Ethics consists of critical reflection on personal or group morality. It is postulated that every human being is capable of feeling what is moral or of judging morally. In contrast, feeling is considered ethical. In practice, this is most evident when our sense of what is moral is inconsistent with the ethical framework of social work. Ethics in social work can then be understood as acting in a way that is consistent with social work values and principles, a way of being oneself that social workers have committed to while working in their profession.
Morality can be understood as a set of values and beliefs that may or may not be consistent with social work ethics. Making a decision in an ethical way is closely related to social work practice.
Sobočan defines ethical decision-making as a behavior closely related to value decisions and consisting of two levels: the intuitive level (personal feelings, ideas, and opinions about what is right and what is wrong in a given situation) and the critical-reflective level of assessing the situation (knowing about and thinking in terms of ethical theories and principles, professional values, and standards). Ethical behavior involves questioning personal moral intuition and theoretical thinking. Differences arise when personal morality does not match the ethical framework of social work. Thus, we find out whether someone has acted ethically or not, in accordance with the values and principles of the profession of social work. (Sobočan, 2013).
I find problematic the fact that sometimes codes and principles neither anticipate real, factual life situations, nor offer possibilities for their understanding and action. I will substantiate my claim with practical examples I have encountered in the field.
THE IFSW GLOBAL SOCIAL WORK STATEMENT OF ETHICAL PRINCIPLES
Unlike other codes and regulations, this statement is supposed to be the result of a reflection on the feedback from the consultation. Immediately, the question arises as to the areas from which this feedback came. I assume that those who had access to institutional and organisational provision were those who could have provided feedback. Then I think of all the others who do not have even basic human rights. Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of human rights states: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should treat one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 3 of the same declaration asserts: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
I remember one of the families I met during my time working in the fields. The family had two children, aged one and a half and three years. Neither of the children had any documents, any proof of their existence then or later. They have no birth certificate, they have no kind of document. They were born in "camps" on the way to Western Europe. One child in Greece, the other in Serbia. They were deprived of freedom of movement (and other freedoms) because they were born "on the move". They were in closed sections of asylum shelters, in open sections, on the streets, in the woods. They were kept everywhere but where they should be kept: in safety.
These children do not exist in any system and therefore do not have equal opportunities or access to resources. These children cannot give feedback because they do not, in fact, exist. In other words, as is usually the case, the statement can only be applied to certain groups of people and does not cover all possibilities.
Reading the statement further reveals the need for a conceptual shift: from locating human dignity primarily in the context of autonomy to recognising intersubjectivity and the intertwining of human dignity and human rights. Far from being autonomous and independent beings as constructed by liberal theory, as human beings we are all embedded in societies and dependent on their socio-political, economic and cultural structures and conventions. I think this part is very important because, in a sense, it doesn't shift all responsibility to the individual (which often happens in the neoliberal world). Instead, it takes into account the broader concept or situation.
The next paragraph of the statement deals with the political dimension of social work as a profession. This political dimension, according to the statement, is the result of the power and authority given to professionals by the state. The paragraph itself is quite understandable, but I had great difficulty understanding it in the context of contemporary countries and political systems, which generally do not act in the interests of the people. At least not in the interest of all people. As a trainee social worker working in the field of migration and with people on the run, the so-called "illegal migrants" as they are often called by the media, politicians and other
"opponents" (I categorically reject this term at all levels, but I think it is important to use it to represent the real situation), if I want to work for the people, I have to work against the state
or the system in some way. If the state's policies are such that it violates human rights, does not admit its mistakes but repeats them, amends them, and develops new ways to oppress marginalised groups, then I find it more than necessary to reject the authority and power that the same state gives me.
I can bring this in relation to the part of the Declaration that deals with the principles of supporting human rights. Articles 2.5 and 2.6 state: social workers provide people with information about their rights and support people's efforts to exercise their rights. In 2.6:
Social workers recognise the state as a key actor in the defence, promotion and fulfilment of human rights.
Using a specific example (just one of many) that I encountered during fieldwork, I can illustrate the point I am making here: States do not work for the benefit of people. On the contrary, they create and entrench differences. Therefore, I believe that it is our moral responsibility as social workers and human beings to fight against these kinds of systems at all levels.
The example itself is very banal, but if you consider it as part of everyday events that lead to social changes, which can also be linked to historical events, it becomes very important. It is not the first time in history that people who show solidarity and try to help groups that are discriminated against are criminalised, intimidated and sanctioned. Something similar happened for example (and there are numerous examples) in the world war II when people who helped Jews were sanctioned.
The example describes the practises of intimidation, preventing solidarity and refusing to help in the form of sharing information and advocating for vulnerable groups. The example is written down in my diary and later reproduced in a paragraph in my thesis.
In short, this happened in Sarajevo, a few weeks after my arrival and active fieldwork. It is important to emphasize that my status was "legalized", I had a permit confirming that I was in BiH legally, it confirmed my identity and the address I had registered. Because I didn't think I needed to be afraid or hide, I didn't. The police patrols that occasionally came to check the house where I worked all had my home phone number. They called me several times to ask me certain questions (nothing involving people, just questions about the house), and I always
answered and responded. Thus, nothing I did was in a gray area, everything was open and transparent. I emphasize this because the state authorities tried to prove otherwise - which, of course, they failed to do.
At one point I had to accompany a family to the immigration office to support them and help with translation if needed. I also accompanied them to monitor their treatment. It is well known that people who came to make an application were forcibly taken to the asylum seekers' home, to deportation centres or elsewhere, in some cases they were even deported.
The family had an agreed appointment and only wanted to give the address where they were currently staying. This is one of the requirements for asylum seekers in Bosnia and Herzegovina before the asylum process even begins. We explained why we were here, and a few minutes later a woman came out of one of the offices, angrily demanding in a raised voice that I leave the family and come with her to the office. Try as I might, I failed to explain to her that I was here to support the family, translate for them and monitor whether they were being treated in accordance with the law. Shortly after, two police officers showed up and told me in a very curt, almost aggressive manner that I had no choice, I had to leave the family and, without knowing why, follow them to the office. No one tried to explain to me why I had to separate from the family and they successfully ignored all my questions. In the office I entered, two inspectors were waiting. As soon as I sat down without even introducing myself, they verbally attacked me very harshly and began accusing me of a number of criminal activities, including human trafficking. They threatened to take me into custody for 72 hours, all without a shred of evidence. Finally, they confiscated my documents (without which I cannot cross the border) and the confirmation I received at the police station after registering my address in BiH, and forced me to sign a document stating that I agree. At no time was there any written statement on any document about the basis for the seizure of my documents.
They also continually refused to answer my questions about a legal basis for this action and how I broke the law to be treated the way they treated me. When I asked them what if something happened tomorrow and I had to travel back to my home state immediately, they replied that it was not possible. They manipulated information and tried to convince me that I had no legal status and right to be in the country. They also lied when they tried to contact me and failed. They also threatened me with deportation and banning me from returning to the country for up to 2 years. They ordered me to come back in a week for interrogation. During
this time (until the interrogation) I had no documents to prove my identity, only a written confirmation from the authorities that my documents were confiscated. It turned out that there was no legal basis for this confirmation. After a week, I appeared with a lawyer and a representative of Human Rights Watch, both of whom pointed out the procedural errors and the illegality of the authority's action. The lawyer informed the service that she was going to report them for their actions. After their monolog, they very humbly returned my documents.
They tried to explain to the attorney that they just wanted to make sure I showed up for questioning, which ultimately didn't even happen. The most absurd thing about this situation is that the service had all my personal details all along. I had a registered address, they even had my personal phone number, which (as I said earlier) I willingly gave to any law enforcement officer who asked for it, and I was available day and night. Considering all this, it is obvious that this institution, which is a part of the state apparatus, ignored and violently broke the law and violated the constitution and human rights. Unfortunately, I am not the only one with a story like this. I was lucky enough to have a large enough social network, to understand the language, and to be able to ask for legal help and support. Most people (and especially people on the move) who come into contact with this system do not have the same background. This means that they have no way of pointing out illegal practices or taking legal action.
A year after the incident I described, the service acted in a similar way to break up the network of volunteers working together in solidarity: they accused most of the international volunteers of "promoting illegal migration" and punished them with expulsion and banning them from returning for a period of 2 to 5 years.
Returning now to the Statement, it becomes clear that the State does not necessarily act as the main factor defending, supporting and ensuring human rights - on the contrary, it can act in a completely opposite way. Therefore, a principle called "Recognition of the Inherit Dignity of humanity" (1), Articles 1.3 and 1.4, described in the Declaration, is particularly important.
These articles explain the essence of critical reflective practise. As social workers, we (as well as the people with whom we interact) bring our histories, pains and joys, values, and our religious, spiritual, and cultural orientations to the working relationship. Critical reflection on how the personal influences the professional and vice versa must be the basis of daily ethical practise.
This section sheds light on human nature, which can be full of biases and stereotypes. As social workers we need to recognise and reflect on them and put them aside when working with people and act in accordance with our profession and codes of conduct.
It is important to understand that it is the nature of agencies to create certain values and norms of behaviour. Moreover, ethics and morals are also the result of socialisation in a particular cultural and temporal context. The practise of critical reflection is therefore important as a way of self-examination, learning and change. In other words, it is a way to support and understand the way we work, adapt and is extremely important when we work with people.
As we continue reading the statement we come to the third set of principles called Promoting Social Justice and Article 3.1. Challenging Discrimination and Institutional Oppression; c) Social workers work against institutionalised discrimination and oppression in all its forms.
I have thought about this paragraph for a long time. It seems so simple, but I can't understand it. I find it problematic that there is no further explanation of the terms institutionalised discrimination and oppression. Of course, theory is one thing and practise is another. I'm more of a practical person and I can't understand how it can be that social workers are fighting against institutional discrimination and oppression while working for the institutions and organisations that have been doing just that for a long time.
This is evidenced by incidents of racial profiling and discrimination in asylum seeking, in asylum shelters and elsewhere. Having been active in many different autonomous spaces for a number of years, I have heard hundreds of storeys that are perhaps more open and relaxed because they were told in spaces without authority, hierarchy or surveillance typically found in institutions. Food, hygiene items, and medicine are not distributed equally. This is based entirely on prejudices about different groups of people, in my example prejudices about nationality and ethnicity. The confessions I was lucky enough to hear were from different countries. This leads me to conclude that institutional discrimination can be found throughout Europe and within its social care systems.
The majority of people coming from Northern Africa (also known as the Maghreb) are put in closed sections of asylum homes or, more commonly, in deportation centres, which does not happen to people from Middle East. In every asylum home, deportation centre and "camp"
there are social workers. They have the opportunity to voice their opinions, warn against illegal practises and act in a way that reduces discrimination, but this happens very, very rarely. A few years ago I received information from a trusted source, who will remain unnamed to protect their privacy and security, about the people in charge of asylum seekers' affairs in one of the asylum shelters (it is kept anonymous only because of the informant who works in that shelter). They get bonuses on their salary for issuing more negative decisions than positive ones, disregarding the reasons people give in their asylum applications. This results in bizarre negative decisions, such as when the asylum seeker is found to be lying because he cannot remember what his father was wearing when he was executed by the Taliban in front of him (the asylum seeker in this example was a barely legal unaccompanied young man).
Bonuses are an open secret in this asylum home. The home has several social workers on staff, there is no way they don't know about it. Nothing has changed for years, proving that the social workers either support this practise or are not educated enough to realise what is going on (I personally doubt it).
CHALLENGING UNJUST POLICIES AND PRACTICES
Social workers work to bring to the attention of their employers, policy makers, politicians and the general public situations where policies and resources are inadequate or where policies and practices are oppressive, unjust or harmful. In doing so, social workers must not be punished.
I find this part of the statement rather naive. Has this ever happened in the real world? When and how? Then why, while interviewing me for a lawsuit in the case of an unaccompanied child, do they ask me about my experience as an activist and check to see if I have been active in certain organizations that they think are "too activist" and use that as a reason to deny legal representation?
My explanation is that this is a way to ensure that there is no way for someone on the inside to point out the illegal practices that happen in centers and during the process of seeking asylum.
In other words: If you only work with those social workers who do not respond to mistreatment and illegal practices, you will be safe. It is naïve to think that someone
employed in such a system would point out mistakes, even more so if they also agree with such practices or accept "that's just how it goes".
The more I analyze this statement, the more it reminds me of Universal Declaration from Human Rights and similar documents. These are just words with no real ideas behind them that would put them into practice. They have no purpose other than to create the illusion for a certain group of people that they have something because they have some rights. But that is only on paper. The reports of the Ombudsman for Rights also prove that. If we read the reports going back several years, we can see that they constantly warn about the same problematic practices that do not change, or that have only changed slightly if we are optimistic.
So it is in the case of this opinion: everything is more or less nicely written (there are also some problematic terms and phrases in the opinion about certain things), but that still means nothing as long as social workers can act contrary to the opinion without fearing any
So it is in the case of this opinion: everything is more or less nicely written (there are also some problematic terms and phrases in the opinion about certain things), but that still means nothing as long as social workers can act contrary to the opinion without fearing any