The discussion on social workers results to contradicting results with every party having relevant evidence on whether social workers advocate for change or acts as mere puppets to ensure the status quo stays intact. It is evident that over the years the social workers have enabled women empowerment in developing countries by helping them seek microfinance funds and educating them on the best investment strategies. The acts and policies allow financial independence but do not change the patronage dominance in these societies thus depicting that the agent of change is just an expression rather than a characteristic.
Hate him or love him Alinsky’s radical stance defines the social workers. The multiple natural disasters demonstrate the truth of his position against social workers. In almost all catastrophes, the low-income earners feel more pressure from the calamities compared to the middle class and the wealthy. The social workers employ their skills to bring back people to the status they were rather than changing the discriminative social status. The response and support for the victims by the social workers is admirable. However, do they help progress in the living standards of the victims? The answer to this question is a no; the social workers aim not to improve the society. Radical claims that the social workers work to the interests of the wealthy and middle class. The mid and high-class citizens are the policymakers thus ensure that their needs are met, and the social workers never question the need for improving the society to limit such disasters causing harm in the future.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The evidence provided by the radicals are more compelling compared proof supplied by the sympathizers of social workers. I concur that social workers are in a position to facilitate change, but they never risk changing the status quo thus making them agents of control rather than change.
