Beyond Empathy: a Relational-Feminist Point of View - Research Paper Example

 Beyond Empathy: a Relational-Feminist Point of View Abstract Empathy is a foundational element of social work. Much has been written and said about empathy and its implications for social workers. In this paper, a brief discussion and reflection on an article discussing empathy from a feminist-relational perspective is provided. Benefits of the article to social workers and the issues raised by the author are discussed. The paper evaluates a contribution made by the article to theory and practice of social work. Quality of the findings and their effects on social work knowledge are evaluated. Keywords: empathy, social work, professionalization, change. That empathy is an essential ingredient of social work is undisputable. In the current state of social work theory and practice, empathy remains one of the most interesting and, simultaneously, most controversial concepts. This is why researchers in human services and social science seek to re-evaluate the meaning and significance of empathy in the context of changing social work demands. Sharon Freedberg (2007) is no exception: the researcher re-conceptualizes the concept of empathy from a different, feminist-relational angle. Freedberg (2007) reviews the literature on empathy in social work, from the times of Mary Richmond until present. Moreover, the researcher re-examines changes in the meaning of empathy in light of new and emerging feminist traditions (Freedberg, 2007). Apparently, social workers are the first to benefit from reading this article, since their understanding and empathy awareness will create a foundation for developing new, social-relational-cultural models of social work. Freedberg (2007) addresses two important issues. First, the article by itself is a relevant response to changes in the meaning of empathy under the influences of complex contextual factors. The article emphasizes the importance of empathy in social work and underlines its significance to national populations worried about the worsening political and socioeconomic conditions (Gerdes & Segal, 2011). Second, Freedberg (2007) re-evaluates the implications of empathy for the professionalization of social workers. It is no secret that, at the beginning of the 20th century, social workers lacked a clear differentiation in their professional field; the social work itself lacked a clear theoretical framework (Freedberg, 2007). Consequentially, empathy could become the best “way of tuning into the unconscious or subconscious thoughts and feelings of which the client may or may not be aware” (Freedberg, 2007, p.252). In this context, boundary issues discussed by Freedberg (2007) deserve particular attention. It appears that empathy is integrally linked to boundary relations in social work and counseling, because it inherently implies that social workers will “put themselves” in their clients’ shoes and express their understanding and acceptance of the clients’ emotions openly and willingly. However, empathy may readily become the point at which social workers cross the boundary of professionalism and relationship and cause a serious conflict of interest (Reamer, 2003). Therefore, social workers must be extremely careful in their dealings with clients, to ensure that empathy is present but does not exceed acceptable limits of ethics and professionalism in social work. It is noteworthy that Freedberg’s (2007) article is in itself an excellent response to most, if not all, problems with conceptualizing and realizing the potential of empathy in social work practice. The information provided in the article makes it easier to re-evaluate the meaning of empathy and its effects on social work. The article highlights the relational aspect of empathy – the aspect that has long been disregarded. In terms of boundary issues, Freedberg (2007) offers her own solution: on the one hand, the social worker must be open to and in touch with the complexity of clients’ emotions and feelings; on the other hand, in case of any misunderstandings or conflicts of interest, all these difficulties must be accepted and negotiated between the social worker and the client. However, the author does not say that not all boundary issues and dual relationships are inherently unethical. For a boundary issue to be unethical, several important conditions have to be met: these relationships should interfere with the social worker’s professional discretion, impartial judgment, lead to exploitation of other social workers and clients in the worker’s personal interests, and cause harm to colleagues, clients, or third parties (Reamer, 2003). In boundary issues, ethical and cross-cultural considerations play the most important role (Reamer, 2003). Social workers must be extremely careful in finding the right balance between emotional openness and ethical relationships with clients. The article and information in it fit perfectly well in the current state of social work literature. At the very basic level, empathy remains one of the most popular objects of analysis in social work research. This claim is also supported by Gerdes and Segal (2011), who write that, during the last 10 years, an enormous body of research has been produced to investigate the nature, implications, underlying complexities, and functions of empathy. In the meantime, Freedberg’s (2007) article is a relevant response to the lack of relational aspects in empathy and the way it is applied in social work. The limits of Western psychology frameworks have been described in abundance: for many years, modernist individualism has been the defining feature of research and practice developments in social work (O’Hara, 1997). Empathy was believed to be an excellent way to understanding between social workers and clients, whereas the relational and humanist aspects of the empathy concept have been persistently neglected (O’Hara, 1997). Notwithstanding the fact that empathy is considered a sine qua non of helping relationships between social workers and clients, the idea that social workers can put themselves “into their clients’ shoes” has been seen as mostly presumptuous (Clark, 2005). In this sense, Freedberg’s (2007) work does not simply fit in the current state of knowledge and philosophy of social work but expands the limits of empathy, by introducing and emphasizing the relational tradition. What Freedberg (2007) writes helps to create a clearer picture of social work and questions the validity of the earlier assumptions about the nature and implications of empathy for social workers’ relationships with clients. Freedberg (2007) states that, in her article, she seeks to re-examine the concept of empathy against the background of the recent developments in feminist philosophy and scholarship. One of the goals of the article is to move beyond the traditional definition of empathy – the goal which other researchers also tried to meet (Clark, 2003). Clearly, the author managed to meet these objectives, as the article produces a different and, more importantly, useful conceptualization of empathy. It is through this conceptualization of empathy that Freedberg (2007) tries to being more authenticity, maturity, and human relationship in dealings between social workers and clients. Nonetheless, several important questions are yet to be answered. First and foremost, how do we implement the ideas and conceptualizations proposed by Freedberg (2007)? Despite profound changes in the social work landscape, changing the philosophy and meaning of social work does not happen overnight. Not all social workers realize the value and importance of the human, relational aspect of social work. Apparently, implementing new meaning of empathy in practice is impossible without a profound change in how social workers approach their clients. Second, Freedberg (2007) is correct in that empathy is not static; it is part of a bigger, complex relational process that is always unique and occurs in a small, limited environment between the social worker and the client. Therefore, an important question is how to adjust to the dynamic changes in the empathy concept that happen as a result of multiple external influences. With this in mind, flexibility and emphasis on relations must become the distinctive feature of future social work frameworks. Needless to say, the article will greatly affect my future work. I will have to re-evaluate and re-consider the essence and significance of my relationships with clients and search the right balance between empathy and the boundaries of ethics between me and the client. I cannot say that the knowledge obtained from this article was entirely new to me: a future professional, I always tried to understand the conceptual and philosophical underpinnings of empathy in social work. As a result, I noticed a slow and gradual shift toward empathy as a foundational concept in social work. Yet, I cannot deny that Freedberg (2007) made me think about empathy in a different way. Now I see that empathy contributes to the development of sound relationships with clients and can also become a serious threat to the social worker’s professionalism, professional discretion, and impartial judgment (Reamer, 2003). Empathy by itself is the source of numerous benefits for social workers and clients, but the former must be cautious in how they interpret the empathy concept and apply it in practice. Beyond Empathy: a Relational-Feminist Point of View References Clark, J. (2003). Beyond empathy: An ethnographic approach to cross-cultural social work practice. University of Toronto. Retrieved from http://www.mun.ca/cassw-ar/papers2/clark.pdf Freedberg, S. (2007). Re-examining empathy: A relational-feminist point of view. Social Work, 52(3), 251-259. Gerdes, K.E. & Segal, E. (2011). Importance of empathy for social work practice: Integrating new science. Social Work, 56(2), 141-148. O’Hara, M. (1997). Relational empathy: Beyond modernist egocentrism to postmodern holistic contextualism. In A. Bohart & L. Greenberg (eds), Empathy reconsidered, Washington, D.C: American Psychological Association, 295-320. Reamer, F.G. (2003). Boundary issues in social work: Managing dual relationships. Social Work, 48(1), 121-133. Read More