Working with Class: Social Workers and the Politics of Middle-Class Identity (review)

The goal of this study—to show changes in middle-class identity in the United States throughout the twentieth century—is carried out by analysis of the perceptions and actions of social workers as middle-class professionals. The focus of the discussion is on social workers in New York City in Jewish agencies, especially the Federation of Jewish Philanthropies (FJP) and the Jewish Board of Guardians (JBG), and in the city's Department of Welfare, which employed many Jewish social workers. Walkowitz traces a shift in middle-class identity based on economic class early in the century to a racialized basis after 1960.

Social work emerged as a new occupation in the first decade of the century, but was not designated a profession by the U.S. Census until 1930. Social workers, most of whom were women, identified themselves as middle-class professional women in contrast to their poor and immigrant clients. Since most administrative positions went to men, women social workers were aware of a gender factor in their professionalism. By the 1920s, social workers were considered caseworkers, often in family agencies. Casework provided a professional middle-class identity, despite high work loads and low salaries. FJP was created as an umbrella organization of Jewish casework agencies. Psychiatric social work also emerged as a practice, and JBG became an advanced center in the specialty.

Beginning in the 1920s, some social workers became involved in trade unionism, considering themselves professional workers rather than professional women, with concerns about their rights as workers. The new ideology began in a group of Jewish social service agencies in several cities. Social workers at JBG and other New York City agencies organized Workers' Councils that served as proto-unions, the beginning of a left-wing labor movement. During the depression, the Rank and File Movement replaced the councils. Caseworkers in private agencies organized in AFL and CIO locals. At the same time, the growth of union affiliation affected social service agencies in the public sector. By the 1930s, about two-thirds of social workers were employed in government welfare programs, and these workers developed strong union affiliations in New York City. Walkowitz, a labor historian, gives a detailed and thoughtful analysis and chronology of trade union action in social work. Middle-class identity changed: social workers saw themselves as middle-class consumers at home and working class at their jobs. As social workers unionized, they declared similar interests with clients as well as with agency clerical and maintenance workers.

During the Cold War years, the impact of anti-communist ideology weakened social worker unions. Middle-class identity again became important, but with a major change of definition based on race and ethnicity. As Jewish clients of FJP agencies left New York City and were replaced by Black and Hispanic residents, the agencies had to confront their mission in the Jewish community. Walkowitz provides extensive discussion of the tension that developed in the 1960s and later. For African-American social workers, middle-class identity was based on class, while for their fellow white professionals, race determined the middle-class connection. Initially, a shared history of discrimination brought Jews and Blacks together, but by the 1970s, both race and gender influenced social worker actions. Many White female social workers began to leave casework to become psychotherapists in private practice, while Hispanic and African American social workers carried out welfare policies at public agencies. In addition, Black and Hispanic women took newly formed positions as welfare service aides in the same agencies. Walkowitz sees a new national paradigm on middle-class identity emerging from the relationship of Jews and Blacks in New York.

Walkowitz concludes that the story of social worker middle-class identity was still ongoing in the 1990s. Changes were yet to come because of welfare cuts with decreasing numbers of public...