Teachers meet social workers E-Book

Jóhannes Miðskarð, PhD

• Herausgeber: Books on Demand
• Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 308

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2022

Beschreibung

What happens when social workers´ line of thinking meets with teachers´ line of thinking? Miðskarð gives answer to this question throughout this book from his study of how consulting sessions with social workers influence school professionals´ further perspectives on how to deal with issues in vulnerable children´s lifeworlds. The theoretical framework is mainly based on Hannah Arendt´s political theorisations, which is placed in an existential phenomenological tradition. This book is mainly for social workers and student social workers in Denmark, England and those in other countries that are interested in interprofessional working set in Denmark with a contrast from England. However teachers (maybe mostly schoolleaders, form-teachers and teachers in pedagogical learning centres), early childhood pedagogues and managers and leaders in the family social work sector and in the educational sector will also find gold in this book. Lastly students and scholars who work with Hannah Arendt will find the compressed introduction and the implementation of Arendt´s theorisations of high interest. This book is an important contribution to our understanding of multi-professional working and is highly recommended. Nick Frost, Emeritus Professor of Social Work, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, UK It is rare that one comes across a new perspective like Miðskarð´s on the work of Hannah Arendt, especially with regard to the application of her ´philosophical´ ideas. Joop Berding, PhD, philosopher of education and author, the Netherlands Miðskarð demonstrates that Arendt´s theorisations can be useful for gaining new knowledge about interprofessional working, which traditional books on interprofessional working do not address. Inge Schiermacher, former lecturer in social work at University College Copenhagen, Denmark

Leseprobe

Recommendations

Miðskarð has written a fascinating book that explores issues in contemporary professionalism. He outlines similarities and differences in the options for the professionals working with children and young people in Denmark and England: in England he finds a stronger emphasis on procedures and standardization. On the theoretical level Miðskarð uses Arendt to argue that the English professionals had “work” oriented perspectives, working towards goals and outputs, whereas the Danish professionals were more “action” orientated in how they work with different professional perspectives. This book is an important contribution to our understanding of multi-professional working and is highly recommended.

Nick Frost, Emeritus Professor of Social Work, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, UK

It is rare that one comes across a new perspective on the work of Hannah Arendt, especially with regard to the application of her ´philosophical´ ideas. Of course this has to do with the fact that her thoughts resist being applied to the concrete lifeworld. Nevertheless, there have been attempts to put Arendt´s ideas to work in politics, in human rights, and in education. And now we have Jóhannes Miðskarð´s new book. In this study Miðskarð describes and analyses the core concepts of Arendt´s political view, and uses these to get more insight into a concrete human practice, i.e. the advisory talks of social councillors with teachers in primary schools in Denmark. His research question is what actually happens to teachers when they are counselled by the advisors. The topic under discussion between them is usually a child that for some reason is threatened in his or her development. Miðskarð regards what goes on between these professionals in what Arendt calls ´action´ (as different from ´labour´ and ´work´). (How) do these professionals take each other´s perspective? Do they influence, and in what way, their convictions? Does the talking lead to reflection? In order to answer these questions, Miðskarð analyses in deep detail the talks, which he attended and observed. A fascinating and enriching study.

Joop Berding, PhD, philosopher of education and author, the Netherlands

Jóhannes Miðskarð portraits the consulting sessions with the help of qualitative interviews and Hannah Arendt’s theorisations, which allows him to open up a unique perspective on interprofessional meetings about vulnerable children. In the analyses of concrete cases, Miðskarð widens the professionals’ perspectives and the whole situation. Also, he sheds light on how professional language, feelings and personal traits play in on the understanding of the children and their situation. Miðskarð recommends that the various professionals need to learn each other about their profession and their professional language. Likewise, Miðskarð recommends that professionals need to get knowledge about the consultations, interprofessional working and how to facilitate meetings. Lastly, I would like to underline that Miðskarð demonstrates that Arendt’s theorisations can be useful for gaining new knowledge about interprofessional working, which traditional books on interprofessional working do not address.

Inge Schiermacher, former lecturer in social work at University College Copenhagen, Denmark

Table of contents

Preface

Chapter 1: The exciting interprofessional work conversation

Chapter 2: Hannah Arendt as a background blanket

Hannah Arendt and her authorship

The three practical activities

The three mental activities

Action and thinking

Chapter 3: Meet the Danish social workers

Chapter 4: Jette, a sad six-year-old girl

Conducting the parental meeting

Chapter 5: A shadow from her brother is being shed on Amarjit

Amarjit´s quietness

The meaning of the letter

Chapter 6: The neglect of Zhou

Zhou´s Chinese background

Zhou´s waiting at the restaurant

Chapter 7: Moving perspectives

Chapter 8: A broader perspective on the Danish consulting sessions

An English contrast

The focus group interview in England

Chapter 9: And now – what?

References

Preface

In 2012 I earned my PhD degree from the dissertation “Action and thinking” which contained two original contributions. Firstly, I carried out extremely detailed analysis of interprofessional consulting sessions between social workers and teachers/school-pedagogues in Denmark combined a contrast to England. Secondly, I used Hannah Arendt´s complex theorisations in an original way to help understand how different people interact around a common issue; I have chosen to refer to “Arendt´s theorisations” instead of “Arendt´s theory” because in my view “theorisations” signals a looser structure whilst “theory” suggests a coherent system of thoughts.

The nature and content of the interactions between social workers and school professionals has been of interest to the professionals and administrators in the field since the publication of my dissertation. However, much of the dissertation is rather academic, and as such irrelevant, for e.g. student social workers, social workers and those school and early childhood professionals that are responsible for the collaboration with family social services departments.

Hence for this book I have drawn out, and in some matters clarified, the knowledge generated around the consulting sessions. Likewise added new literature. You can though rightly argue that the 2012-cases from my PhD may play out rather differently in the times in which we now live. However, the cases deal with common issues of vulnerable children and are therefore still relevant, e.g. a mother´s alcohol problem, a sad 6 year old girl, how Chinese upbringing-culture can seem problematic in a Danish and English context and a mother´s concern that a daughter will, as her brother, find herself in prison in later life.

Beside the focus on vulnerable children my practical application of Hannah Arendt´s theorisations have been of interest for those people studying and working within the ‘universe’ of Hannah Arendt, because it is seldom that Arendt is used for such concrete matters as is the case my study.

For those readers who are only interested in the interprofessional working activities of consulting sessions that social workers give school professionals, it is recommended to browse swiftly through chapter 2, as it explains in some details my take on Hannah Arendt´s complex theorisations.

The Facebook group @gooddiscernment presents webinars and interviews on the subject of interprofessional working and information about Hannah Arendt.

I welcome any comments and questions relating to the book to Miðskarð@gmail.com.

And now: I salute you with “a good reading-journey” - in which my greatest wish is that you MEET the children, their parents and professionals presented as fellow human beings.

2022, Copenhagen: Jóhannes Miðskarð

To visit, you must travel to a new location, leave behind what is familiar, and resist the temptation to make yourself at home, where you are not.

Disch (1994)

Chapter 1: The exciting interprofessional work conversation

Why did the teacher Tine represent the social worker Sara´s use of the concept “a big family secret” as a decisive explanation for Amarjit´s quietness, when Sara only meant that the concept explains that the 6 year old was trained not to include feelings and thoughts in her lifeworld? Why do some social workers´ consulting sessions seem satisfying to the teachers and others not? What happens when social workers´ line of thinking collides with teachers´ line of thinking?

I will give answers to such questions throughout this book, because here I present my investigations of when social workers in Denmark give consulting sessions to school professionals (teachers and pedagogues) on their concern for vulnerable children. Many social workers and school professionals have told me the school professionals´ outcome from such consulting sessions varied considerably. In some respects the consulting sessions inspire the school professionals with new ideas on how to work with the vulnerable children whilst in other respects the sessions seem rather to disturb the school professionals´ ideas as to their further work with the children. Both the school professionals and social workers told me that they could not figure out the reason for this variance. I therefore decided to investigate extensively the complicated dynamics of the consulting sessions and how they influence and inspire the school professionals´ intentions for their further pedagogical work with the vulnerable children. In this book I will present the results of my study.

Højholt (2001; 2006) and Nielsen (2001) criticise interprofessional work and research into such work for not sufficiently including the issues in the lifeworlds of vulnerable children; this is because those involved become too occupied with professional group interests, organisational structures and legal frameworks for work with such children. They argue strongly that future research must give more prominence to vulnerable children´s issues in interprofessional work and in research into this work. This criticism encouraged me to adopt a research approach based on Hannah Arendt´s theorisations that was sensitive to the issues of specific children in my investigation of interprofessional conversations.

As a part of my study I travelled to England and I chose to present one scenario from my Danish fieldwork to English professionals in a focus group interview. At the end of this book I will use the English focus group interview to highlight differences and similarities in how Danish and English professionals act in a school setting when they are concerned about a vulnerable child. Hence I will also provide an interesting but limited contrastive outsider view of the way Danish social workers´ consulting sessions are conducted.

The consulting sessions I will investigate take place in schools in Denmark. Therefore for my English speaking readers I will now provide a brief description of the Danish school system and the main professional occupations mentioned in this book.

The Danish “grundskole” is roughly the equivalent of a combined English primary and lower secondary school. Children enter these schools at the age of 5 or 6 and leave at 15 or 16. The first year the children are in a “børnehaveklasse” which in many aspects is comparable to an English “reception class” except that all children are obliged to start at the same time in the Danish “børnehaveklasse”. The reception class in Denmark in sometimes referred to as year 0. After the reception class the children will attend year 1 through to year 9. A year 9 diploma from a Danish “grundskole” resembles an English GCSE certificate. After the year 9 diploma young people can enter a “gymnasiel” education which leads to a diploma that resembles the English A-levels. The professionals working in year 1 through year 9 are traditionally trained as teachers, whilst the professionals working in the reception class year are traditionally trained as “pedagogues” (see below). However in this book I refer to them by their professional title of “reception class teachers” (“børnehaveklasse-ledere”).

Since 2001, social workers qualify by obtaining a 3½ year professional bachelor degree from a university college. The education is divided between learning in placements and in the university college itself. Major subject areas are social work (including social counselling), psychology, psychiatry, law and social science. Social workers are qualified to undertake professional employment in Danish public and private state-authorised social institutions, e.g. in municipal social service departments, job centres, street work with homeless people and work in drug rehabilitation programmes.

Since 2001, Danish pedagogues also qualify by obtaining a 3½ year professional bachelor degree from a university college, and the course is similarly divided between learning in placements and in the university college. Major subjects are psychology and pedagogy. Likewise there is a fair amount of education in sports, nature and arts and crafts. The students usually specialise in either special pedagogy, early childhood pedagogy or afterschool pedagogy. Pedagogues are qualified to undertake professional employment in Danish public and private state-authorised institutions, e.g. kindergartens, schools, afterschool, sport and play activities. They are also qualified for professional employment in special therapeutic institutions and in social community work.

Since 2001, teachers qualify by obtaining a 4 year professional bachelor degree from a university college. Here the degree course is also divided between learning in placements and in the university colleges, but the placement periods are much shorter than in the education of pedagogues and social workers. There is also a possibility to upgrade from another degree to become a teacher through a two year course, but this is much less common in Denmark than in England. Danish teachers have traditionally taught all classes from year 1 till year 9, although a recent educational reform aims to see the new student teachers specialising in two of the following three year ranges: years 1-3, years 4-6 and years 7-9. Teachers specialise in two to four main subjects and also receive education in psychology, pedagogy and methodology.

Now lastly in this introduction chapter, I will unfold the contents in the chapters.

In chapter 2 I unfold the Hannah Arendt framework. It is possible to skip this chapter if you are only interesting in the interprofessional working of teachers and social workers. In the chapter I explain why and how I have chosen to use Arendt´s theorisations to investigate the consulting sessions between social workers and school professionals. Then I present an in-depth introduction to Arendt´s three practical and three mental activities: labour, work, action, thinking, willing and judging (because Arendt defines these terms in her own unique way I have chosen to italicise these Arendtian terms every time I use them). Next I apply these practical and mental activities to my research on the consulting sessions. In this application I conclude that it is in particular the activities of action and thinking which are relevant for my research. In line with the scope of my research, I use action as referring to incidents in a consulting session in which the two professionals reveal and make use of their distinct perspectives on a common issue. Thinking refers to how the professionals after the consulting sessions let their representations of the other´s perspective interact with their own perspective.

In Chapter 3 I give an introduction to the field site and my fieldwork. This introduction serves as a framework for understanding the context of the data from the consulting sessions I analyse in the following three chapters.

In each of Chapters 4, 5 and 6 I analyse data from a set of interviews with a social worker and a school professional respectively; the interviews were carried out on the basis of my observations of how the social workers gave the school professionals consulting sessions on their concerns for vulnerable children. In the analysis I first investigate how the school professionals were influenced by having been given a consulting session on their concern for a vulnerable child in their class. Secondly I investigate how this influence is connected to what the social workers said at the sessions. Thirdly I apply theory from Hannah Arendt in order to reflect on how the interpersonal conversational issues raised in my analysis can be improved.

In Chapter 4 I analyse how Rie, a reception class teacher, was influenced by what Sara, a social worker, said when Rie raised her concern for six-year-old Jette who frequently displays an unusual sadness.

In Chapter 5 I analyse how Tine was influenced by what Sara said when Tine raised her concern for seven-year-old Amarjit who is generally passive and quiet in the classroom.

In Chapter 6 I analyse how Tanja is influenced by what Sigbritt said when Tanja raised her concern for Zhou whom Tanja thinks is being neglected by his parents.

In Chapter 7 I draw together the findings from the three analyses. Firstly I compare how the three school professionals´ perspectives on issues in vulnerable children´s lifeworlds were influenced by having taken part in a consulting session on their concern for a particular vulnerable child in their class. Secondly on an overall level I investigate how the influence on the school professionals´ perspectives is connected to what the social workers said during the sessions.

Chapter 8 gives the contrast of a Danish case to England. For this contrast I carried out a focus group interview in England in which I exposed different English professionals, who work with children, to the scenario with Amarjit in Denmark in order to find out how they would have acted if they had come across a girl like Amarjit who was remarkably passive and quiet. From this English contrast with the Danish scenario I conclude that, compared to the English setting as described by my interviewees, the Danish consulting sessions I observed do not seem to be excessively steered by standardised procedures and methods which according to Arendt limit the influence of interpersonal activities. However I also demonstrate that the English standardised procedures and methods appear more efficient in serious cases in which neglect or abuse must be stopped immediately.

In Chapter 9 I discuss the relationship between my findings and similar findings. I then draw my main conclusion which is that the consulting sessions influence the school professionals by enlarging their perspectives, but that the influence is limited compared to the potential of such sessions. I conclude further that in my research I have identified six reasons as to why this influence is limited. These six reasons all have their origin in the complexity of the interpersonal conversational dynamics in the consulting sessions. At the end of Chapter 9 I put the findings of my research in perspective by making some recommendations to municipalities that wish to embark on giving school professionals the opportunity to receive consulting sessions from social workers on their concern for vulnerable pupils.

Chapter 2: Hannah Arendt as a background blanket

In this chapter I will first briefly introduce Hannah Arendt and her authorship. Secondly I will explain why and how I have chosen to use Arendt´s rather old theorisations in my investigation of a contemporary interprofessional work activity in the Danish welfare state. This will lead to an in-depth introduction to Arendt´s three practical and three mental activities: labour, work, action, thinking, willing and judging. Thereafter the six activities will be applied to the interprofessional work activity of the consulting sessions between social workers and school professionals. Finally, I dwell deeply with the relation between action and thinking with the background on my context of the Danish consulting sessions. If you are only interested in the knowledge about interprofessional work then please browse swiftly through this chapter.

Hannah Arendt and her authorship

Hannah Arendt was born into a German Jewish family in 1904 in Linden and grew up in Königsberg and Berlin. Arendt studied philosophy with philosopher Martin Heidegger at the University of Marburg. She wrote her doctoral dissertation at the University of Heidelberg on the concept of love in Augustine´s writings and was supervised by the existentialist philosopher and psychologist Karl Jaspers. (Fry, 2022).

From her educational background it seems most natural to regard Arendt as a philosopher. But Arendt did not want to consider herself as such. Instead Arendt unconventionally labelled herself as a “political theorist” (Pahuus, 2010). This label tends to imply that Arendt is classified by discipline as a political philosopher. But in Miðskarð (in progress) I have demonstrated that Arendt is not a conventional political philosopher, as she frequently crosses over in her writings into other fields such as work studies, literature and sociology. Hence beside the area of political philosophy Arendt´s works are also used in the areas of work studies (e.g. Negt (1985), Sennett (1999) and Busch-Jensen (2011)), literature (e.g. Swift (2009)) and sociology (Bowring (2011)).

In recent decades Arendt´s works have furthermore been studied and used within many other disciplines than those mentioned above. For example, her writings are currently being increasingly introduced into the fields of social work (e.g. Dwoskin, 2003; Froggett, 2002; Stivers, 2008) and educational studies (e.g. Gordon & Gordon, 2001; Hansen, 2002; Hansen, 2008; Knutas, 2008; Lauritzen, 2010; Schutz, 1997; Schutz, 2001; Rodowick, 2021).

I will explain what Hannah Arendt is most known for: I) her concept of “the banality of evil”, II) her threefold division of practical activities and III) her atypical political philosophy.

It was in connection with her observation of the Eichmann trial that Arendt developed her concept of the banality of evil (Arendt, 1963). Briefly explained, the banality of evil refers to the fact that individuals can perform evil deeds without being truly aware of what they are doing. The explanation for this is that one is just following the ideas of a system instead of making use of one´s lived experiences with fellow human beings.

The second issue which Arendt is commonly known for is her practical activities of labour, work and action. I argue that these three practical activities must be approached in conjunction with Arendt´s mental activities of thinking, willing and judging. The reason is that the six activities together portray Arendt´s answer on how to bridge the gulf between theory and practice which she claims stems from Plato´s days and has survived to our present days (Miðskarð, 2010). Labour concerns people´s activity with recyclable earthly matters which needs to be carried out in order to survive as biological beings. Work concerns the activity in which people are creating a more durable world than the earth provides them with; the matter of work is non-organic matter. Action concerns how people act and speak with one another. In thinking individual persons temporary halt their participation in active life with the purpose of in solitude to think about their experiences with earthly or worldly matters or about their experiences from actions with other persons. Willing is an activity which needs the presence of more than one person. Arendt defines willing as the initiatives people embark on with a common intention. Similarly judging is an activity that only can be performed in a presence of more than one person. When people judge they reveal to each other how they take a stance on a common issue under discussion. Note that I use italics when referring to these six activities, because I constantly want to remind my readers that these terms have a specific Arendtian meaning which often deviates from our common connotations of the terms.

The third issue which Arendt is most commonly known for is her atypical political philosophy. The foundation in this atypical political philosophy is the public realm which she distinguishes from the sphere of intimacy, the private realm and the social realm. There is much discussion among Arendt scholars on how to understand these different realms, which I will not describe here. For such a discussion see for example Hull (2002), Benhabib (1992, 2003) and Berkowitz (2010). Here I will merely state that in accordance with Berkowitz (2010) I understand Arendt´s public realm as emerging wherever a person is discussing a common issue in the company of others. For her emphasis on the necessity of a public realm Arendt is famous for bringing ancient insights, in particular Greek philosophy, back to life in order to generate an alternative basis for society, which Arendt argues failed as totalitarian regimes rose in our modern age. Arendt´s idea here is that there is a similarity between our problems in the political world in the ancient age and in the modern age (Heller, 1988, p. 57). It is important to note that Arendt usually divides the history of man into three broad periods: the ancient age, the medieval age and the modern age. Arendt often refers to our present days as a part of the modern age (see e.g. Arendt (1958, p. 305) and Arendt (1978A, p.12)). However, sometimes Arendt argues that from the 1950s something new occurred and hence she labels these times as “the modern world” which is distinct from “the modern age” (see for example Arendt (1958, p. 321) and Arendt (1969, p. 29).

My above presentation of the three best known Arendtian issues demonstrates that Arendt deals with a variety of themes in her authorship: evilness, people´s typical practical activities and the foundation for a better society. I also show that she discusses these themes over a wide time range in our human history. A further important point is that Arendt writes her works in many different genres: philosophical works, essays, phenomenological analyses etc. Because Arendt´s interests are spread over a wide area and her works are written in many different genres, I have chosen to refer to “Arendt´s theorisations” instead of “Arendt´s theory” because in my view “theorisations” signals a looser structure whilst “theory” suggests a coherent system of thoughts.

Even though Arendt´s theorisations focus on a great variety of issues over an extensive time span, I will follow Hull (2002) who claims that throughout her multi-faceted authorship Arendt has one main message which is to stress the importance of people´s plurality and interaction. Arendt herself also seems to point out this theme of people´s interaction and plurality. Firstly, because she starts her first main work The Human Condition (1958, p. 8) by citing two statements from Ancient Rome: inter homines esse, which means being alive is the same as being amongst other people and inter homines esse desinere, which means that dying is the same as to cease to be among other people. Secondly, because recurrently throughout The Human Condition and her second main work The Life of the Mind (1978), Arendt stresses that “plural people” are first and foremost supposed to live in community with one another on a common earth or expressed with a more Arendtian phrase ´Not Man but men inhabit this planet. Plurality is the law of the earth´1 (Arendt, 1978A, p. 19).

Further I will clarify how Arendt´s main theme of plurality and interaction is present in the three Arendtian issues presented here. This can firstly be seen in that Arendt implies that evilness can be prevented by urging people to interact with one another in a deep and fruitful way. Secondly plurality and interaction can be seen in my argument that peoples´ interaction is a revolving point in Arendt´s three practical and three mental activities. Finally this main theme can be seen in that Arendt firmly argues that a better society must be characterised by conversations between people which are sensitive to the plurality of people´s diverse lives.

Arendt´s theorisations are multi-faceted and hence there exists an abundance of different interpretations which embed Arendt´s theorisations in different theoretical traditions. For example, Bowring (2011) embeds Arendt´s theorisations in a critical theoretical tradition, Honing (1992, 1993) in a post-structuralist tradition, Borren (2009) in a hermeneutical phenomenological tradition and Pahuus (2006, 2010) and Hinchmann & Hinchmann (1984) in an existential phenomenological tradition.

With inspiration from Pahuus (2006, 2010) and Hinchmann & Hinchmann (1984) I have chosen to interpret Arendt´s theorisations within an existential phenomenological tradition because I want to accentuate that the professionals´ identities, and hence the perspectives they adopt on various issues, are constantly developing as a result of how they choose to orient themselves in response to their ongoing experiences within their lifeworlds.

The existential phenomenological tradition focuses on human existence in the world we live in (Compton, 1997). Hence this tradition urges that a person always needs to be investigated as to how they temporarily choose to react to their experiences within their earthly surroundings, for example the house/cave in which a person lives, the trees the person walks among, the sky which the person gazes at and the others to whom the person talks (Valle, King & Halling, 1989, p. 8). This however is not to be understood primarily in a cultural anthropological way in which for example all people living in one specific city share certain similarities which are not shared by those living in another city. Rather a person´s local surroundings must be viewed as a manifestation of the general conditions of time and space of the earth - which however are always interpreted individually.

In Miðskarð (in progress) I have argued that according to Arendt one of the important basic human conditions for us to keep in mind is that all people are born on the same earth; Arendt labels this condition natality. I will further make use of how Brunkhorst (2000, p. 188) interprets the Arendtian existential condition of natality in the following way:

We can never choose the time, the place or the circumstances of our birth and life; nevertheless, we must make our own decisions and lead our own lives. To do this, we must interpret the particular world in which we find ourselves (whether it be the world of the Greek polis, the early American republic, or an advanced industrial democracy)

This quote illustrates that the focus of natality is turned towards how people must interpret and relate to their particular lifeworld. I find it important to underline that the focus is on people´s interpretation of their particular world in place of the wish to have an objective focus on the world itself. Furthermore, it is important to stress that Arendt´s main theme of plurality and interaction implies that it is crucial that individuals interpret their particular world in ongoing conversations with one another instead of merely relying on their own subjective interpretation. Arendt states that this is the only way people can get an enlarged view of the world they live in. Even though Arendt argues for borrowing insights from one another there is no doubt that Arendt maintains that individuals must primarily keep to their own perspective on things; however she also states that one only becomes aware of one´s own perspective in conversations with others (Miðskarð, in progress).

The existential-phenomenological tradition implies that in these Arendtian conversations people must start with concrete incidents in their common everyday life before they talk about more abstract things. Then with a strong emphasis on the interplay between people´s different interpretations of the concrete incidents, Arendt maintains that we as human beings together can improve our understanding and love for each other and for our common world (Young Bruehl, 2004).

Arendt maintains that it is possible to bring forward this love for our common world in our modern age even though she states that modern mass society has a serious predicament of “organised loneliness”. Arendt maintains that the “organised loneliness” is a result of an excessive focus on efficiency and in the name of efficiency we tend to reduce interpersonal meetings because they are too difficult and time consuming to conduct.

Hence Arendt´s authorship can be read as an extensive critique of civilisation. Arendt argues that it was this predicament of “organised loneliness” which was the foundation for the rise of the totalitarian regimes in our modern age (Berkowitz, 2010).

But Arendt does not only want to characterise the predicament of “organised loneliness” in our modern age; she also wants to contribute to an enhancement of people´s sense of community in this lonely age we live in. For this Arendt seeks inspiration from a wide range of thinkers and historical events. For example Arendt draws upon insights from thinkers like Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Machiavelli, Shakespeare, Kant, Kierkegaard, Kafka, Benjamin and Blixen and from historical circumstances like life in the Greek poleis, the French Revolution, the American Revolution and the space journeys in the 1950s.

For one of her most central concepts, namely action, Arendt in particular seeks inspiration from the underlying thoughts in the organisation of the Greek poleis (the small city states). Arendt argues that the ancient Greek poleis´ strength in creating a society in which all approved citizens were able to influence the affairs of the polis could be a basis for creating a society which is sensitive towards people´s plurality and their local surroundings.

But when Arendt so solidly seeks inspiration from ancient Greek culture there are many critics who claim that there is a strong elitist ideology built into Arendt´s theorisations, because it was only wealthy men who were approved citizens in the Greek poleis (Brunkholst, 2000). However, in my interpretation, Arendt does not incorporate into her line of thinking all underlying aspects of the organisation of the ancient Greek poleis. Rather I follow Johnson (2001) who argues that Arendt makes use of certain commendable insights from the ancient Greek culture whilst at the same time she discards their inbuilt inequalities by drawing in additional components from other thinkers and historical events.

However with regard to my stance critics like Bernasconi (2000) will rightly argue that an Arendtian fight against inequalities seems to be undermined in Arendt´s central message in the essay Reflections on Little Rock from 1959 (Arendt, 1959). Here she opposes state plans to end racial segregation in American schools by coercing black students into “white” schools. I do agree that it is striking that Arendt opposes this plan so strongly, but I do not think it implies that Arendt agrees with the inequalities. Rather I support Benhabib´s (2003, p. 146ff) interpretation of the essay. Benhabib (2003, p. 146ff) maintains that Arendt argues that it is unsustainable to attempt a quick remedy of such injustices with a purely technical solution of coercing black students into schools with white children. Arendt argues that it is more sustainable to focus on people´s ways of thinking because race thinking always comes before racism.

Furthermore one can critically question how I can use Arendt´s politically minded theorisations for research into interprofessional work conversations in a contemporary Danish welfare state setting as modern welfare states were not particularly well developed when Arendt´s main works were published in 1958 and 1978. In order to reply to such a criticism, it is necessary to unfold my existential-phenomenological understanding of “politics” in Arendt´s works, and to underline that this conception differs from the conventional understanding of politics.

Arendt states that the most important “political” feature is how people relate to one another: ´politics arises in what lies between people and is established as relationships´ (The underlining is Arendt´s accentuation) (Arendt, 1955, p. 95). Arendt maintains that the dynamics in how people relate to one another in an open public conversation are the same in whatever epoch we are investigating. Hence Arendt´s reflections about political conversations from 1958 and 1978 are also applicable to conversations between school professionals and social workers in the contemporary Danish welfare state. On this basis I choose in my investigations to view the conversations in the consulting sessions as an Arendtian political arena.

In order to define “politics” more specifically I have chosen to make use of aspects of Kateb´s (2000) interpretation of Arendt´s “politics”. Kateb maintains that Arendt´s “politics” concerns how people interact with one another – in particular in conversations. But Kateb urges that in order to categorise a common conversation as an Arendtian political activity there must be room for the participants to give their different individual opinions on the subject of their common conversation. Arendt claims that the goal of these political conversations is the same in the ancient age, the medieval age and the modern age and hence she can use for example insights from Socrates to advise us how to improve our political conversations in the modern age.

My definition presented above states that Arendt´s broadly defined term “politics” primarily focuses on the dynamics in peoples´ conversations. I thus follow Moran (2000, p. 290), who underlines that it is only secondary that Arendt´s theorisations help us to provide a systematic account of the nature of a particular state´s institutional settings of the conversations we are investigating.

Thus in my Arendtian political investigation of the consulting sessions I will primarily study the interplay between the professionals´ different perspectives in their common conversations on vulnerable children, which I understand and conceptualise as politics driven by people in interaction with one another. My study will then secondly give a characterisation of how much room there is for the professionals´ different perspectives in the consulting sessions in the setting of the contemporary Danish welfare state; for this I will use some additional contemporary Danish research literature, e.g. Bømler (2011), Larsen (2009A; 2009B) and Petersen (2008). Hence my study will provide a startling depiction of the circumstances of “political” conversations for professionals who work with children in the contemporary Danish welfare state, but there is no doubt that first and foremost my study is concerned with the more general interpersonal dynamics in the presentday consulting sessions between Danish social workers and school professionals (teachers and reception-class teachers).

Hence the strength of my Arendtian existential-phenomenological approach points towards a micro-analysis of the interactions between social workers and school professionals in order to shed light on the lives and problems of vulnerable children – and the understandings and actions the school professionals can develop in order to help the children better. This strength lies in the fact that my Arendtian approach urges me to bring solidly to the foreground the professionals´ different perspectives on real life issues in vulnerable children´s lifeworlds; Højholt (2001) and Nielsen (2001) claim this is often missed in contemporary Danish research and interventions in interprofessional work.

On the other hand this approach does not allow me a thorough investigation of the institutional and organisational structures which obviously also shape the conditions for the consulting sessions in the setting of the contemporary Danish welfare state. Hence my approach needs to be seen as a complement to existing approaches which mainly focus on the highly complex organisational and institutional structures in interprofessional work settings (e.g. Brandi (2007)).

Previously in this chapter I defined people´s conversations with room for different perspectives as Arendt´s “politics”. It further follows from the existential phenomenological tradition presented that such conversations must revolve around how individual people choose to respond to common human experiences in their concrete everyday life. Hence within an existential-phenomenological stance I will turn my further investigation towards Arendt´s six activities as they characterise the activities people do on this earth where they are bound to live.