Week 12

I was unable to be in class this week due to an illness, but I did read the chapters of Sandy Schram's book that you sent us. Though I am far from being an economist, I found the chapters to be easy to read and understand, something that I think is usually lacking in most economist's writings. One part that really resonated with me in the first chapter was when he wrote about how the effects of the recession in 2008 have been systematically forcing people at the bottom of the economic ladder to survive on limited options. If we look at individual policies, we might be able to see the hugely detrimental effects on the lower class. However, if we compile all of the policies together, it is so much easier to see how we have gradually taken away policies and programs aimed at helping this disadvantaged population, especially for low-income African-Americans.

  I really enjoyed the 8th chapter of Schram's book and I agree with the idea that we have to work through these current policies based on neoliberalism, rather than work around them to address the inequalities that they create. If we only work around these policies, there's no way to completely address the inequalities that have been created by them. I also really like that Schram gave concrete ideas on how to incite change, especially the changing of these policies that inherently exclude disadvantaged populations.

   In getting ready to go home for Thanksgiving, I have been thinking a lot about my family and what sorts of conversations we will have while I am home. I am from a part of Wisconsin that is relatively rural, where people love their hunting seasons and Republicans (generally speaking). My mother and I have always been black sheep in our family regarding politics and social issues, but I enjoy having constructive discussions regarding politics. My family doesn't really talk much about politics when we're together because of the differing opinions, but I almost hope we do this year. Even though I often disagree with what my family believes, I do feel that it is important to understand the opinions of people who are on the other side of politics. Though my father and I do not talk about it much, I do know that he and my stepmother support Ben Carson (I know, it's horrifying to me too). My father's family is very religious, so I believe that is one of the main reasons they support him. At this point, I'm just glad they don't support Trump, though I think that Ben Carson is just about as scary a candidate as Trump is.

And because I love late night talk shows, especially Steven Colbert:

Week 11

I think that looking at art and artifacts from the past is so interesting and important and can show us how actual people may have been feeling at that time and allows us to compare and contrast that to today's current events. I think Celan's "Todesfuge" is such an important artifact from the Holocaust, because it's two voices are so interwoven that it creates this amazing dichotomy that can resonate so strongly with us. The two voices are always in harmony even though they're pursuing different paths. And even though more and more complexities are interwoven, you can always pick out the original voice. Listening to Celan in German, even if you don't understand the language, is so powerful and moving - I highly recommend listening to it after reading the translated poem. It's amazing what you can get and feel from something, even if you don't speak the language.


  I thought that the article by Ann Weick was actually very interesting and echoed a lot of my current thoughts on social work. While it's true that social work has historically been a woman's profession, I get so aggravated when people still believe that and see it as a negative thing. I definitely agree with Weick when she says "The problem of defining what social work do continues to plague us". I love that social work is such a broad field because I think it allows us to have influence in multiple aspects of society. But, I think that the general public, then, doesn't really understand what social workers can do. We, as a profession, tend to be in the background, which leads to a lack of knowledge about what we do. That being said, however, I don't know of anyone going into this field who is hoping for acclaim and acknowledgement. We truly want to help people, at least in my experience so far. 

   When I was trying to decide what to do with my life post graduation, I knew that I wanted to get a graduate degree in clinical psychology or something similar. But, I knew that I did not want to get my PhD yet (if ever) because I did not want to be in school for another 5-7 years. In doing much research on different programs, I decided on social work. I thought I had a pretty good idea of what a social worker did, but I know now that my knowledge was incomplete. At one point, I came across this article: http://www.theguardian.com/careers/careers-blog/reasons-to-join-social-care-2015. The first time I read it, I was inspired and excited for the journey I was about to embark on. After rereading it this week, I realize that, though it certainly is inspiring, it also does not show the whole picture. Social work can be very rewarding and you certainly have many opportunities to change lives. However, it can also be exhausting, heart-breaking, and challenging. I think that's something that this article is mentioning and something that I think needs to be taken very seriously. My field placement this year is at a school for children who struggle in regular-education settings, usually due to their behaviors. Every student at the school has a primary diagnosis of an emotional disturbance (PTSD, Anxiety, Depression, ADHD, etc.). It can be very rewarding to work with the students and to help them make progress with controlling their emotions and making better choices, but it can also be heartbreaking when some of the kids don't want to go home, probably because at least at school they get 2 meals a day and aren't abused. We do all that we can to help these kids (like filing Childline reports on families that are abusing or neglecting their children), but if an investigation is conducted and the children can remain at the home, we often know that we are sending the kids into situations that they shouldn't have to be in. It's important to realize that we are sometimes the only support system for these kids. Social work is amazing and rewarding, but it's also important to recognize that it is often not an easy job. The video below is one that also moved me, especially the beginning.

Week 10

   In theory, the so-called "American Dream" doesn't seem like an inherently bad concept. It's good to dream of success and strive for something better, right? The problem is that the "American Dream" is exclusive and only available to some people. Also, success is subjective. Just because society's view of success is making money, having a home of one's own, or achieving more than one's parents, doesn't mean that that is my view of success. Indeed, the definition of success or the American Dream has changed over the years. When the idea of the American Dream was first created, the dream was not only making money, but also "enabled everyone to develop their capacity", and to own your own home. It was an inherently consumerist ideal. In the 50's and 60's, it also meant getting a good education, as well as getting a good job - yet another example of consumerist materialism. Though the markers of the American Dream might have changed slightly, the consumerist mentality never faded, and still remains to this day. It's interesting that many of the Republican candidates focus on the idea of "making American great again" - related to both the idea of American exceptionalism and the American Dream, which are are fairly exclusive ideals. One of the Republican Party's recent problems is appealing to younger voters as well as minority voters. It seems backwards to me, then, that they would focus on these exclusive ideals that may not be as readily available to those populations.
   Something that is happening in our world right now that relates significantly to the idea of the "American Dream" is the current refugee crisis. I'm writing my final paper in my racism class about this crisis and the refugee process as well as the barriers to mental healthcare, and it still astonishes me that nearly every day I hear people saying that we shouldn't let more refugees into our country because "we don't know if they're terrorists" or something equally as inflammatory. This country was built on refugees, and yet somehow people think it's ok to turn our back on people who need our help. I honestly don't understand how people can think that way. But I suppose that this is the world we live in. Those who need to shout against helping refugees should do as they must. But those who also call themselves Christians – what exactly are they learning in their church? Did Jesus say "Love (and help) your neighbor as long as it poses no risk to you"? Remember “WWJD?” (“What Would Jesus Do?” – a slogan American Christians wore on t-shirts and bracelets several years ago.)? Would Jesus turn the refugees away and say it’s too risky to help them because some among them might be terrorists? I am not claiming to know, because Jesus never spoke in my ear. But then I’m not one of those who display Christian slogans or attend church regularly.
   I think it is so important when we speak and learn about history to also view artifacts, including arts, poetry, and music, because that is how we can really see how this period in time affected people. I'm so glad that we have opportunities to do that in this class, and I found Billie Holiday's "Strange Fruit" to be so powerfully moving, which points out to me that art like this doesn't lose meaning over time. I'm also interested to discuss Todesfuge by Celan. I have a German major (as well as Psychology) and we discussed this poem in one of my classes at length. I remember listening to a recording of Celan performing it, which is similarly powerful to "Strange Fruit". I sometimes have a hard time comprehending poetry as much as I think I should, but listening to Celan (in German), I don't even think you need to understand the language to comprehend the feelings and emotions during that period in time.

Week 9

I know we've been talking about Jane Addams for a couple of weeks now, but I still find her insanely fascinating. I really like that she emphasized experience as being the key to knowledge and good practice. That's definitely a key aspect of the program at Penn, which I think is great. You can only learn so much by reading and watching video examples; the best way to really learn is through experience. Making mistakes is part of learning, so while budding social workers may be nervous about making mistakes, it really is one of the best ways to learn. I also think the idea of sympathetic knowledge is extremely interesting and important for social work. I do think that learning is an inherently social activity, and that mutual, engaged learning comes through relationships with others. Society as a whole tends to see groups of people as abstract and we can't learn from them if we see them that way. Through relationships, we can see those groups as concrete and then we can learn from them. I think that it is completely vital for social workers to see their relationships with their clients as mutually beneficial. Of course, as social workers, we want to help our clients and teach them skills that they can use, but it's so important that we realize how much our clients can teach us.



When doing some further research on Jane Addams, I found a poem written by Kevin Coval on Jane Addams Day in 2006. It's a very long poem and has many different facets, but I think it encompasses much of what Jane Addams did for the city of Chicago and the lasting effects that she had as well.

remains. Jane Addams town

Jane Addams is dead
like Fred Hampton
who chicago shot
sleeping in bed
next to his pregnant wife.

for she is ghost,
haunting the utopian.
the city and house
built by her faith
encompassed in c.r.e.a.m.
(cash rules everything
around me). ask uic,
depaul, uofc, area 21
planners who dictate
and red line and run
over Pilsen, pave over
Maxwell St, who forget
what we look like
when we work with our hands,
when we hunger and live in tenements,
when we labor in unsafe conditions
and livable wages get transported abroad
and the communities left without labor
become the unsafe conditions of crack(s)
and crevices and guttered alleys before rehab

and who bought all the land after 1968
and who benefits from university village
and who wants Latin Kings locked in privatized cages
though they are sixteen year old boys who got left behind
in CPS (the chicago prison system), and the renaissance
in 2010 will be repealing brown v. board and the schools
will again look like the city and their will be no crossings;
no Devon Ave., no Rogers Park, no Little Village / Lawndale taqueria
no Hull House mash up collage, where 2000 immigrants a week
play music, sip coffee, watch theater, read books, organize labor
and their lives, together in the kitchen close enough to smell
each others funk and taste each others foreign sauces,

there will be no one left if the planners remain undeterred.
if the giants sleep undisturbed.

this is conjecture.

if Jane Addams were a Black man
she’d be dead by white hands, at least
bound and gagged like the boss
did Bobby Seale.

you can’t go into white folks homes
and get them cleanin up the place
unless they pay you for domestic work
or invite you in for finger foods.

Jane Addams’s birth right wrote her among the wealthy.
her and Ellen Gates Starr and Florence Kelly and a bunch
of their homegirls; white women who flipped, deemed crazy
and prescribed bed rest, who moved into each other, out
side of marriage and single family homes, who questioned the nature
of domesticity. the home maker is maker of culture
and the culture is broad like the people are broad
shouldered, hulling hours in jobs that should be valued like the jobs of bosses
and the fate of bosses and the people are the same cuz we live
in the same house, where we hull and haul our bodies into public space
where all bodies should be clothed and fed and coddled and caressed freely
by the hands of doctors and cooks, lovers and communists, american these hands,
immigrant and chained, dirty and clean finger nailed, raw and stubborn, the
home and public space blurred, or extended like the good and goods a citizen should be offered.
whose america are we living in anyway and who has the courage to say what could be

who constructs the chicago we call sweet
who tastes the candy, who is paying the dentist
who lines pocket books green
who blue-lights corners of brown neighborhoods
who oversees west side stoops where children double dutch
who sends fabled blue collars over seas, who pioneers
who has déjà vu, who sees colonial too, like double dutch
who is from the place they are from
who knows what their neighbors want for Christmas
who knows if their if neighbors celebrate Christmas
who is family, who counts nepotism and legacy
who is confined to the grave and gravity
who is brave, who has bravado, who aches for zion
who has been told no and never
who wakes before the sun / for their sons
who lives though death is certain

Algren said
since it’s a ninth inning town…
it remains Jane Addams’ town
cuz the ballgame is never over.

and we need heroes
who stand up to giants,
who carry a big bat to home plate
though the pitcher is throwing money
balls and the umps are in on the fix.

Chicago remains Jane Addams town
cuz Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn
dream here and Haki Madhubuti builds
institutions and Lavie Raven teaches
in a high school mothers made
by refusing to eat until the children
of Little Village had the same quality
education gold coast children deserve.

it remains Jane Addams town
cuz Marc Smith is at the Green Mill
and Nikki Mitchell’s at the Velvet Lounge
and there are men and women who can’t go
cuz they work the third shift and their lovers
will miss them until morning, when they will
pass like elevated trains close enough to touch
but never at the same station cuz there is work
to be done, and Studs Terkel refuses to quit
and my father is in a basement trying,
and the Cubs put on uniforms every season,
and Rami Nashashibi is the Muslim Martin King,
and Beth Richie wants the world to stop beating
Black women and their daughters, stop dictating
their bodies locked. start freedom.

Sun Ra, Ana Castillo, Ang 13, Ken Vandemark,
Koko Talyor, Sam Cooke, Rick Kogan writes here,
Stuart Dybek, Patricia Smith, Cap D, Lupe Fiasco,
and names never spoken, faces covered in knit wool
tucked beneath the Kennedy, faces forlorn and worn
wandering Michigan Avenue, Lavel blind between
red and blue lines at Jackson, Oba Maja passing out
poems at the six corners of Damen and North Ave.,
David schizophrenic in front of the Wicker Park
post office holding out cups asking for change

who is asking for change

it remains Jane Addams town
cuz of the people
working for change
and the people
are working for change
and the people never really change
but stay working, toiling in the death
of industry, though the light dims
the people who work for change
know tomorrow is
ahead of them.

One of the passages that spoke most to me was "you can’t go into white folks homes and get them cleanin up the place unless they pay you for domestic work or invite you in for finger foods." It's undeniably true that, had Jane Addams been anything other than white, she would have been met with many more hurdles than she had to deal with (not that she didn't deal with any hurdles). To change white people's minds and to get them to care about other people, change has to be enacted by white people, generally speaking. That's a horrible reality that we have to deal with and hopefully change sooner rather than later.

Week 8

I think the speech by Abraham Flexner in 1915 regarding Social Work as a profession is very intriguing. I'm always fascinated by how opinions can change based on the current political and social climate. I looked up the whole speech online and Flexner concluded that social work is not a profession because it does not have clear cut boundaries and it collaborates with other fields in a way that most professions do not. He also says that social work is in touch with many professions, even though it is not a profession in and of itself. Flexner was careful to say that he didn't think that social work was useless, but he thought that social work needed to abandon social reform and focus more on research. Since Flexner's speech (though I doubt because of it), I do think that social work has started to focus at least a bit more on research, but without abandoning social reform. I doubt that we are focusing on research as much as Flexner would have liked, but I also don't think that we need to abandon social reform to do so. Of course, today Social Work is pretty widely accepted as a profession. The breadth of Social Work, which Flexner critiqued as a reason that it was not a profession, is the very reason that I think social work has reached "profession" status. The definition of a profession, per google, is a paid occupation, especially one that involves prolonged training and a formal qualification. Perhaps back in 1915, Flexner could allow himself to believe that Social Work did not required prolonged training, but I doubt he would be able to say that now with the amount of training that we receive.
   I also think it's interesting that this attack on Social Work had a very gendered approach. Social work was (and generally still is) seen as "women's work". To make social work a profession, then, it needed science, which could be seen as a masculine trait. While I agree that having some sort of scientific evidence is important (we need to make sure we aren't harming our clients, after all), I don't believe that research was needed in order for social work to be considered a profession.  This speech was clearly a product of its time, though, and I think it's important to remember that. I really do wonder what Flexner would think of social work now - are we a profession in his eyes now? Since we still focus so much on social reform and our boundaries are more flexible than ever, I think that he would still be wary to call us a profession, even though we do focus more on research now.

Week 7

We did our presentations this week and I learned about so many interesting museums in Philadelphia that I hadn't visited before. I have heard of a lot of them before but I haven't had the opportunity to visit any of them. This class has been really eye opening to me because it's helping me to realize the importance of critically thinking about everything that is presented to the public, regardless of the medium. My undergraduate university did teach me to critically think about everything, however, I never realized how unfortunate it is that other people don't critically think about what they see, especially in the media. I think that's something that we're seeing a lot in the current political discourse in this country, especially in regards to Trump and Carson.
My group visited the Constitution Center, which was truly a surreal experience. The way America's history is presented at the center is such a glorified and sugarcoated version of what actually happened in our history. For me, it all culminated in the multimedia presentation called "Freedom Rising" (video below). The Constitution Center claims that Freedom Rising is the story of "We the people", which they loudly proclaim multiple times throughout the performance. This "version" of history that is presented pervades our entire society and is so damaging to the minds of children and students.
Freedom Rising Video
When researching "Freedom Rising" after our visit, I found an interview with the CEO of the Constitution Center who stated "“I defy you to find a roller coaster that when people get off it, they feel as good as they feel at the end of Freedom Rising.” That truly does describe how the constitution "teaches" America's history to school groups and tourists. You'd think that a $185 million dollar building would be a huge institution in Philadelphia, but that's not really the case. The staff at the Center told our group that the majority of people who visit the Center are either school groups or foreign tourists. 
One of the main things that my group discussed while at the Constitution Center was the lack of acknowledgement of diversity issues. There was one very small plaque acknowledging that the constitution was not created to include African-Americans and there was another small plaque regarding the lack of women in both the Constitution and the Declaration. It worries me that children visiting this museum (and being taught in the US school system) only get this one view of America's early history. The US school system does not, for the most part, teach students to critically think, so I fear that the students who see this information take it as 100% truth, without realizing how this information is presented in such a biased manner.

Week 6

These photos are from Jacob Riis' project titled "How the Other Half Lives". This project, which later turned into a book, highlighted the dangerous conditions that poor immigrants were subject in the 19th century in the Lower East Side of Manhattan. Riis' assumption was that if people were made aware of what was happening in the shadows of society, people would be moved to provide more assistance for this disadvantaged population. In fact, Riis' book actually did lead to improved conditions on the Lower East Side, even in a time where society was becoming increasingly skeptical of social welfare.
    The Social Darwinism that was emerging at this time believed in pretty much the opposite of what Riis believed. Social Darwinism believed that society would perish if these poor were allowed to continue to exist and made a strong argument to not provide any assistance at all. It doesn't necessarily surprise me that some people thought this way back in the 19th century, but sometimes I wonder if Social Darwinism is truly dead. According to Social Darwinism, essentially any attempt to improve society is wrong.

  In 2011, Herman Cain said "Don't blame Wall Street, don't blame the big banks. If you don't have a job and you are not rich, blame yourself" (shown in the video above). This statement exudes Social Darwinist philosophy - placing the blame of any inadequacy solely on the individual, and not allowing any critique of the system itself. Though Social Darwinism is perhaps not regarded as a widely acceptable ideology today, the theory seems to be becoming more acceptable in American politics. We can certainly still see this in the current presidential election. Many (if not all) of the Republican candidates want to limit or completely eradicate some governmental programs aimed at helping these disadvantaged populations. Though they claim that they "want to turn the power over to the states", this is a horrifying possibility. As social workers, I think that we need to get even more involved in government and have our voices be heard.