Journal entry 3

Social Sciences & Humanities Open 4 (2021) 100206

Available online 24 September 2021 2590-2911/© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

An introduction to the postmodern paradigm via contrast to the modern paradigm: Relevance for direct social work practice

Phillip Dybicz a,*, J. Christopher Hall b

a Department of Social Work, University of Northern Alabama, USA b School of Social Work, University of North Carolina Wilmington, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O

Keywords: Paradigm Postmodern Strengths Narrative

A B S T R A C T

Since the late 1980s, a number of innovative practice approaches have appeared on the social work scene informed by postmodern thought. Yet the esoteric nature of postmodern theories often creates difficulties in accessibility for social work students and practitioners, which commonly result in the misapplication and misunderstanding of key elements to these approaches. To remedy this situation, this paper offers an intro- duction to the fundamental philosophical foundation upon which postmodern theories and practices rest. Designed as an aid for students and practitioners who wish to try or refine these practices, the description of this philosophical foundation—or paradigm—is light on concepts and focuses more on implications for social work practice that arise from the concepts. Examples of these implications are given for each aspect comprising the postmodern paradigm utilizing the following: the strengths perspective, narrative therapy, and solution building therapy. Lastly, the article concludes with an extended case example which serves to illustrate the application of the postmodern paradigm to practice.

1. Introduction

In the past 30 years, a number of innovative social work practice approaches have been developed that challenge the traditional ways of approaching practice. The strengths perspective, narrative therapy, and solution building therapy are three prominent examples of this move- ment. Proponents of such innovative approaches call for the practitioner to undergo a “paradigm shift” in the understanding of social work practice in order to avoid misapplications and to bring to bear the full power of these approaches (e.g. Gabels & Peters, 2004; Weick, Kreider, & Chamberlain, 2006). First utilized in this way by Kuhn (Kuhn, 1962), a “paradigm” is defined as a philosophical framework for understanding the world at its most basic level. The “shift” being called for is the movement from a modernist paradigm—a scientific understanding of the world—to a postmodern paradigm: a humanistic understanding of the world.1 But how can a student or beginning practitioner make this

shift if the paradigm one is attempting to shift to is left undefined or vague? While there is much social work literature out there elaborating upon various postmodern theories and how they inform social work practice (e.g (Bell, 2012; Chang, 2010; Danto, 2008), very little of it is written at a level that is easily accessible to the beginning student or practitioner [e.g. 7,8] and no literature could be found that specifically offers a description for beginners of what comprises this postmodern paradigm.

Our purpose therefore is to offer an introductory description of the postmodern paradigm as means to increase understanding of the inno- vative social work practices stemming from postmodern thought. At its most basic level, an understanding of the world (i.e. paradigm) must answer three basic questions. First, what makes something real?2 Sec- ond, how do we know what we know? Or in other words, how do I know if my perception of reality is accurate?3 And third, how does change to reality occur? Or in other words, how do we understand causality? The

* Corresponding author. E-mail address: pdybicz@una.edu (P. Dybicz).

1 This scientific understanding refers to the theories, such as behaviorism or systems theory, that arise from the Modernist philosophical foundation, or paradigm. The humanistic understanding arising from the Postmodern philosophical foundation (i.e. paradigm) refers to the theories which arise from it, such as Foucault’s notion of power or Derrida’s concept of the absent but implicit, that are based in the disciplines of the humanities (i.e. history for Foucault, and literary studies for Derrida).

2 In philosophical circles this is known as a theory of ontology (reality). 3 In philosophical circles this is known as a theory of epistemology.

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Social Sciences & Humanities Open

journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com/journal/social-sciences-and-humanities-open

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2021.100206 Received 19 July 2021; Received in revised form 8 September 2021; Accepted 9 September 2021

Social Sciences & Humanities Open 4 (2021) 100206

2

philosophical theory of causality in both the modernist and postmodern paradigm is particularly important for social workers in that one’s un- derstanding of causality informs one’s notion of how change is achieved. It must be noted that the paradigm shift called for by postmodern practices does not require one to disavow a scientific understanding of the world as incorrect or invalid. While critiquing the shortcomings of a scientific approach, postmodernism is not anti-science. The argument put forth by proponents of postmodern practice is simply that there is more than one, or best way, to understand the world. And that a post- modern understanding of the world—and the practices that flow from it—may be better suited toward meeting some of the goals and the mission of social work.

2. The modernist paradigm

The modernist paradigm is currently the premier paradigm influ- encing social work practice: it defines the present historical era’s foun- dational philosophical understanding concerning reality, knowledge, and change. Hence, for people who are not well-versed in philosophical inquiry, the modernist paradigm necessarily becomes the default un- derstanding of one’s world. Thus, while students and practitioners may be unfamiliar with the philosophical names attributed to some of the theories described in this section, the concepts that comprise them should not be difficult to understand as they are concepts that we have all been exposed to since grade school. In very broad terms, the modernist paradigm can be described as an evidence-based approach to practice.

2.1. Modernism and reality

On the most simplistic level of understanding, something is real if it exists. Thus I can objectively recognize its various properties of existence by employing some of my senses (or tools that aid my senses). Note, we are not specifically saying physical properties of existence—although this is the most common form, we can also recognize the reality of depression for example. Even though depression does not have a phys- ical embodiment, we can employ tools to objectively measure its exis- tence and in the process treat it as a de facto object.

When we think of truth, it is equated with reality. Thus the objective truths offered by the modernist paradigm are often described as scien- tific facts. As the name implies, objective truth takes the stance that knowledge of reality lies within the object of study—it is what philos- ophers term mind-independent in that the brain simply acts as an organ in which to record reality: it does not play an active role in creating the reality of the object (Popper, 1972). This stance is named the corre- spondence theory of truth—reality is understood to the extent that the image one forms in one’s mind (through accurate observation) corre- sponds to the actual properties of existence for the object (Prior, 1969). Thus, for example, when I view a chair in the classroom, I recognize the reality of its existence due to the inherent properties of the chair (e.g. its dimensions, the composition of materials used to create it, etc.). It has an existence, and will continue to exist, whether or not I am in the room to observe it. This scientific approach to understanding reality is known as objectivism4: Knowledge simply of properties of existence can be thought of as static knowledge. When we combine it with a theory of causality we can also observe objective knowledge of movement—such as gravity—and proclaim it as a scientific fact (i.e. truth). In both cases, this knowledge exists out in nature waiting to be discovered by scientists.

2.1.1. Implications for social work practice There are two important implications that flow from this stance of

scientific objectivism. First, objective knowledge does not require one to apply value or judgment to understand reality—rather, it aims for a value-free stance.5 The reality of gravity, or the classroom chair, does not depend upon my judgments of their usefulness to me. Second, objective knowledge is not bound by time; it is eternal. Thus, gravity is recognized as always having existed and operated in nature, operating well before Newton discovered the formula to describe it. We recognize gravity as a scientific fact—the timeless nature of this truth is what grants it validity. This understanding of reality is sometimes colloquially referred to in writings as Truth with a capital “T” to signify the process of how an object’s existence is being claimed as a scientific fact. New sci- entific discoveries may change our understanding of an object’s exis- tence, for example gravity (such as Einstein’s theory replacing parts of Newton’s theory), but this simply reflects the progression of a more accurate means to measure the object; thus the new understanding re- places the old. The goal of research is to add to this body of objective knowledge, thus we as social workers then turn to this body of scientific facts (and theories) in order to inform our practice. So for example, research studies may make the truth claim that corporal punishment is the least effective means in which to shape a child’s behavior. We then use this understanding of reality to guide our efforts when working with clients who are seeking to shape the behavior of their children.

2.2. Modernism on knowledge creation

While a theory of reality speaks to the composition of reality, a theory of knowledge creation speaks to how to develop certainty that one’s perception of reality (the image of the object’s existence that one forms in one’s mind) is in fact accurate, or true; for example, how do I know the classroom chair in front of me really exists and is not a hallucination on my part? Objective knowledge in one’s mind is vali- dated via an appeal to other minds achieving the same image of reality. This appeal is made via careful and accurate observation, experimen- tation and discussion. Positivism is the theory that informs the modernist paradigm in this regard. Briefly, positivism states that the truth claims of objective knowledge are validated via positive verifica- tion by others (Popper, 1963). This verification takes place through observation—by duplicating the observation and experimentation of others, a truth claim is validated when the same image (i.e. knowledge) is created in the additional person’s mind. As the truth claim begins to consistently yield the same result it grows in strength (from hypothesis, to theory, to natural law—e.g. the law of gravity). The use of one’s senses (i.e. observation) to obtain and verify knowledge is known as empiricism.

2.2.1. Implications for social work practice Positivism continues to emphasize the timeless nature of objective

truths first outlined in the section on reality above via the correspon- dence theory of truth. As stated in the previous section, within the modernist paradigm, intervention efforts are geared toward manipu- lating the clients’ properties of existence according to scientific facts (i.e. timeless truths). As revealed in this section, the route to do this is via careful observation (properties can be directly or indirectly observed). So for example, a staple of traditional social work practice includes conducting a bio-psycho-social assessment. This occurs during the assessment phase. The bio-psycho-social assessment is a tool designed to aid the social worker in gathering observations of biological, psycho- logical, and social properties related to the client’s problem. The data

4 Note, this is not the objectivism used by some philosophical political po- sitions, such as the rational individualism of Ayn Rand, which builds upon the core concept of objectivism presented here (i.e. rational determination of re- ality) and offers further elaboration to it by pairing it with a libertarian political philosophy.

5 Recent critiques, emanating from postmodern thought, have demonstrated the impossibility of achieving a truly value-free stance; however, to do so re- mains the ideal and the task becomes that of eliminating bias from one’s ob- servations as much as possible.

P. Dybicz and J.C. Hall

Social Sciences & Humanities Open 4 (2021) 100206

3

obtained by this careful observation is plugged into appropriate models of human functioning (timeless truths), yielding a plan of action (at the level of hypothesis) on how to manipulate these properties of existence to achieve the desired change. Another example is evidence-based practice. These are practice approaches that—through repeated obser- vations of their effectiveness in manipulating the properties of concern for a particular population group—lay claim to the status of an objective (i.e. timeless) truth (at the level of hypothesis or theory). Both of these approaches will be elaborated upon in greater detail in the following section on causality.

2.3. Modernist theory of causality

For our purposes as social work practitioners, the key element to be analyzed within a theory of causality is what it has to say concerning human behavior (i.e. human action). The notion of cause and effect has been around since the time of Plato and Aristotle, if not longer. But its most recent elaboration within a scientific context can be attributed to Newton’s laws of rational mechanics (Newton, Whitman, & Budenz- Trans, 1999), formulated in terms of action-reaction. Vernacularly, this is understood as cause and effect: there is a cause (i.e. movement of physical properties of existence) that has an effect on the object(s) with which it interacts producing a change in that object (i.e. movement of physical properties of existence). The classic example used to illustrate is that of a billiard ball hitting a group of other billiard balls as it represents a more complicated nonlinear causality. The various billiard balls bouncing around and hitting each other attempt to capture the chaotic interplay of causes found in real life when it comes to attempting to explain human behavior.

2.3.1. Implications for social work practice A Newtonian view of causality results in a focus on the client’s bio-

psycho-social properties of existence. Change in human action is seen as arising from the manipulation of these properties to successfully adapt to one’s environment. Thus the social work intervention dons the mantle of an endeavor at problem-solving—causal mechanisms guide the manner in how to produce the desired change in client actions. As Turner and Jaco (Turner et al., 1996) note, “It [the problem-solving approach] seems to have been so completely absorbed into much of social work thought and process that it has essentially become the basic method that underlies much of practice” (p. 519). Evidence-based practice also arises from this notion of causality: an attempt to amass repeated observations of causal linkages in order to create timeless truths which can then be applied to clients who face a similar issue of concern.

Now that the modernist theories of reality, knowledge creation, and causality have been elaborated, it can be demonstrated how they fit together and complement each other. The correspondence theory of truth combined with a Newtonian understanding of causality describes how properties of existence are subject to change. Positivism is then relied upon to provide the certainty that these observed changes are in fact true. So for example, if I burn a piece of paper I am breaking chemical bonds and creating a new existence: ash. Similarly, organisms can be induced to change their behavior or environment; to do so, one looks for factors (similar to bringing flame to the paper) that will result in the desired change. For human beings, this factor is usually the employment of reason6—by understanding the various elements contributing to one’s problem one can eliminate negative elements and adopt positive elements to achieve the desired outcome. This under- standing of reality is what informs such approaches as cognitive- behavioral therapy, and at a much broader practice level, what directs

one toward attempts at diagnosing the presenting problem as the pri- mary means to foster change.

3. The postmodern paradigm

As will be discussed presently, there are many experiences we have in life that do not fit within this modernist understanding. Yet these experiences—when under the influence of this dominance of under- standing—will fade to the background and be given very little consid- eration. The postmodern paradigm, through offering a different understanding, seeks to privilege these experiences that heretofore have gone unrecognized. By fundamentally understanding the world in a different way, it offers a radically new way in which to conceive of social work practice.

3.1. Postmodernism and reality

Phenomenology 7 is the philosophical theory of reality undergirding postmodern social work practice. Phenomenological knowledge aims at capturing the subjective truth of everyday experience (Sokolowski, 2000). In contrast to scientific knowledge, phenomenology takes the position that knowledge of reality is in part subjective: It arises in part from the subject who is seeking understanding. Also in contrast, it re- quires one to make a value judgment and it is a time-bound truth (not eternal). The following anecdote will illustrate these concepts:

You are in a social work class at the university. As this is a three hour long class, the instructor gives a break midway through. You take advantage of the break to leave the room and make a phone call. When you return, you are a bit perplexed and perhaps a bit offended to find that another student is sitting in the chair where you were sitting before the break. You politely tell the person to vacate the seat as you were sitting in it previously.

The experience of laying claim to a chair or seat is a common, everyday experience in which we can relate. The reality of this everyday experience is what phenomenology seeks to capture. In the above sce- nario, when you return to the class and find a student sitting in your chair, you are not looking at the chairs scientifically. A scientific, objective understanding of the chairs in your classroom would view them—having the same physical structure and all coming from the same manufacturer—as essentially the same. Being the same, it would not matter to you which chair you sit in. This scientific view does not fully capture our human understanding of everyday experiences in the world.

In the everyday experience of phenomenology, you still recognize the physical properties of the chair’s existence, but in addition, you make a judgment about the chair—claiming it as yours to sit on. The reason for this is that in everyday experience, we do not simply view objects impartially, but rather we interact with them and seek to use them. In so doing, we are required to make a judgment about their use. This judgment arises within the subject (i.e. the person), thus making this a subjective truth claim. The truth claim of “my chair” is also time- bound—its truthfulness exists solely for the period of time you spend in class on that occasion.

While your subjective truth claim of the chair being “yours” relies upon judgment, this does not mean that all subjective truth claims are equally valid. As will be illustrated in the next section on social con- structionism, by having sat in the chair first (a social convention), our

6 David Hume is the philosopher best know for articulating the connection between the employment of reason to understand causal connections in regards to explain human actions.

7 The theory of phenomenology has been around since the time of Plato. When I refer to phenomenology here, I am referring to its most recent articu- lation, starting with the works of Husserl and Heidegger. They moved away from what they called the “natural standpoint”, and toward a notion that essence arises within language and dialogue via the value we attribute to phenomena. The result of this dialogue often takes the form of agreed upon social conventions.

P. Dybicz and J.C. Hall

Social Sciences & Humanities Open 4 (2021) 100206

4

culture deems your claim as the valid one. Appealing to this social convention, you are even able to provide evidence of arriving first via various personal items you had left under the seat.

Subjective truth is simply a different kind of truth, not necessarily a lesser truth, or mere opinion. Utilizing judgment does not diminish the reality of the chair; in fact, it enhances it. The modernist paradigm’s understanding of reality views objects as solely possessing properties of existence. Similarly, phenomenology views phenomena such as the chair as comprising an existence (physical properties and their move- ment) but in addition, an essence (a judgment made about these prop- erties) as well. As way of further illustration, let’s examine a more durable subjective truth in our everyday experience: a $20 U.S. bill. Looking at the $20 bill scientifically, we can definitively state various properties of its existence: it is made of paper; it has a serial number; words and images are printed in green ink; the words “twenty dollars” is printed on it; etc. No matter what the historical time period, these are properties of the $20 bill that would not be refuted. However, in our everyday experience, we ascribed a value judgment to the $20 bill—it is legal tender of a certain worth. This subjective truth claim is not simply mere opinion—a shop keeper cannot legally refuse your $20 bill and demand only gold or silver. The value inherent in a $20 bill is a sub- jective truth claim validated by various rules and conventions in our society. It is a reality that fits the phenomenological formula of requiring a judgment, being time-bound, and arising in part within the subject.

While much longer lasting than the earlier truth claim of “my chair,” the inherent value of a $20 bill is not eternal. If we imagine a scenario of going back in time to Colonial America and showing a $20 bill to peo- ple—they would recognize its various properties of its existence (i.e. paper, green ink, etc.), yet they would not recognize its current essen- ce—an inherent worth as legal tender. The time-bound nature of the inherent worth of a $20 bill does not make it a “lesser” or “less reliable” truth than the objective truth of gravity’s existence. Nor does making a subjective truth claim about the $20 bill somehow invalidate the sci- entific, objective truth claim about its properties of existence; rather, as stated above, it adds to it, thus enhancing it.

3.1.1. Implications for social work practice One important implication arising from the time-bound nature of

subjective truth claims is that the social conventions and rules validating them are subject to challenge and thus can be changed (Hence, in the above anecdote, the student occupying the chair where you previously sat could put forth a contesting social convention: e.g. “shuffle your feet, lose your seat”). If the rest of the class and the instructor adopted this new convention, then the interpretation of the student’s action would go from being rude to being assertive or crafty. Subjective truths are malleable. Change in this area can lead to change in a client’s actions and life situation. The strengths perspective (Saleebey, 2008) and other postmodern approaches (De Jong & Berg, 2008; White, 2007) seek to challenge social conventions that serve to undercut the client’s ability to take action to improve their lives. The details upon how this occurs will be elaborated upon more fully in the case example provided in the final section.

In addition, the first major difference between postmodern ap- proaches to practice and traditional, modernist approaches is revealed. By challenging social conventions, postmodern approaches seek change in the client’s reality by fostering a change in the essence (i.e. value

judgments) of that reality. This too will be elaborated upon in the following sections. By contrast, as stated earlier, traditional approaches relying upon objective knowledge seek change by fostering a change in the existence (i.e. physical properties) of the client’s reality. This is from where the person-in-environment8 model of practice arises.

3.2. Postmodern theory of knowledge creation

The postmodern theory of knowledge creation must answer ques- tions such as “How do I know that my understanding of a $20 bill as legal tender is correct (i.e. real)?” As is the case with objective knowledge, subjective knowledge is validated via an appeal to other minds achieving the same image of reality (e.g. the worth of a $20 bill). Social constructionism is the theory employed in the postmodern paradigm to achieve this assuredness. As we are not only dealing with an existence (i. e. various inherent properties) to reality, but also an essence (i.e. value judgments), validation does not come from observation alone. Social conventions and rules—and the value judgments arising from them—are constructed in the social arena (hence the term “social construction- ism”). Thus, validating a subjective truth claim does not rely upon agreement of observation, but rather, upon agreement of observation and meaning-making (Gergen, 1999). Therefore, according to Scott (Scott, 1976), making a subjective truth claim is an exercise of rhetoric; it is a sharing of knowledge concerning cultural traditions.

This is not the vernacular understanding of rhetoric: which amounts to the art of persuasion. Rather, the philosophical understanding of rhetoric refers to the mechanics of meaning–making. Rhetoric involves a careful and creative organizing of observed events into a narrative to create meaning via a theme. Thus, rhetoric in this vein seeks to validate the essence of objects. The theme of this narrative speaks to the particular situation of everyday experience from which the subjective truth claim arises, and makes a case for its validity. So for example, your truth claim that the chair is “yours” is validated through stating the following observed events: sitting in the chair from beginning of class until the break, the eyewitness of other students to this event, and your personal items underneath the seat acting as physical evidence that this indeed occurred. These observed events gain their relevance for inclu- sion in the narrative, and the power to validate the subjective truth claim, by contributing to the theme that speaks to the relevant social convention: In this case, whoever arrives first in a chair has rights of its use until that person definitively exits that public space.

One important implication that arises from Scott’s (Scott, 1976) conception of rhetoric is the following. In contrast to objective truths (e. g. the physical properties of the chair), social conventions gain their truth status via a common commitment by members of society to uphold these conventions. Consequently, human beings are not bound to social conventions; as subjective truths, social conventions are open to change by the humans that use them. This means that rhetoric has a reciprocal relationship with social conventions (Scott, 1976). Hence, a powerful rhetoric—how one chooses to organize the events of a situation (i.e., the “story” one tells)—can favor one particular social convention over another. Thus for example, you make an appeal to the instructor that the chair is “yours” to sit on because you laid claim to it first. However, the instructor organizes the key events within a different theme: The instructor informs you that prior to your return she announced a class- room activity in which students were assigned groups and the groups

8 Person-in-environment comes from ecological systems theory, which builds upon general systems theory, and thus has a firm scientific base. When employing it as a model, one is able to take into account many such charac- teristics that don’t possess a physical embodiment such as socio-economic status and even language itself (e.g. verbal abuse); however, in doing so, as was the case for understanding depression earlier, we treat these characteristics as de facto objects which we are then able to plug into the scientific under- standing of causality as cause-effect.

P. Dybicz and J.C. Hall

Social Sciences & Humanities Open 4 (2021) 100206

5

assigned to meet in certain areas of the classroom. Thus the same key events (i.e. you having sat in the chair before break, personal items left behind, etc.), yet organized around a different theme and social convention (i.e. the instructor determines rules of participation in the classroom), yield a different subjective truth: the claim to the chair be- longs to the other student. And thus, the essence of the chair is changed; consequently, the other actions are now viewed as assertive rather than rude and aggressive. This example outlines the important difference between subjective truths and objective truths. Being time-bound, sub- jective truths are malleable—they can be changed by applying a different narrative to the observed events. Objective truths are timeless: change occurs through alteration of the properties of existence.

The above example also addresses a conundrum for many students learning about social constructionism and trying to grasp its main concept: that it is possible to construct multiple realities. What is being constructed are multiple essences not an object’s properties of existence. A phenomenological viewpoint offers the following conception of re- ality: reality = existence + essence. As was illustrated using the example of the classroom chair, if you change the second part of this equation (the essence of the chair) in multiple ways (place it under various social conventions), even though the existence of the object (i.e. the physical properties of the chair) remains the same throughout, this will result in multiple realities (multiple understandings of what the chair can be).

3.2.1. Implications for social work practice Whereas modernist approaches to practice seek to foster change via

the manipulation of properties of existence, postmodern practice ap- proaches seek a change in the essence of reality to promote change in the client’s situation. Thus we can see now the beginning outlines of the paradigm shift in understanding that is being called for by postmodern practitioners. As revealed in this section, the route to do this is through rhetoric. When one employs rhetoric, additional observed events are sought to “bookend” the key events of the client’s situation. In the anecdote above, this occurred when the instructor rhetorically added to the key events of your particular situation by providing the additional observed event of the announced classroom activity; by acting as a bookend to these key events, the announced classroom activity changed the essence of the chair.

A strengths assessment is one example of a vehicle to aid in the employment of this rhetoric. The strengths assessment is a tool that aids the social worker and client in finding observed events that reflect client successes and strengths in which to “bookend” the key events of the client’s current problematic situation, and in so doing, create a new theme of empowerment and resilience to replace that of dysfunction or despair (Rapp & Goscha, 2006). Solution building therapy follows this same route—seeking events that reflect client successes—via its search for “exception” times (Saleebey, 2008). Narrative therapy does the same via its search for “unique outcomes” (White, 2007). In all of the above, clients’ actions change in response to the created change in their essence. Thus, the postmodern practice of rhetoric with clients becomes a cooperative endeavor at constructing a more empowering identity of the client, in which, this new understanding of identity serves as a source of power to enact change. Once this change in essence occurs in the form of a more empowering identity, clients can marshal their inner spirit and employ free will (i.e. personal agency) in creating change to the exis- tence of their problematic situation. Greater elaboration of this dynamic is illustrated in the following section on causality.

3.3. Postmodern theory of causality

Mimesis, the postmodern theory of causality, also traces its lineage back to Aristotle (Aristotle & Heath Trans, 1996) and the ancient Greeks. A major quality that distinguishes mimesis from a Newtonian causality is that mimesis seeks to solely describe human action. Aristotle’s first important premise of mimesis is the following: a person is defined by one’s actions. Thus, we say a person is kind when we see them do kind

acts. In addition, if I view myself as being kind, I will be motivated to perform kind acts. So there is a reciprocal relationship between human action (movement of properties of existence) and human identity (essence). Mimesis literally translates as “imitation.” As applied to human action, this imitation has two parts. First, humans have the ability to form images in their minds. As an outgrowth of a person’s goals, this reciprocal relationship between action and identity means that a person will form an image in one’s mind of “who I am” and “who I want to be.” Furthermore, the images of “who I want to be” will be circumscribed by realistic appraisals of “who I can be”. Secondly, the person will then be motivated to imitate the “who I can be” by employing free will to perform the appropriate actions. Within post- modern practice, assisting the client in exploring empowering images of “who I can be” is the main vehicle to promote change.

Ricoeur (Ricœur, 1984–88) offers the most recent elaboration of mimesis. Ricouer argues that the creation of essences (both that of chairs and human identity) occurs within a narrative structure. So for example, if someone should ask me how my day has been, I do not respond by giving a second by second account of everything that happened to me. Rather, I would selectively choose events to relate that would corre- spond to my value judgment of my day as “good,” “bad,” or “okay.” A narrative is exactly this: the selection of events to relate to an audience (not only significant others in one’s life, but oneself acts as an audience to one’s own narratives, judging their verisimilitude). Ricoeur (Ricœur, 1984–88) further argues that this natural proclivity to place human action within a narrative structure means that human action is always a comment upon human identity (as this is the nature of narrative). Furthermore, if key events of a narrative are “bookended” by new sup- plementary events, a change occurs to the essence of the phenomenon (e.g. from the chair as being yours to being the other student’s) and the actors (e.g. the other student going from being rude to being assertive). Witnesses to this bookended narrative (i.e. audience members) who agree to its verisimilitude, further validate this change in subjective truth.

3.3.1. Implications for social work practice Modern and postmodern theories of causality both speak to efforts at

changing reality. As one of the defining features of social work is that of fostering change, the paradigm one employs to understand our world has profound implications concerning directing one’s efforts at fostering this change. The theory of reality being employed will determine the site of these change efforts: properties of existence (modernist practice) vs. essence (postmodern practice). And one’s theory of knowledge creation concerning reality will determine the form of change efforts: observation alone in order to successfully manipulate properties of existence, versus the rhetorical organization of observed events in order to construct an empowering client essence which then is drawn upon to induce changes in existence.

Drawing upon the theory of mimesis, postmodern practice ap- proaches seek change in human action via its reciprocal relationship with identity (i.e. essence of being human)—helping the client to move away from disempowering identity formulations and embrace empow- ering identity formulations based upon the client’s strengths and suc- cesses. This move is captured well by Saari (Saari, 1991):

The perspective taken in this book asserts that the adaptive point of view has provided an inadequate foundation for clinical social work theory. A theory of meaning in which psychological health is indi- cated by a constructed personal meaning system (or identity) that is highly differentiated, articulated, and integrated is proposed to take the place of conceptualizations about adaptation (p. 4).

For example, narrative therapy (White, 2007) accomplishes this via its technique of externalizing the problem, solution-building therapy (De Jong & Berg, 2008) via the miracle question. Both techniques aid clients in forming images of themselves absent reflections of the

P. Dybicz and J.C. Hall

Social Sciences & Humanities Open 4 (2021) 100206

6

problem. Just like an image of myself as being kind will motivate me to pursue kind acts, clients’ images of themselves absent the defining in- fluence of the problem inspire them to act in a manner that leads to the problem’s resolution. This dynamic is captured well by the following quote from the strengths perspective (Saleebey and Saleebey’s, 2006a):

In a sense, what is happening at this point is the writing of a better “text.” Reframing is a part of this; not the reframing of so many family therapies, but adding to the picture already painted, brush strokes that depict capacity and ingenuity, and that provide a different coloration to the substance of one’s life (p. 89).

4. The required paradigm shift to practice postmodern approaches

With both the modern paradigm and postmodern paradigm having been explicated, we now are at a point to understand the clear difference between modern and postmodern practice approaches and the required shift in one’s understanding of the social work helping situation that is needed to move from a modernist practice approach to a postmodern practice approach. The following table summarizes these differences and the implications that arise from adopting a fundamentally different premise for one’s understanding of reality, knowledge creation, and causality.

Traditional modernist approaches to practice are an endeavor at problem-solving (Turner et al., 1996). This is why diagnosing the pre- senting problem is so important, as understanding the causal linkages will hopefully lead to possible solutions. Once these solutions are arrived at, change will occur via an appeal to the client’s reason (e.g. cognitive-behavioral therapy)—if clients are able to understand how these solutions will ameliorate their problem, their reason will direct them to employ the solutions.

The paradigm shift being called for by postmodern practitioners is a call for moving away from the modernist approach: adopting a problem- solving approach, diagnosing the problem, and appealing to the client’s reason as the main tools for fostering change. To repeat, one’s theory of causality directs one’s notion on how change occurs. This makes post- modern interventions endeavors at consciousness raising (e.g. exploring empowering images of “who I can be”). Consequently, change does not occur through an appeal to the client’s reason, but rather through an appeal to the client’s imagination—exploring different ways to narrate the client’s problematic event. This serves to empower clients and to highlight the various capacities they have for change. Thus exploring client goals and dreams (images of who I want to be) as well as strengths and successes (empowering events in which to ‘bookend’ the new narrative being created) are the primary tools for fostering change. This exploration is guided by a genuine curiosity to learn about these strengths and successes. Postmodern practitioners have come to describe this stance of adopting this genuine curiosity as comprising a “not- knowing” approach (Anderson et al., 1992). Once clients are able to embrace this new image of themselves and of who they could be, they are empowered to begin acting in such a way to bring about the desired change. Again, a quote from the strengths perspective captures this dynamic well (Saleebey, 1994):

These individuals, almost without exception, began to construct a life—collaboratively—that no one could have predicted. The inter- esting thing is that they did this “in spite of their illness.” In fact, their symptoms may have occurred at the same level, but the other parts of them became part of their unfolding story: “me as employee,” “me as piano player,” “me as driver,” “me as spouse and parent.” The symptoms move into the background of a much richer symbolic ecology (p. 357).

5. The postmodern paradigm illustrated: a practical application

The various parts (theories of reality, knowledge creation, and cau- sality) of the postmodern paradigm at work are nicely illustrated by a clinical social work case of mine (Chris Hall) involving an eight-year-old boy (Jude) who was brought in by his parents for “acting out.” Despite visiting a number of different traditional therapists, the problem had become intractable. In fact, the boy had been diagnosed with opposi- tional defiant disorder by a former therapist and the parents had been told that this disorder is commonly a precursor to conduct disorder, which in turn could eventually manifest into anti-social personality disorder when Jude turns eighteen. This information only exacerbated the parents’ worry. Also Jude, who had begun to see himself as having an unavoidable disorder, started to believe that he was a broken child who could not be repaired (Jude’s essence as socially constructed around the disorder). His main identity feature became that of the disorder.

Over time, Jude had begun to experience daily incidents of “acting out” and his parents believed he had given up. The social convention related to his behavior was the following: “Normal eight year olds don’t throw tantrums and can control their emotions in this regard.” This is a social convention—arising from everyday experience—that few in our society would contest. It is a requirement for continued enrollment in schools and the rationale behind traditional interventions such as behavioral charts and token economies for 3–4 year olds who exhibit this behavior (Skinner, 2011). In addition to painting Jude as abnormal in relation to this behavior, the additional value judgment of being a “bad” boy arises from the correlative social convention: “Good boys don’t throw tantrums and act out against their parents.” We see this convention at work in the process of raising children. A parent may praise a child’s listening and agreeability by saying, “You’re such a good girl/boy!” So in relation to his observed events of “acting out,” the essence created for Jude in his mind is that he is abnormal and a bad boy, and this was reified by the traditional mental health system. This dis- piriting identity formulation for Jude gave him the feeling that he was unworthy of his parents’ love. Jude wants to be a “good” boy, but each successive “incident” only serves to further confirm this negative iden- tity formulation, giving him the sense that he is incapable of achieving this goal. Consequently, Jude’s dispiritedness led to hopelessness in taking action to achieve his desired goal and thus the problem worsened.

The parents decided to give counseling one more try before they turned to medication for Jude. In narrative counseling the technique of externalizing counters Jude’s hopelessness and creates space to explore the problem in a way that does not pathologize him. This was done with Jude in session by asking him to conceive of the desire and behavior of acting out as a malevolent force “outside” of himself. Jude named the

Philosophical Premise

Modern Paradigm Modernist Practice Implications Postmodern Paradigm Postmodern Practice Implications

Reality Properties of Existence Adopt a Problem-Solving Approach Targeting Properties of Existence

Properties of Existence Plus Phenomenon’s Essence

Adopt a “Not-Knowing” Approach Targeting Client Essence/Identity

Validity of Knowledge

Confirmation of Properties of Existence

Appeal to Client’s reason Confirmation of Social Conventions in Determining Essence

Appeal to Client’s Imagination to Raise Consciousness

Causality Cause-Effect explains human action

Diagnosing causes of Presenting Problem

Images of who I am and want to be motivate human action

Exploring Client Goals, Dreams, and Successes to Empower Client Images

P. Dybicz and J.C. Hall

Social Sciences & Humanities Open 4 (2021) 100206

7

problem “the frustrations”—and explained that they convince him to perform emotional outbursts. The problem was then personified (White & Epston, 1990) as having motives that were both helpful and hurtful to Jude and his family. For Jude “the frustrations” sometimes help him get what he thinks is fair by making him feel bigger when talking to, “really tall and strong people like my parents,” but they also get him in trouble because “the frustrations” convince him that he has to scream and get mad to be heard. The parents also realized that “the frustrations” affect not just Jude but them as well. They realized that “the frustrations” like to separate Jude from them and one way that happens is that “the frustrations” convince them not to listen to Jude’s words when he is angry but to focus instead on negativity and respond in an angry way.

The process of externalizing and personifying effectively excises the negative feature from Jude’s identity and explores the purpose that the problem could be serving in his life and in the life of the family. Jude had a belief that things were unfair and “the frustrations” were helping him to be heard. Through the process of externalizing, the family was able to discuss how they could all work together as a team with Jude to keep “the frustrations” at bay by bringing in the value of “fairness” as the social convention guiding their actions. The parents could work at listening to Jude, making things fair in the family, and being clearer about why some of Jude’s requests in the family are met while others are not. Jude could fight “the frustrations” by realizing that even though he doesn’t always get what he wants, he does get some things, and that his parents sometimes say “no” not simply to punish him but because they care about him. His bedtime, for example, is necessary because sleep is important for his health. The family decided together that “fairness” was the enemy of “the frustrations” and when, as a team, they focused their attention on “fairness,” then “the frustrations” did not bother Jude or the parents as much!

Through this narrative process a new social convention was con- structed to account for the depiction of Jude’s behavior, “Good kids care about and strive for fairness.” In addition, this new social convention immediately labeled Jude as a “good boy”; he did not have to wait for the resolution of the problem to find reachable his “who I want to be” of mimesis. This in turn spurred Jude and his parents into examining both past successes he had had at keeping the ‘frustrations” at bay as well as future strategies to do so in order to reach and maintain this image of himself as a good, brave, and strong boy (and thus worthy of his parent’s love). Furthermore, Jude was no longer at odds with his parents because he now had family allies as they all worked together to create fairness. Jude and his family identified a few “unique outcomes.” This helped to “bookend” this new narrative by recognizing past successes where he sought out fairness in a calm way, without the need of “the frustrations” to be big or to be heard. This gave Jude the confidence that being brave and strong is a realistic appraisal of “who I can be,” and that he had no need for “the frustrations” to make him bigger when seeking fairness. This new social convention depicting Jude as good, brave, and strong, was agreed to by his parents and the therapist which served to strengthen its verisimilitude. Consequently, Jude and the family acted to fortify this image of Jude being brave and strong by continually chal- lenging “the frustrations” by enhancing “fairness.” After only four therapy sessions confronting what before had been an intractable problem that resisted conventional therapeutic approaches, Jude and the family were so successful that services were terminated. Further- more, this quick resolution of the issue—attributable to the conscious- ness raising aspect of postmodern approaches—is a typical experience for those employing postmodern therapeutic techniques [e.g. 16, 27].

6. Conclusion

The key offering of the postmodern paradigm is that it provides an understanding of the world in terms of everyday experience—effectively commenting upon aspects of human life that escape a scientific gaze: values embedded in social conventions; the role of free will in deter- mining action; the role of strengths and successes in shaping identity;

and a future orientation based on the causal linkages to human action arising from client goals and dreams. As the title of this article states, its goal has been a simple one: to introduce beginning students and prac- titioners to the foundational philosophical theories undergirding post- modern practice approaches. Such understanding serves as an aid to better understand the literature outlining these practices (De Jong & Berg, 2008; Rapp & Goscha, 2006; Saleebey, 2008; White, 2007).

The strengths perspective, in particular, laments the misuse of its approach by those trying to apply it within a purely scientific framework (Saleebey and Saleebey’s, 2006b). As such, strengths merely become additional properties of existence fitting within a problem-solving approach; concerns over client identity (i.e. essence) and how these strengths speak to identity are consequently ignored. Thus, inquiring about client strengths while conducting a bio-psycho-social assessment, while laudable, is not employment of the strengths perspective; rather, the strength perspective would call for conducting a strengths assess- ment to be used by the client to explore empowering essences of “who I can be.”

A postmodern understanding of the world provides the paradigm shift in viewing identity as grounded in human action and vice versa, a shift to which the strengths perspective and other postmodern ap- proaches appeal. For narrative therapy, White (White, 2007) places strong emphasis on the role that personal agency (i.e. free will) plays in determining human action—and how this is a reflection of identity. And within solution-building therapy, De Jong and Berg (De Jong & Berg, 2008) unabashedly take a future oriented focus and adopt the stance that “We ask for fewer details about the nature and severity of client problems, and we do not ask for possible causes of the problem” (p. 17). All three approaches move away from a project of diagnosing the client’s problem (i.e. determining cause-effect linkages) and move toward a project of identity building as the means to change human behavior. This identity building occurs via “book ending” client narratives with various strengths and successes. The articulation of identity (i.e. essence)—not a focus on adaptation—is the route that postmodern practices take to foster client change.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Phillip Dybicz: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Writing – re- view & editing. J. Christopher Hall: Case study application.

Declaration of interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

References

Anderson, H., & Goolishian, H. (1992). The client is the expert: A not-knowing approach to therapy. In S. McNamee, & K. J. Gergen (Eds.), Therapy as social construction (pp. 25–39). London: Sage.

Aristotle, & Heath Trans, M. (1996). In Poetics. London: Penguin Books (Original work published c. 335 B.C.).

Bell, K. (2012). Towards a post-conventional philosophical base for social work. British Journal of Social Work, 42(3), 408–423.

Chang, J. (2010). Hermeneutic inquiry: A research approach for postmodern therapists. Journal of Systemic Therapies, 29(1), 19–32. Retrieved from http://search.proquest. com/docview/753992654?accountid=14800.

Danto, E. A. (2008). Same words, different meanings: Notes toward a typology of postmodern social work education. Social Work Education, 27(7), 710–722. htt ps://doi.org/10.1080/02615470701607531.

De Jong, P., & Berg, I. K. (2008). In Interviewing for solutions (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole.

Gabels, S., & Peters, S. (2004). Presage of a paradigm shift? Beyond the social model of disability toward resistance theories of disability. Disability & Society, 19, 585–600. https://doi.org/10.1080/0968759042000252515.

Gergen, K. (1999). An invitation to social construction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press.

P. Dybicz and J.C. Hall

Social Sciences & Humanities Open 4 (2021) 100206

8

Newton, I., Whitman, A., & Budenz Trans, J. (1999). In The principia : Mathematical principles of natural philosophy. Berkley, CA: University of California Press (Original work published 1687).

Popper, K. R. (1963). Conjectures and refutations. London: Routledge. Popper, K. R. (1972). Objective knowledge: An evolutionary approach. New York: Oxford

University Press. Prior, A. (1969). Correspondence theory of truth. In Encyclopedia of philosophy, 2 pp.

223–224). New York: Macmillan. Rapp, C., & Goscha, R. (2006). The strengths model: Case management with people suffering

from severe and persistent mental illness. New York: Oxford University Press. Ricœur, P. (1984-88). Time and narrative, 1–3. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Saari, C. (1991). The creation of meaning in clinical social work. New York: Guilford Press. Saleebey, D. (1994). Culture, theory, and narrative: The intersection of meanings in

practice. Social Work, 39, 351–359. Saleebey, D. (2006a). The strengths approach to practice. In D. Saleebey’s (Ed.), The

strengths perspective in social work practice (4th ed., pp. 77–92). Boston: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon.

Saleebey, D. (2006b). Power in the people. In D. Saleebey’s (Ed.), The strengths perspective in social work practice (4th ed., pp. 77–92). Boston: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon.

Saleebey, D. (Ed.). (2008). The strengths perspective in social work practice (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.

Scott, R. L. (1976). On viewing rhetoric as epistemic: Ten years later. Central States Speech Journal, 27, 258–266.

Skinner, B. F. (2011). About behaviorism. Vintage. Sokolowski, R. (2000). Introduction to phenomenology. New York: Cambridge University

Press. Turner, J., & Jaco, R. M. (1996). Problem solving theory and social work treatment. In

F. J. Turner (Ed.), Social work treatment: Interlocking theoretical approaches (4th ed., pp. 503–522). New York: The Free Press.

Weick, A., Kreider, J., & Chamberlain, R. (2006). Solving problems from a strengths perspective. In D. Saleebey’s (Ed.), The strengths perspective in social work practice (4th

ed., pp. 1–23). Boston: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon. White, M. (2007). Maps of narrative practice. New York: W.W. Norton and co. White, M., & Epston, D. (1990). Narrative means to therapeutic ends. New York: Norton.

P. Dybicz and J.C. Hall