Evolution of the Welfare State:

The history of social work is important to know so the context of social factors can be evaluated and we can learn from history. Yet the history of social work is difficult to assess because it emerged within a very particular context. Eighteenth century saw liberalism coming to the fore and it is now re-emerging in social work. How is it ? What can we learn from history?

Social work was seen as a non-political approach yet some individuals and social workers struggled to make the voice of the disadvantaged heard. Sylvia Pankhurst is excluded from social work history but she worked with the poorest of society and struggled to make the voice of women heard. Women could get support and be politicised. Is this social work history? Yes the two strands of social work are still around today. The view that social work is charity and apolitical and the view that political action is integral to social work (alongside social action which politicians are concerned with also).

Poverty created:
With the industrial revolution came the breakdown of rural communities and the medieval feudal society. There was migration into the urban centres and factories providing work. So for the first time a new class was created, those who owned nothing but could work. Rural societies had poor people but most owned something and could grow to eat all be it meagre, most also had extensive family support networks. Yet those who worked in the factories only had their ability to work. They are the working poor. So when unemployment hit they were plunged into poverty.

The new system created great wealth but also extensive poverty. Classical liberalism made the distinction between the deserving poor and the undeserving poor. The working poor came under the latter because the inference was that thy were too lazy to work. The problem lay with the individual not the system and there was no collective responsibility. Child labour was prevalent and life expectancy of the working poor plummeted.

There was tension between the classes; a fear of crime, drunkenness, disease on the part of the upper class made them take note.

Conditions of the working class:
There was resignation, defeat and helplessness. The working poor were bowed. This coupled with religious views on the afterlife meant that they did not complain.

There was an emphasis on phrenology. The belief that criminals looked different, you could tell by the measurements of the head etc whether someone was likely to become a criminal. The same with the poor. There was thought to be measurement for everything e.g. the  way a genius looked. This was a convenient theory and was the origins of racism. Hitler used eugenics (a progression of this) to persecute. Before then though it was an accepted theory. It also consolidated class differences.

Blame lies with the individual therefore, not the system. Phrenology was used to justify colonialism and involved classifying people.

Poor Law 1834:

• Care for the poor emerged and led to the care and control debate that still haunts social work today.
• Distinction between deserving and undeserving poor. This however did not take into account unemployment; they were undeserving because they were able bodied but did not work.
• Institutions cropped up. Work Houses were feared by the poor. Dehumanised individuals and were used as a threat. They didn't want people wanting to go into the work houses.

Social work produced by this system 1869 as a profession. And the Charity Organisation Society was born. To begin with this was a moralistic casework approach in the belief that people could or would not change. Yet as the social workers (mainly middle class women) went into the slums some began to take a different view. They recognised a problem with the system; contamination of the social workers.