Sarvodaya Methods Of Social Work

Special Articles / Shankar Pathak / Social Work and Social Welfare

In September 1964 the Gandhian Institute of Studies, Varanasi, appointed a Working Group consisting of Gandhian constructive workers and professional social workers with the purpose of developing a bridge between the two which might ultimately lead to the "fusion of the traditional concepts of social work as visualised by Mahatma Gandhi and the professional concepts of social work developed in the Western countries". The Report of the Working Group has already been published. The Gandhian Institute organised another seminar at Varanasi from March 20 to 22, 1967, to continue the dialogue between the two groups of social workers. The purpose of this seminar was to develop a greater insight in the sarvodaya methods of social work by making "a comparative analysis of some of the important techniques as practiced by a few outstanding leaders of the sarvodaya field". 

During the seminar a sentence in Prof. Dasgupta's paper led to a lively discussion. He had said that "the end of social work is the end of social work". This, Shri Dhirendra Mazumdar queried. “Is it possible, he asked, to conceive of a society at any point of time where there will be no need for social work?” He felt that whereas there could be an "end" of social workers in a particular community, he believed that in any society, however well-organised and developed, there would always be a need for social work. 

Acharya Ram Murti addressed a question to the professional group. He explained that the sarvodaya group makes a difference between welfare work and liberation work. Welfare work is in the nature of providing relief to people suffering from various problems. Liberation work refers to the total, fundamental change in social relationship and the institutional structure of society; it implies mobilising the people's power and leading a movement to break deadlocks created by powerful vested interests in a community. The Acharya asked: Are the professional social workers willing to lead or participate in such a people's movement? In reply, some pointed out that social action is a method of social work and the professional social worker is supposed to participate in a programme of social action. Dr. Ruby Pernell answered the question: Theoretically a professional social worker believes in participating and leading a movement or direct action programme. However, in practice, professional social workers are unable to do this because they are employees of government or government-aided organisations The service rules and their own concern for job security prevent them from participating in such direct action programmes.

Dr. Chatterjee's paper attempted to analyse the Gandhian concept of change of heart by comparing it with the theories of different schools of psychology. He pointed out that "to Gandhian logic, the change of heart was a total, revolutionary, cataclysmic event, encompassing the entire 'philosophy of life', so that all actions subsequent to the change of heart are in conformity with the radical change that has taken place at the core", Like professional social workers, Gandhians also believe that "mere intellectual acceptance, on grounds of logic, is not enough; the change has to be at the levels of emotions and feelings too-the involvement has to be total, at the cognitive, conative as well as the affective levels." According to Dr. Chaterjee, there is one essential difference between the Gandhian and the Freudian concept of personality change. In Gandhian technique, change of heart is sought through strengthening the control of the super-ego. The appeal is to the conscience. In Freudian psycho-analysis, normalization(change) is sought through lessening the control of a too severe and unrealistic super-ego. 

A major part of the discussion centred round the nature of identification with the people. Shri Dhirendra Mazumdar had stated in his paper that while working in villages, he noticed a certain barrier between him and the villagers. While they respected him, they did not accept him as one of them. In order to identify with the villagers, and to gain their acceptance, he changed his way of living to such an extent, that his own people called  him a "dirty person". The question was raised whether it is necessary to identify with the people so totally? The professional social workers, while agreeing about the value of identification with the people, did not accept the idea that they have to change their whole way of living as stated by Shri Mazumdar. They stressed the need for equality, respect for people, to meet the people at their own level of thinking and behaviour, and to understand the problems from the point of view of the people.

The concept of empathy was mentioned by one of the professional social workers, which was claimed to be similar to the sarvodaya concept of total identification with the people. However,there is an important difference between these two concepts, which was not mentioned during the discussion at the seminar. The sarvodaya group generally seemed to believe that in order to understand what problems mean to people, it is necessary for a social worker to live among them under similar conditions. Professional social workers feel that this is neither necessary nor desirable. It is not necessary because it is possible to identify with people and understand their point of view without living like them. It is not desirable because a social worker has not only to understand the people's point of view but also maintain the objectivity essential for an accurate assessment of the situation. Also, his helping role is more effective at a remove. The main features of the sarvodaya approach to social work could be summarised as follows: 

1. The goal of social work is the establishment of a classless society, where there will be no exploitation of man by man. 
2. Truth, non-violence, a belief in the innate goodness of man and his capacity to change are the basic values of sarvodaya group.
3. Simple, austere living and manual labour constitute the personal  armoury of sarvodaya worker. 
4. His approach to people is to stimulate and encourage them to work for their own welfare. He provides them with leadership and guidance when necessary. He does not tell them what they should do. In other words, he works with people and not for them. This is an important change in approach and was introduced by Vinoba. 
5. With a clear goal, a set of values, a code of living and an approach to work, a sarvodaya social worker develops his own methods of work based on his field experience. So, it is essential for him to evaluate his work from time to time to improve his methods of work. Thus, an objective appraisal of his own work or self-evaluation is characteristic of sarvodaya work. 

The sarvodaya workers have a strong sense of loyalty to the two great leaders-Gandhi and Vinoba, and this loyalty provides a sense of fraternity among them. Though the group might include many who idolise the two leaders, it would be wrong to believe that all of them have a blind loyalty towards them. A striking evidence of this was provided by the remarks of a wellknown sarvodaya worker: "Gandhiji failed in his work in villages near Wardha because of his wrong approach; is it possible to think of a completely non-violent society"? Comments like these indicate a critical attitude and not one of hero-worship. Are professional social workers free from hero-worship? Have we not put Freud on a pedestal and worshipped him far too long? 

A point was raised by Shri. Mazudar and some others belonging to the sarvodaya group: "Is it correct to distinguish the sarvodaya workers from the 'trained' social workers by describing the latter as professional social workers? All of us are professional social workers". There is some truth in these remarks.

Rooted firmly in native soil and drawing sustenance from it, the sarvodaya social workers have much to offer to the trained social workers. On the other hand, the sarvodaya social workers can benefit a good deal from the academic concepts and ideas drawn from various social sciences, and the systematic ways of working with people at various levels, of the ‘trained’ social workers. By drawing upon each other's knowledge and experience, and by frequent informal meetings and discussions at seminars, and joint action in the field, we can gradually hope for the emergence of a social work profession suited to the needs and conditions of our country.
Post-Script

​The hope expressed in the last sentence of the concluding paragraph above, has not materialised even after forty five years since that was written.

Subscribers please login to access full text of the article
New 1 Year Subscription to Digital Archives at just Rs.500

Book Review

Subscribe

Register