基變社會工作理論與實踐：英語系國家與台灣的比較

Radical Social Work A Comparison between English-speaking Western Countries and Taiwan

台灣社會工作理論和知識主要採借自北美和歐洲英語系國家，基 變社會工作約於1980年代藉由譯著等引介至台灣，然而在社會工作學術論述或實務實踐對以運動、倡議和改革等集體行動策略均屬邊陲，因此基變社會工作在台灣社會工作論述並非顯學。本文主要從文獻檢視基變社會工作在英語系國家的發展作為討論之基礎，而後分析台灣社會工作社群論述重點，繼而比較觀點之異同，並提出作者的省思。西方基變社會工作的論述關照結構對個體的影響，問題的根源係來自結構，尤其是資本主義和國家共構對民眾的壓迫，特別是福利國家的改革，新自由主義下的市場化和管理主義等商業運作模式運用於社會工作的主流實施，而讓社會工作者交出他們的靈魂。台灣基變社會工作批判國家考試的建制與其對社會工作者自主性的挫傷；學院獨佔知識生產的發言權與霸權。同時也關注國家機器如何影響社會工作者的主體性，因而呼籲重視社會工作的政治性與社會工作者勞工身份的認同。

Radical social work was introduced in Taiwan in the 1980s through a diffusion of textbooks and journals. The key themes of radical social work, which is grounded in class-based analyses of social injustice and strongly committed to structural change, have occupied a marginal position in Taiwanese social work. This article reports on the use of documentary analysis to explore and compare significant theoretical and practical aspects of radical social work in Western English-speaking countries and Taiwan. The first part reviews the history and development of radical social work in Western Englishspeaking countries and the current revival of interest in this approach. The second part presents a conceptual and contextual overview of radical social work in Taiwan. The concluding part explores similarities and differences in radical ideas between Taiwan and the West. Radical social work in Western countries identifies the impact of structure on the life experiences of an individual. The problems experienced by an individual are seen to be caused mainly by the failure and dysfunction of the social structure, especially the oppression of the hegemonic state and the capitalist system. The trend of neoliberalism, which emphases managerialism and the free market, employs the social worker as a means of social control rather than as an advocate for social justice. In Taiwan, the key themes of radical social work center upon critiques of the national social work examination and licensing system that damages social workers' autonomy as well as the academic community's domination of knowledge production that subordinates the experiences of practitioners. The power of the state may hamper social workers' subjectivity so that the commentators of radical work call for social work in Taiwan to be political, thereby maintaining an identity as a laborer.