987c: 54, 121; Boszormenyi-Nagy and Krasner, 1986: 417), and has elaborated this into a theory of critical inter-personal elements that contribute to, or undermine, justice within particular family relationships and their contexts. This theory highlights how relational injustice can be passed on and how it becomes a burden for future generations. This is likely an important element of repeating injustice and deprivation through generations, in other words, repeating history: ‘Justice can be regarded as a web of invisible fibres running through the length and width of the history of family relationships’ (Boszormenyi-Nagy and Spark, 1984: 54). Contextual theory is applied to contextual therapy with the main objective of restoring injustice and enhancing responsible care within relationships. Therefore, Nagy describes contextual therapy as ‘inherently preventive’ because care for the family – and in particular the younger generation – is an investment in the future (Boszormenyi-Nagy, 1987c: 211). ‘Our responsible caring feeds into the substrate of posterity’s fate. The fibre of responsibility for consequences connects the health of the present with the preventive interests of the future’ (Boszormenyi-Nagy, 1987d: 296).

For this reason, the authors suggest enriching social work’s focus on social justice with a focus on relational justice. Hereafter, relational justice is elaborated according the contextual theory, presuming that it can enrich the social work body of knowledge and that the application of this theory can be tailored to the practice of social work. Proceeding, a concise overview of the history, and a description of the ethics and values of social work will be followed by a brief explanation of the core of contextual theory and therapy. This article will be completed with some concluding remarks.

History of social work

The roots of contemporary social work can be traced back to the era of industrialization and the resulting changes in society. Until then, there had always been charity, but it was mostly voluntary and somewhat disorganized. However, because of the increasing number of people who appealed to it, better organization and professionalization of care became necessary. This led to the development of social work with two different approaches.

In line with the charity-approach, a part of the social workers kept focussing on individual families and communities and their environments, the so-called micro level. The further professionalization of this approach was inspired by for instance the work of Freud and the advent of other psychological and psychiatric theories (Wood and Geismar, 1989). Also the development of social casework, the first method for social work (Roberts and Nee, 1970: xiii), described by Mary Richmond (1917) in her publication Social Diagnosis, contributed greatly to the professionalization of this approach in social work. To this day, social work still takes advantage of insights derived from several other relevant fields (Hare, 2004: 414; IFSW, 2017).

Another part of the social workers focused more on solidarity with the poor by participating and initiating a cooperative way of living together in settlements and neighbourhoods (Geertsema, 2004; Hering, 2009; Wood and Geismar, 1989). This approach, aiming at change on a macro level, professionalized in a more political direction, with for instance Jane Adams as one of its representatives (Addams, 1902, 1912). Later, and in line with this, the critical theory (Fraser and Matthews, 2008; Gambrill, 2006) and the anti-oppressive social work (Dalrymple and Burke, 2006; Dominelli, 2002) developed.

Even though social work has always had to adapt to developments and events in society, social work has maintained an unambiguous general principle and central value: justice for every human being, and especially for those whose rights are threatened. However, it also still struggles with its dual focus: providing assistance to individual families and addressing society’s responsibility for human well-being.

The contextual theory: Relational ethics

Contextual theory is based on the postulate that people not only need each other but also have an innate tendency to care for each other (Boszormenyi-Nagy and Krasner, 1986: 78). Nagy refers in this respect to Martin Buber (Boszormenyi-Nagy and Krasner, 1986; Boszormenyi-Nagy and Spark, 1984). In contextual theory this postulate is elaborated as reciprocal care and responsibility. Nagy defined these concepts as ethical principles: if someone needs care, he is ethically entitled to receive care. Conversely, if one is confronted with someone who needs care, one has an ethical responsibility to give care. Both entitlement and responsibility refer to an underlying principle of relational justice, which the contextual theory states is ‘the driving force of relationships’ (van Heusden and van den Eerenbeemt, 1983: 22) with consequences through generations. Both just and unjust actions from one generation influence the next, which means that current generations have also a responsibility to the coming generations. This approach is called 'contextual' because context not only refers to the structure of the environment but also to the consequences of previous, and the responsibility for future generations.

This contextual anthropology of human relationships thus rests on two pillars: the interconnectedness of human beings, and justice as its guiding principle. In 1979, Boszormenyi-Nagy (1987b: 243) described this as ‘relational ethics’. In the contextual theory, intergenerational interconnectedness and reciprocal care are further elaborated as mutual 'giving and receiving’. Justice is elaborated as ‘balance’ in contextual theory and is known as ‘the balance of give and receive’ ¹ : ‘We are speaking of the ebb and flow of give and take in a relationship over time, whereby each partner may come to feel that however much he or she has invested in the relationship, the other has more or less kept space’ (Ulrich, 1983: 189). ‘Giving’ in relationships stems, ethically speaking, from loyalty or responsibility: children are loyal to their parents, and parents are responsible for their children. In turn, both receive constructive entitlement or merit, by which they gain freedom to live, a crucial element of human well-being.

However, ‘an impeccably just or fair distribution of advantages and burdens is an idealized goal’ (Boszormenyi-Nagy and Krasner, 1986: 65) and in every human life things may go wrong. This does not necessarily mean that those relationships will also be seriously disturbed. However, sometimes relationships are disturbed, and contextual theory describes how this impedes the balance of give and receive, leading to serious disruptions. In summary, the intergenerational consequences of relational ethical injustice threaten the development and functioning of the person concerned. Consequently, the injustice may turn into destructive entitlement, which can be passed on as a revolving slate: playing out unfaced and unresolved, unbalanced intergenerational unfairness against their marriage partners, their children, and the world at large (Boszormenyi-Nagy, 1987b: 271; Krasner and Joyce, 1995: 98).

The ultimate goal of contextual therapy and its methodology is the ‘prevention of dysfunction and the rehabilitation and strengthening of the family's own “immune system” – the resources of care, concern, and connection’ (Boszormenyi-Nagy and Ulrich, 1981: 210). This aligns with the premise that a fair balance of give and receive benefits all family members, as well as their relationships within the family context. Therefore, the contextual therapist uses his or her insight into the realm of relational ethics to expose those injustices and imbalances that hamper relationships and block access to these resources. This process also addresses previous generations in order to uncover revolving slates of injustice.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Schematic overview of the core concepts of the contextual theory.

Ultimately, the contextual therapist aims at evoking a genuine dialogue between those involved in the presented issues. A dialogue opens possibilities for exoneration, the main contextual intervention for restoring trust by eliminating the burden of injustice and debt. The most important working-method is multidirected partiality: being successively partial to all who are involved into the issues at hand, present or absent. The therapist is determined to ‘discover the humanity of every participant – even of the family’s “monster-member.”’ This makes mutual understanding and reciprocal recognition possible, or at least it gives the therapist an opportunity to function as a model in crediting those who are entitled to it (Boszormenyi-Nagy and Krasner, 1986: 418).

Below, the most crucial elements of the contextual theory are shown schematically (see Figure 1).

The relevance of relational ethics for social work

According to Nagy, relational ethics is ‘rooted in the ontology of the fundamental nature of all living creatures’ (Boszormenyi-Nagy and Krasner, 1986: 420). This insight into the ontological grounded ‘innate tendency to care about other people’ (1986: 78) is founded on an alternation of assumptions, theoretical concepts, clinical observations, and beliefs and reflections by Nagy (Boszormenyi-Nagy, 1987c; Sollee, 1992). However, today this innate tendency to care is given some support in recent life sciences. Various studies point to evidence for possible biological origins of fairness and reciprocal care (de Waal, 2009, 2013; Wohlleben, 2016), indicating that taking care of the weak and vulnerable could be a general element in living beings. This is also presumed by Damasio (2012) in his neurobiological research. Human morality, therefore, may be not so much separated from, but part of the human nature. This would support Nagy's conviction that relational ethics does not come from a moralistic point of view, ‘connected with adjudicating, value preferences, and idealism’ (Boszormenyi-Nagy and Markham, 1987: 243). Recent research indicates that relational ethics is possibly connected with, or even belongs to life as such.

The contextual theory provides insight into the ways in which damaged humanity and injustice can be passed on through generations, accumulating destructive entitlement. This is not limited to individuals or families. Generations of troubled families are collectively destructive entitled due to an ongoing deprivation and social injustices, causing a continuing revolving slate. It is important for social workers to be aware of the often hidden and unknown intergenerational impacts of injustice. Social workers can do justice to the service-users by addressing and giving recognition for these intergenerational injustices. This is also a way for social workers to gain the trust of the service users.

Being treated unjustly, however, does not relieve people of their relational ethical responsibility to act justly themselves. This, of course, should never trivialize the injustice from others, but capitalizing on the inner sense of responsibility is a far more profound working method towards restoring human well-being. It is well known that people who experience injustice tend to feel victimized. Therefore, social workers have learned to explicitly acknowledge those who suffer from injustice and unfairness, and address those who are responsible. This is an important element in helping people to regain control over their own lives, though it is not the decisive step toward the needed movement for restoring relational justice. Caring for the deprived should never consist of taking over responsibility, because that carries the risk of enhancing victimhood. Good care is, according to the contextual theory, aimed at restoring or improving humanity by helping the service users gain meaning; in terms of relational ethics: to help them to ‘give’, instead of waiting to ‘receive’. Giving leads to reciprocity, which enhances self-validation and the balance of give and receive. Contextual theory and therapy provides knowledge and insight into the blockages and disruptions that impede giving and provides guidelines on how these can be addressed.

Contextual interventions in social work

In an earlier research, the authors analysed the therapeutic practice of Nagy, which led to the formulation of the core interventions of contextual therapy, all of which are ultimately aimed at provoking the innate sense of care and responsibility (van der Meiden et al., 2018). The interventions below come from this study. However, since these interventions are derived from a therapeutic practice, only those interventions have been selected that are suitable for, or could be tailored to application in social work.

Each intervention starts with an introduction from the contextual theory, after which the relevance and application for social work with a focus on relational justice is described. Some interventions are illustrated by fragments, coming from the named research on the practice of Nagy.

The following interventions are described in turn: multidirected partiality; focus on the positive; enhancing mutual trust; gaining by giving; eliciting resources; and overlapping interventions.

Concluding remarks

This article states that human well-being is best served by disclosing, highlighting and enriching the ever-present resources belonging to the realm of relational ethics: an innate tendency to care for the other and to do justice to the other. This is elaborated in social work with a focus on relational justice as an enrichment of social justice, strengthening mutual care within families and their social context, assuming that it contributes to human well-being.

In this article, the authors argue that social workers would do well to focus first on issues at the micro level, empowering the service users, helping them find the already present resources, and encouraging them to take their responsibility for each other and for their environment. In that regard, already promising initiatives can be found (Driessens and van Regenmortel, 2006; Heyndrickx et al., 2005, 2011; van Regenmortel, 2008, 2011; van Regenmortel et al., 2016). However, to some extent, the social worker will also intervene in macro issues. For example, when the service user cannot gain access to relevant regulations or has coordination problems with institutions and organizations. Concerning social justice, some issues occur at a level that transcends individual cases; however, larger social work institutions and umbrella organizations may be better equipped and are better negotiating partners with governments. Social workers are responsible for identifying practices that adversely affect the rights and well-being of the deprived in society and can report such practices to these more appropriate organizations. This allows them to focus all attention on the micro level of social justice: working on relational justice and on a fair balance of give and receive.

Although social work focuses on the cohabitation of human beings, here the authors would like to point out the importance of the interdependence of human beings and their natural environment, as is also mentioned by IFSW (2017). Especially in this time of climate warming, it becomes painfully clear how human beings have neglected this interdependence. In that regard, social work should ask itself how it is able to contribute on rebalancing care for the non-human world or environment and the sustainability for the next generations (Ife, 2012: 309). The expansion of the social work body of knowledge with knowledge about, and insight into the relational-ethical context thus enriches the relevance of social work at micro and macro levels. It also relates to the care for future generations, which is one of the most important human responsibilities.

This article is a recommendation to social workers to integrate the useful elements of the contextual theory and therapy into their practices. Therefore, the authors intertwined the framework and wealth of the contextual theory and therapy with the principles and richness of social work. Furthermore, by differentiating social justice into a more macro political social justice, and a micro relational justice, and by shaping the core principles of contextual therapy towards social work practices, this article adds to both the body of knowledge and the toolbox of social work.