What Happened to Self-Determination?

In 1967, Biestek declared that, of all social work values, the "natural right" of client self-determination must be accorded the honor of being the "highest" value. In contrast with other values such as social justice and confidentiality, there today appears to be little interest in the profession in exploring the value of self-determination. Given the alleged central importance of this social work value, this situation requires some explanation and evaluation. This article reviews the status of client self-determination in the profession and considers the reasons for its current neglect. It is suggested that at present, the stress in social work on "verification" has diminished the usefulness and importance of the concept of self-determination in the profession. SELF-DETERMINATION IN SOCIAL WORK Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed.) defines self-determination as the "free choice of one's own acts or states without external compulsion" ("Self-Determination," 2004, p. 1127). It is thus a value allied to the closely related values of individual sovereignty and autonomy. Such ideas have a long history in Western civilization and rest on the view that individuals should ideally be self-governing and able to abide by freely self-chosen plans and goals (Beauchamp & Childress, 1989). Such individualistic values are also central in the culture of the United States (Meacham, 2009). It is interesting to note that in England and the United States, the social work profession originally sought to emphasize not self-determination but communitarianism (Furlong, 2003). Mary Richmond (1922), one of the founders of the profession, always stressed goals such as working with individuals, families, and groups in the context of their social relationships. Although certainly aware of the value, Richmond (1922) did not use the term "self-determination" and chose instead to stress the idea that social workers should encourage clients to engage in the "fullest possible participation ... in all plans" (p. 66). This type of "maximum feasible participation," to use language later adopted by federal antipoverty programs in the 1960s, still remains a core value of social work practice (Furlong, 2003; Gilbert & Terrell, 1998). Nevertheless, the goal of promoting the value of client self-determination became a central social work concern, beginning in the 1930s. The origins of this shift lie in the historic confrontation between "growth"-oriented functional social work and "science"-oriented diagnostic social work, which occurred during that decade. Two influential social work articles published in the 1930s illustrate this trend. The first was by Grace Marcus (1939), in which she described self-determination as a "facile concept" and urged the profession to accept the "scientific" findings of psychodynamic psychiatry as a basis for social work practice. The author of the second article, Bertha Reynolds (1939), rejected science as a basis for the profession and urged social work to give highest prominence to the client-provider relationship as a vehicle for individual "growth." In her view, helping clients to achieve self-determination and liberation from their "burdens" by "expanding consciousness" should be the profession's mission (Reynolds, 1939). In the revolutionary political climate of the 1930s, the idea that the social work provider should help individuals achieve "liberation" through self-determination was immensely appealing. This, in turn, made it a mantra for the social work profession for decades to follow (Furlong, 2003; Keith-Lucas, 1963). SELF-DETERMINATION QUESTIONED Reflecting more conservative social trends, the importance of self-determination was challenged by some social work authors in the 1950s and early 1960s (Keith-Lucas, 1963). Bernstein (1960) stated that the value of self-determination needed limitation and revision and should, therefore, he considered only as a "citizen" instead of as a "king" in the realm of social work values. …