Main topic




This paper discusses the intensity, form, and degree of awareness of the postmodernization of social work. In that sense, the postmodernization of social work means its discursive and metanarrative placement in the context of globally postmodernized societies, both at the level of external institutional network of meaning and at the level of internal reconfiguration, reformulation, redefinition, and reorganization according to new postmodern principles, agendas, and requirements. However, this does not mean absorbing some other metanarrative, but formulating an authentic metanarrative of social work. The explanation of postmodernity and postmodernization does not necessarily have to be part of the “intellectual-speculative” sphere of postmodernism, that is, some modernist theories may be integrated with some postmodernist discursive protocols for the purpose of a hybrid explanation of a relevant phenomenon.

Social work is at a significant turning point that requires a whole set of questions and related answers with implicit consequences for the practice of social work and the professional identity of social workers. Using the autochthonous contextual situational experiences of Serbia, as the main features of this transformation, we can detect:

  1. The existence of a genuine metanarrative of social work, which can also be described as a counter-narrative, constructed as deideologized, plural and distanced from generating and regenerating any power relations and power structures that do not benefit marginalized, vulnerable and exposed to processes of creating and maintaining inequality. The transmission of theoretical principles into practical procedures is emphasized as a matter of special importance.
  2. The actual metanarrative of social work directly opposes the neoliberal metanarrative in a wide range, which includes rejection of: market regulation of social work, new managementism, the inevitability of poverty, the disappearance/eliminating social work as a profession etc.
  3. The metanarrative of social justice is postmodern, but not in an anti-foundationalist sense or through the incorrect vulgar-postmodernist formula that “anything can go.” Its universalism is post-foundationalist in nature (Marchart 2007), it has variable content and means of distribution.
  4. Inversion of the inefficient welfare state project with the social investment state project. The risk is no longer external in nature, but designed/produced. The action of social work is not aimed at repairing the consequences of its appearance, but prophylactically before its appearance.
  5. Cultural, historical and contextual/situational in social work no longer means adaptation to the universal, but its construction. Social work practice is therefore exposed to constant changes in the client’s preferences/needs and understanding of care and help.
  6. The difference is no longer equal to the deviation.
  7. In addition to the fact that class, religious, gender, racial, educational, national and generational constructions are still extremely strong and formative, it is important to emphasize that postmodernization of social work does not mean rejecting theories relevant for the functioning of social work, but their nonlinear complement. They are not relativized, but contextualized. In this sense, we are talking about the process of hybrid postmodernization of social work. This implies the depsychologization of social work, that is, the rejection of the psychological theoretical paradigm as the most authoritative and most efficient in solving socially induced problems.
  8. Although the identity of social workers is often stuck between preferences and structural possibilities, the fact is that they are often bureaucratized and opportunistic conformists who cannot distinguish between short-term and long-term changes, and do not see their profession as a process of constant empowerment of the vulnerable, marginalized and unequal. Their metanarrative is based on the constant opposition to fixed/petrified/structural power: their power is in the negation of power relations.

keywords :


    • Banks, Sarah 1995. Ethics and values in social work. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
    • Banks, Sarah 2015. “Social work ethics.ˮ In International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, ed. James D. Wright, 782–788, Amsterdam: Elsevier.
    • Blakemore, Kenneth and Griggs, Edwin. 2007. Social Policy: An Introduction. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
    • Duffy, Simon. 2015. “Social work is losing its identity – how can it be saved?ˮ Тhe Guardian
    • Fawcett, Barbara, Brid Featherstone, Jan Fook and Amy Rossiter, eds. 2000. Practice and Research in Social Work: Postmodern Feminist Perspectives. London: Routledge.
    • Fook, Jan. 2000. “Deconstructing and Reconstructing Professional Expertise.ˮ In Practice and Research in Social Work: Postmodern Feminist Perspectives, eds. Barbara Fawcett, Brid Featherstone, Jan Fook and Amy Rossiter, 105‒121, London: Routledge.
    • Giddens, Anthony 1994. Beyond Left and Right: The Future of Radical Politics. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    • Jani, Jayshree and Reisch, Michael. 2011. “Common Human Needs, Uncommon Solutions: Applying a Critical Framework to Perspectives on Human Behavior.ˮ Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services 92(1): 13‒20. doi: 10.1606/1044-3894.4065.
    • Lewis, Harold. 2003. For the Common Good: Essays of Harold Lewis. New York: Brunner-Routledge.
    • Lyotard, Jean-Francois. 1984. The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis Press.
    • Marchart, Oliver 2007. Post-Foundational Political Thought: Political Difference in Nancy, Lefort, Badiou and Laclau. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    • Popple, Philip. 2018. Social Work Practice and Social Welfare Policy in the United States: A History. New York: Oxford University Press.
    • Powell, Fred. 2001. The Politics of Social Work. London: Sage.
    • Powell, Jason and Jon Hendricks, еds. 2010. The welfare state in post-industrial society: A global perspective. New York: Springer.
    • Reisch, Michael and Jani, Jayshree. 2012. “The New Politics of Social Work Practice: Understanding Context to Promote Change.ˮ The British Journal of Social Work 42 (6): 1132–1150. doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bcs072.
    • Reisch, Michael. 2010. “United States: Social Welfare Policy and Privatization in Post-industrial Society.ˮ In The welfare state in post-industrial society: A global perspective, eds. Jason Powell and Jon Hendricks, 253‒271, New York: Springer.
    • Reisch, Michael. 2013. “What is the future of social work?ˮ Critical and Radical Social Work 1 (1): 67‒85. doi: 10.1332/204986013665974.
    • Rosenau, Pauline Marie. 1992. Post-modernism and the Social Sciences: Insights, Inroads, and Intrusions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
    • Somers, Margaret and Gibson, Gloria. 1993. “Reclaiming the Epistemological ‘Other’: Narrative and the Social Constitution of Identity.ˮ CSST Working Paper #94 and CRSO Working Paper #499, Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan.
    • Soss, Joe, Fording, Richard and Schram, Sanford. 2011. Disciplining the Poor: Neoliberal Paternalism and the Persistent Power of Race. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    • Stojanovic, Djordje. 2015. The Symbolic Construction of the Enemy: Тhe Case of Serbia and Japan. Nagoya: Center for Asian Legal Exchange – Nagoya University.
    • Stojanović, Đorđe i Despotović, Ljubiša. 2014. „Diskurzivno transformisanje koncepta blagostanja.ˮ Srpska politička misao 46 (4): 11‒34.
    • Stojanović, Đorđe. 2016. „Postmodernizam u društvenim naukama: stanje paradigme.” U „Postmodernizacija srpske nauke: politika postmoderne/politika posle postmoderne”, ur. Đorđe Stojanović i Miško Šuvaković, posebno izdanje, Srpska politička misao 5–35. doi: 10.22182/spm.specijal2016.1.
    • Stojanović, Đorđe i Ilić, Vladimir. 2020. Postmodernizacija socijalnog rada. Beograd: Visoka škola socijalnog rada.
    • Weinberg, Merlinda 2010. “The Social Construction of Social Work Ethics: Politicizing and Broadening the Lens.ˮ Journal of Progressive Human Services 21 (1): 32‒44. doi: 10.1080/10428231003781774.
Serbian Political Thought 3/2021 3/2021 УДК 364-1 103-124