Tk€

cation,

of

fascination

You you

of

may simple:

of

we

ing strengths.

can

ships even

on

honoring

mon

tile

the

resources

strengths cies

in spective

axiomatic.

importance

In

the

reaching

trauma,

some

clients

shift S4rcijlrLs

the

exclusively

irons

practice

expect

will

will

be

of

the

sense,

with

strengths

Many

lore

and

an

Rally

clients

the

be

see,

way,

most

is

of

the

But orientation

in

enhanced and

your

pain,

with

exciting

discussions

of

exposed

a

their

Authors

of

way

their

approach,

the of

of

the

dramatic

innate

clients’

on

professional

humbled

sometimes

workers

both

are

this

or

approach

us

service

clients.

strengths.

that helping

hopes

and

work

own

dominantly

believe

little

principle.

clients

changes

to

wisdom

of

quality

we

trouble

interests,

Pp4v

means

inhibitions

schemes

is

departure

textbooks,

relying

to

and

of

and

of

more

think

to

hard.

used

be

we

issues assisting

social

(or

and

discover

dreams,

abused.

of

purposeful

of

in

this—everything

fall

you

Many

on

than

about,

heavily

daily

with

capacities,

In

have

the

the

their

of

related

work,

short.

from

problems,

the

see and educators,

assessment,

character

human

them

professional

When

a

help

and

life

of

at

social

approach,

chapters

variety

blooms

misgivings

on

conventional

the

Practicing

these

one

agents

for

embellish,

to

to

them

the

motivations,

you

spirit,

idea

achieve

moving workers.

them.

your

time

of

and

calls

of

ingenuity

of

you

that

find

methods

adopt

and

of

your

and

populations,

cant.

the

practitioners

eye

hope

believed)

and

Although

from

INTRODUCTION

building

to

do

follow,

their

explore

not

pathways

from

relate

social

inherent

It

work

the

attend

turns

as

society’s

So

and is

mere

resources,

and

a

of

Power

goals,

strengths

a

strengths

a

a

let

W 0 k

to

employment,

and

social

you toward

collaborative on

concentration

work

and

transformation.

creativity,

that

to

the

functionaries.

our

us

in

capacity

to

people’s

all

realize the

in

will

CHAPTER

exploit

domination.

recipe

a

be

DENNIS

those

clients. we

practice.

worker

the

variety regularly

and

approach

capacities

possibility.

perspective

clear:

encounter

are

in

tenor

their

emotions

goals,

the

for

is

clients’

strengths

examples

building

Rather

uncomplicated,

process

of

will

The

on

the

courage

transformation

Practicing

dreams,

of

It

acknowledge

circumstances. The

to

SALEEBEY

This

and

problems

and

is

your

be

In

strengths

practice,

descriptions

strengths

requires

an

in

than

People has

formula

the

predicated,

the

depending

competen

is

on

the

of

approach

and

relation

and

a

ONE thicket

become

payoff

focus

appli

from

client

versa

work

com

to

shed

that

you

per

and

as

the

of

is

a a

AND

THE

PATHOLOGY FASCINATION

as

emotional,

aspect

in-waiting.

ing

pathologies

orders

2000

sional

accompanying

DSMs

disorders

categories

psychiatric

psychiatrist,

Fueled

dominantly

ders

II

reimbursement

tal

casualties

chiatric

toxic

adies.

are

from

businesses

mality,

reaction

The

Criteria

were

nity

healing

of

2006).

Miller

communities,

the

based

Not

PRI

disorders.

by

in

of

(causality

books,

fields

added

experiences

have

impetus

the

development,

the

by Each elderly,

DSM

the

only

modest

Association

were I and

and/or

approaches

All

In

of

&

insurance In

a to

Sets

and

clutch

will

by

diagnostic

human

been

psychodynamic

I

bear

group

Emil

the

to and

mental III addition, Berg,

of

they

are our

IV

moral

of

the

manuals

included

weilness,

for

and Not

appear the

us, youth

I’IIIIA)SOI’IIY.

was documents

purposes,

WITH

TR past

cognitive

we this

a

culture’s

extremely professions,

(or

are

Kraepelin and

ever-growing

in

who

condition,

striking

these

it

1995;

existing

Axes

mesmerized

illness.

(Text

only

industry and

also

is

early

soon

seems,

to few

(APA) and

runaway

in

manual),

rapidly

schools

in

to

wanted practice,

and

between

PROBLEMS

interpersonal

positive efforts trouble,

Provided

Mills,

a

the

years, narrative

say

Revision). is

a

will continued

life. ills.

similarity

focus), having

It

successful

language, diagnosis

teaching

PRIN(II’IIS.ANI)

panorama

(who has

is

it

to

next

even

also

that

institutions developing

a

The be)

(Benard,

best

widely

the to

DSM

there

by

comes 1995; phalanx case

become reservoir

its

psychology,

people

emulate

over

DSM,

was we

of

less

for

human

mass

and

and Diagnostic

disease

sellers.

pages.

DSM

obsession

management

any

guides

to

DSM

III

are fashioned has

Parsons

Further

enterprises

intended aberrations.

of

time

than used,

story

from

were

the

media,

2004;

check

of the with had

number

in

literature,

of and

maladies. been

nature

the

V

The

and

DSM III

mental

strengths

[AN(JAUEOFFIIESIItINGI wrote

a

100

vulnerabilities

are primary

to

is

many

hundreds written

insurance

solution-focused

relentless

descriptive addictions,

agencies,

Study.

and was

&

disorder,

due

APA Clark,

with an

name the

turn

to

from

pages

highly

itself, Cox,

of

IV,

in

for

be eleven

increasing

Statistical

a

out A

back

health

sources,

inquiry,

emotional, handsome

particular,

If

sea psychopathology, has

descriptive,

by

handbook

published

Here

a

the

rapidly

perspective—developmental

the

each 1997;

you in

of

1994;

few.

as

lucrative.

many

change

march from

companies

put a

of

DSM

2010.

increasingly APA.

precision

pages

people

reflective

professionals,

handful

you

and

DSM

want

of

and the

but

Kretzmann

Manual Pransky,

interest proliferating

of

medicine

description

with profits

therapy,

toward have

lexicon. physical,

The

Each

weaknesses in

in

for

DSM of

us of

practice

to

not

with

IV

In

this

1994,

descriptions

of

have

and singular

the

a

anticipate

manual

of

a typically

the TR

analytic.

edition

variety

of

by

in

psychiatrists on

roster psychiatric

large

US

1998;

chronic

hemming victimization,

some

diagnosing

clarity

assets-based While

to The

been

developing

realm assuring

under

was

or turning

methods &

a I’I

of

pharmaceuticals,

timetable.

conglomerate

RSI’I

behavioral

editions

McKnight,

usually

itself

American importance

of

of has

Rapp

behavioral,

mental

designated followed

Many

DSMs

of

require,

what

client

of mental

diseases the

of

(1

new

mental

in

the

glossary.

us

and

profes

in

IVI

various

&

of

head resilience,

in

each

born

strengths-

of

that

more

disor

new

commu

a groups—

early

dis

abnor

Goscha,

The

I

men

the

pre

variety

Psy

mal illness,

and his

in

for

1993;

is

we

of

of a

become

and

painted

tive

deficit

are

papered

ful

prevails

of

orientation

lems,

practice

disease-

Sybil

the

of

and

the

ogy

beguiling of

realities

infirmity”

between and

lective Lianon

tural dren

swamis,

II (1

health

the

understanding

allocated for

individuals, IAPTER

their you

sanctions.

idea

language

become

as

enthrallments—and

The

The

pathologies,

Social of

gle

resourcefulness,

naïve human

that and

fixations.

As and

poor,

shape

To

the

pictures

comedies,

society’s

“master

over

listen

today,

around into

strengths

and

and

consequences

that

of

person

can

a

mental

lexicon

ministers,

make

they

ONE

find

Steve

future thrall

leaps

result,

(p.

when

abuse

the

with

to

a

work,

how capacity

disorder-based

most

individual

be

less

of

carefully,

have

thriving

but

ourselves

155).

groups

families,

the

of

And

tipped

these

despised, INTRODUCTION

statuses”

strength

of

Wolin

principal

is

health

from

of

of

more

that

and

check

than

others

the

they

of

people

clients

and

the

like

entered

the

addictions.

supposition

pathology

those

and

these

to

all

resiliency

can

helping

hope,

observations

in

problem of

a

they

metaphors

diseases;

replace

salutary

are

and

(1997)

repair

other

professions

you

out

kinds

past

selves.

regard

therapists,

the

and

and dripping

clients.

stand you

who

in

(Becker,

civic,

and

we alien

are

summarized

creativity,

movies, handsomely

might

vivid

can

other

thinking.

from

communities;

helping

in

resilience

will

those

help.

gives

cultural

experience

pathology inflicted

say

the

It

up

that

language,

paradigm

territory.

clients,

or

which

moral,

Kenneth

that

hear

is,

In

direction

to

but

and

harm,

experience

be.

pathology

with

this

deviant

is and

clients who

1963), blogs, some

The

voice

the however,

pathology

they

professions, competence,

the

not

not

It

Social

narratives

preoccupations

the

about

and

culture,

the

extreme,

is

on

how

They

below.

inner

is

are

diction rewarding

terminology

is

echoes

are

very

to to

of

hurt,

are,

Gergen

nascent

CDs—the

certitude

to

by

designations become

children;

captivated

residue

no

medical

neither

hurting.

a

callously

us

clients

sometimes

grope

strengths,

return

named. the

work

offering

to an

number

in

terminology

match

flattering

trauma,

are

as

foreswear

and

expedition

of

some

such two

that

and

a

has

and

(1994)

for

of

clients in

is

has

evangelism

business.

rapidly

categorical

regard

a

of

The

whole

nor

symbolism

for

Diagnostic

itto

paradigms

guide with

of a hot

the semblance

the

words

not

us.

just

disregard

designations

and

as

essential

conception

and

constructed

systematic,

negative

and

tones.

assumptions

the

is

balance

well.

like.

poisons

pursuit

casually

More been

sees

because protective

that

developing

the the

pageant

themselves, accelerating

it

neglect

into

and

our

risk

roles

to

Prodded

is

ascendancy

more

Tune Some

.

immune

the

in

imperative.

deny

fear

sophisticated our

thinking

way,

the paradigm,

.

standard

constructions

(risk

of

labels

is

of

of of

.

some

that developmental

avert

about they

We

of

inevitably

hard

result

may

weakness,

much

factors,

sounding

our

real

balance wounded

mundane

in

our

and

of

the

flawed

cultural

and

and,

by

believe

subsume

to

of

“cycle

and

have

these

to of wounded

to

our

even

pains

family

the

in

tenacious

these

and

talk

a

all of of

resiliency):

Talking

the

come

of

these

professionals

therefore, It

our

variety

how

glance

to

deficits,

or its unschooled

moral

this

kinds

is

psychopathol

preoccupations

suffer

assumptions

invoke and

vocabulary

acting,

shows

that

of

terminology contagion

that

and

in failure,

the

field.

to

weak.

background.

theory

all

by current

progressive

vocabulary

resources

turn

symbiosis

angry

inner

denounce

the

about

are

struggles

equation

tend

from

grip

of

defects

because

wounds

others

(p.

and

puni

often

prob

strug scant.

have

fate

gurus,

This

and

and

27)

chil

feel

and

to

and

col

cul

the

of the

sit

of 3

wholeness

cal/Rationalist”

ity

model

model sion,

tions

body’s

laments

viduals

their oppressed.

views seep

how

ronment.

about,

ing

(Gergen,

situation tainly

viduals regard

are

do

tral

alien

the

ailing

about

background,

ments vention

under

to I’

R

not;

and

know

and the

labeled, individual,

The

terms,

own

stimulate

reflecting into individuals

tors choosing

I

doctors

ical

I

that

and The

The

identification

I

cannot

and

innate

better

the

person

the

and

their

to

of

problems

the

resignation

inimical

and a

so

I

school

situation

more

for

the Furthermore,

and

knowledge

what its has

distinction

focus 1994,

I

cope

a

client, language

person IE

Under

expectations

either.

status.

profound

common

person’s

convey

their

mantle.

far

more

P1

than

individual’s

in

help

inclination

profoundly

fitness rather

the replaced

re-form

model

that

conscious

IILOSOPI

is

through

with on

p.

about

too

ways

attributions

see

right.

the

words

the

families—knowing,

of

feeling

They

becomes

being

However,

is

150).

widely

power

what

in

their

many

than

(Gergen,

of

A

clients

themselves

so

that

client’s

life’s

of

that character,

(Schön, and

weight

pessimism

patients.

the both

around

pessimism

IY.

person

these

by

Extraordinarily

bad

a

they

serve

anything

is

pessimism

retard

thought

to

of

embarrassed

of

we

back

PRINCIPLES.

process

understanding

influenced

power

if

identity.

individuals

the

influential

wrong

challenges

transform,

subtle

the dominated

not

that

oppressors creates

by

these

speak

hardly

of

labels

environment,

to 1994;

1983),

language

suffering

such

This

spontaneous in

power

physicians

these

physical

experiences,

of

Well

separate

and

and

ways

of

often

of

under and

labels

and

to

Paulo

to

words

have

representations.

is

give

a

Goffman,

as

surrender

are

negativity

some

AND

patients.

patients. once-foreign

how

by

of

kin refers

a wave

projected

doubt;

regenerate,

or

that finally,

possessed

materialistic,

brutish, by

common

reveals

of

from

self-enfeeblement—moral,

despairing have

my

their

it

to

the provide

(as

Freire

those

and

to

in

LANGUAGE

the

a

others

symptom

powerful

healing.

fields influence

and

those

of

profession

to

thought.

the

rehabilitate

insidious

in

knowledge,

schizophrenia

the

A

the

I.

imagery

scrutiny—including

an

and

what

1961;

it pessimistic

an

hospitalization)

who

on

the

are

in

larger

(1996) human

.

consequence as

a

sway

of of

need

uncanny see

by egregious

.

his

and

them increasing

measure

(p.

views,

am

client’s

of

medical

degraded—certainly

the

their

To

social

enough

suffer

these

health

OF

Scheff,

and

Once

demons.

them.

own

64)

subject

natural

potential,

when

working

for

heal

of

of

the

THE

maintained

matter

service

by

themselves.

syndrome.

professional

tormentors.

disease,

aspirations,

the

physicians

models

work

expectations

labeled

profession,

these

extent

for

and

patients

capacity

of

itself.

STRENGTHS

In

to hexing—dire

I

becomes

doubt

1984).

dependence,

is

hear

healing oppressed

of

Nonetheless relief

better

create

is.

the

to

the is

professions,

implacable

repeated

practice.

the

“ailments”

require

In that

at

disregard

the

and

a

about

long

human

problem

and

These

for

psychological,

schizophrenic,

biomedical for

Inevitably,

to least

addition

rather

to

anxiety,

Andrew

a

myriad

and

slowly

these

cynicism.

relationships

medicine,

cope

many

schizophrenic,

PERSPECTIVE

use

the

some

run,

of,

begin

instruction

the

over

The in

moral.

people’s

medical

are

becomes

than

beings.

possibilities

extreme

they

of

and

the

labels

from

ability impact

terms

with

the

ways

these

years

fear,

suffering recede

labels

not

biomedical Weil

making

time,

to

functional

conversation

worse,

model—a

predictions

Accentuat

do

“Techni

Those

subjugate

about

value

those

that

in

depres

take

predic

capac

changes of

and

Social

other

in

of

that

care

create

the

(1995)

are

to

with

on

which

into

med

social

doe

indi

envi

a

thit

alter

indi

civil

hold,

for

the

once

who

who neu

the cer

the

con

iii

ele

the

the a

also

might or

hence client

are

mistakes.

economic—and

important

into age

collaboration

tution

ical of,

case—assembling

(Rogers,

apist’s

the

ships

ones

clients,

In lied helpers.

niques helper

under %hips

person-in-context, altitude

tndividuals

at

inerce

work’s

in

11A1’TER

for

indicate

therapist.

individualistic

the

cases,

least

mandates

one

well

generally,

become the

Context-stripping:

role,

vis-à-vis

The

and

The

because

to

to

example, ized,

idates,

If

congruence,

Distance,

in

end,

dire

and

with

to

Miller

a

continuing

follow

salvage

The

ignore

act

among

1961, takes

Distance

reveal

ethos

which

elements

therapist.

we

surest

connoisseur, ONE

or

apply

who

important

circumstances.

helped.

the

of

They

or

as

theories

between

normative

irony

often

more

of

the

the

the

orders?

finding p.

and

upstages

how

wants

of

contextual

was

sites

the

DSM

client’s

INTRODUCTION

a

many

many

any

power

route

is

treatment

284).

small

the client.

must,

a

rather

social

itself,

here

see

like

abiding

colleagues

beguiling.

acceptance,

emphasis The

.

of

the

Carl

portfolio

they

of

. person

to

that

resources

agency,

client

IV

What

suggests

and

agencies,

only

the to

an

each

the

be

understanding

the

portion

inequali1

specific

position,

is

Denying

to

idea

view

work

than

“[T]he whether

contribute

Rogers.

TR

detachment

appropriate focus

that, reminded

allows

information

not

some

client’s

client,

distinctiveness

grandparent

them

we

and

other

is

that

or

on

on

may

ecological

may

truly

But

or

profession

(1997)

come

in

of enmeshed,

for

and

the

on

client

degree,

problems

problems

the

helper.

the

the

the

implies

and

resistance”

may

we

This

making

the

self-respect.

and

strike

in

control,

help

become

life—cultural,

of

deficits

juvenile

unique.

to,

empathy.

client

elements

client

power

to

have

how

some

distance

failure,

diagnostic

and

say

imply

should

that, less

of

is

call

sustain,

of

and

have

that

a

accounts

what

the

a

of away

no

empirically

this:

well and

further

a

thinking

and

created

resistance

distinctive. and

and

case and

although of

All

way

fugitive

transformation

justice

the kind

the

criticized,

way

a

may

web

been

experience

As

context. It

of

disorders

power

of

he

as

and they

individuals

the

manipulation

from

pathologies

client’s

individual

is

we

it

social

niche

of

such,

class,

appear.

of

blow said

medleys

of

not

successfully

of

may

social, from

possibility

shape

about

code. “saving

really

fit

depersonalization

may or

institutional

not

its

inequality

clients.

enough grounded

and

In

Problem-based

about

into

some

point

for

to

control

irrelevant.

privileged

create

avowed

and

the

salient

After

doing

sometimes

or

a

Furthermore,

helping

the judged,

do

in

political,

the

of

a

suffering

face”

as

person’s

perceive

tend

identity-stripping

cases of

the

this category.

the

not

possibility

When

mark

singular

well

all,

that

individual,

distance

for

view

communicated

embodied

this,

to

profession’s

between

or

or

and

qualities

particular

individualize. to

or

even

and

relationships

our become

these knowledge,

rebirth

In

as

upholding theoretically

the

reflect

made

promote

is

we

we

misery

ethnic,

from

historical

something

problem discussing

interpersonal

wrong,

assessment assessments

In

if

deficiencies.

relationship

is

selectively

the

between

transform

of not

conditions

this

to

helper

the

thus of

in

bipolar the

impossible

and

milieu.

partnership

legal

feel

or

already

spiritual,

both

these

increasing

dignity.

the

somehow

way,

client’s

building

to

struggles descriptions

solving.

making

renewal

interest

institutional

Rather,

that

and

of

potent

and

portrayal

the

and

clients

“resistant”

the

disorder

scheme,

It

we

destroy relation

persons

encour the

demoral

you

exist

healthy

relation

between

might

client”

Such

(p.

helped.

attempt

simply

polit

insti

miss

ther

and

inval

of

and

in

the

tech

we

have

corn

even

12)

or

and

in

the

a

an

of 5

CONCEPTS, THE

6

STRENGTHS

realities

the

I

tific

finding

ence.

share

in

all

similar

they

values

evance.

matters

fessional

solution devise

choices,

conditions.

want come

1989). mutually

ety

relief.

between

tual of

out

morass

riences,

Naming

i\RI

making

strengths

clients’

AND

all

sense,

of

of

can

avenues

Finding

inally stantly

We

literary

They

our

to

I

out

Remedies

involved—the

do

familial But

other The

of

Schon

the

questions,

such

pertinent

Relevance

discuss

of

I

get

are

but

the

the

the

and

PRINCIPLES

day III

crafted daily they knowing

of

finding

meaning

PERSPECTIVE:

to

seemed unique

hands

uncertainty

supposition

require

perspective,

employing

artfully

it?

Although I’IIIWSOPHY.

atmosphere,

words

continuing

on

nature idea

poison

interpretations

the bury

for

actions,

(1983)

want

and

life.

How

two

intuition,

words

in

constructs

transformation

of

of

cause to

these

dull

as

attributes,

of

cultural

asks and

that

shaping

of

the

and

to

leads

the

major a

them?

do

capacity

answers

has

the

language

the

regression

or

maximize?

these

and

they

that

lifeworid

doing

of

tools

but

reflect

person,

for

they

dialogue

making

these

we

PRINCIPLES.

incoherent.

characterized

social

problem

to

tacit

disease

philosophical

material complexity

celebration—of

in What

shout media

live

that

an

may

depends

see under

expositions

abilities,

draw

the

questions and and

to

genuine

knowing,

antidote.

PHILOSOPHY,

family

and

worker

sense.

may

and

their

make

usually line

the

context

with

do

have

for

How resources

this

assumes

(is

the

into

near,

(cited

AND

breathe

reality

they

healing.

only

it

change.

between

situation—problems

not

interesting

the

weight

more

and

and that

Iris

story

possibility the

have

natural

the

and

of

LANGUAGE

But

principles

of

move

begin

hunches,

in

are

want?

situation

on

be

us:

Murdoch

competencies,

friends,

power

is a

tension

of

promise.

the literature,

Mattingly,

for

the

form.

reflective

they

in

good

cause

a They,

tentative

of

the

the

To

cause,

or

the

sometimes

us

with

strict

change.

client

a

forms

What

human

unnatural?

managed

what

lived

So medico-scientific

a

and

to

world

and

for OF

as

and

between the for

step

rightly

reinterpretations

in

said

we

disease,

transform

relationship

THE

a

out

1991,

a

this

hope

one

do

experience

extent

a

conceptual neighborhood—the

and

with

the

way

There

degree

toward

are

way

condition.

of

of

that

STRENGTHS

they

numbing

and

client,

to as

as

enough,

disorder

p.237)

human

provisional.

experience

all

is,

of spiritual

the

clients.

as

survive

and

that

are

well

when

are

the

in

staking

literary need?

of

word-users

a

usual

clients’

at

clients

a

deeper

many

of

cure

reflection,

between

world

between

as

risk

relationships

model

and

modest It

this

also

we

These

and,

people,

or

PERSPECTIVE

thus

possibilities?

also

How

of

which

conception

artists,

out

ignores

usually taking

mundane?)

return

cultural

time,

suppose

the

understandings,

consulted

The

of

appreciation

thus,

is

we

far?

happens

the

renderings

daily

do

and

rigor

their

problem

to

perhaps

and

problem

the

we

all

capacity

under

claims

inter

they

These

(Saleebey,

home

complex

the

a

unscien

exist

and and

perhaps

are

lifeworid

interest

and

solution.

experi

linkages

of

steamy

to

and

about

What a

think

orig

con these

expe

spiri

pro

and

in vari

and

rel

and

of

that

take

are

of

to

a its

of

simple

empowerment—the

surmount

ventional

the

circumstances,

to

hopes

is cisely

ily,

lived

death,

(1996),

a

he

tion

lenges

pressure

simply

and

Ihe

abides.

the

adversity

people.

crush

contingencies

longing

and

ulous

liantly

CHAPTER

Liberation

Liberation

the

be

oppressive

new

heroic—human

modest

or

social

interests

unleashes

a

find

action

on

Assume

flicker

I

as

we

ity could

the sion.

But

and,

things

the

community.

part

powers

and

commitment.

to

would

play

that

It

an

the

some

about

of

cannot

adversity.

wisdom, for

on

the

rousing

expression

great

the

down,

ONE

worker

is

dreams.

and

To

degrade

of

ontological

the

he

whether

is

edge

he

their

of the

incumbent

the

conventional

like

attempt

work,

something

and

attempt

go

and

that

even and

founded

reduced

struggle,

unassuming.

to

human

pedagogue and

had

us.

possibility

so

INTRODUCTION

repressive

to

heroic:

trying so

of

roles,

develop

of

to

potentials.

purposes

moral

mLlch

all

energy.

stand

All

Circumstances,

This

conceptions

previously them.

Empowerment:

This

with

heart far

or hope,

pursued

find

need

Hope

to

in

to

humans,

need,

to

energy

abusive

as

is

on

pay

out

do around

do

life-affirming

on

as

all

to

calculated good

that

ways up

imagination,

tantamount

is

of

to

Somewhere

and of

their wisdom,

of

without

the

that

without

critical

start

and

the

new

transcend

their

inclinations

may

demands

a

and

We

the

of

say

tapping

Some

liberation.

in

surpasses

valuable

and

vulnerability, idea

intentions,

underestimated

for

healer,

somewhere

can

others.

powers,

relationships,

the relative

the

work

are

may

behaviors,

be

that

occur

that

taxes,

this

spirit,

hope.

thinking, hope.

acts

counted.

are

struggle.

and

of

belief

ignite

bad

people

to

the

an

into try

may

that

circumstances,

possibility:

penchant within,

ways.

denying

the the

muted,

within

and

Heroism

Nonetheless,

alone,

new

Paulo

anchoring

urge

the

tranquility

to

out

of

in

central

which

luck,

critical

the

tamp

we the

in

humane nurture

humanitarian

overcome

the

or

stifle

institutions

petty

within,

new

(pp.

ways

All

and

possibility

of

the

visions

and

Of

entertaining are or Freire,

fire

the

sensing

unreali,ed,

and

struggle

unfortunate

that

is the

out

course,

too

dynamic

a

for

8—9)

thinking,

their

course,

possible

behaviors,

based

policies,

privileged interests

parameters

of

it in

purely

of

and

the

and

we

struggler

power

or

leader,

have this

oflen

the

is

practice.

being

and

wrote

hope.

adversity,

however

opinions.

in

opportunities

to

may

often

to

and

emancipate

on

and

possible

Hope

and

yearning

may

grievous

scientilic

impulse, the

the

things

develop

improve

social

of

and

of

is

the

new

the

of

and

the

in

circumstances

using call

decisions,

as

forge

individuals.

the

purpose,

to

central

promise

hope.

urge

smother .

a

self, his

of

need

immanent.

one questioning

.

shaman,

doing.

do—are

fragile

ideas,

muted, Liberation

.

it

strengths

institutions,

to go

one’s

and

last

Without

or

circumstance.

a

the

approach. new

by

to

ones

of

the

to

stand

for

more these

more

to

distort

be ftr

book.

its

unimaginable

shape

dilierent

of

world,

escaping

challenges

But

ability

these.

truth

daily

relationships,

the

one.

liberation.

this

mainstays...

designed heroic:

the

that

choice,

OWn

Collectively,

up

Others

a

smoothly

powers

perspective

generous

liberation

Pedagogy

exerts

of

harshness

inininium

as

and

and

it

teacher,

and is

precious

as

life

oppressors,

individual,

Liberation

Nonetheless,

to

authority.

so

powers,

an

a

names,

if

the

to

frivolous

realize

survive

and

be

commitment,

conventions,

glimmer

We

that

ethical

that

to

tremendous

to

or

transcend

Before

drudgery

counted,

to

the

fund

unleash if

may

and,

have

may

that

of

or

otHoiw

struggle

it

I

craving

of

survive

is

H

people lies

to

lihera

serves

their

con

hope.

make

qual

him

chal

lope.

and

and

other

pre

illu

life

also

yes, may

lace

be

bril

of

fab—

his

the

it 7 PART I THE PHILOSOPHY, PRINCIPLES, AND LANGUAGE OF THE STRENGTHS PERSPECTIVE

communal spirit, giving help to a friend, volunteering in a community, withstanding a stress ful situation or dread disease with dignity and resolve, or holding the hands of those who are marginalized, isolated, or belittled. The heroism of everyday life is all around us. People carrying on in the midst of mind- searing stress; people coming to the fore when the needs around them require someone to act and to act out of the ordinary; people whose moral imaginationallows them to see, even in dis tant and unfamiliarplaces, the utter humanityof those who suffer(Glover,2000). 9/Il is a hor rific but instructiveexample. Fire and police personnel, rescue teams, the people who risked their lives and faced serious harm in helping to clear away the hellish debris (Langewiesche, 2003), social workerswho met with survivorsand witnessesto help ease the psychologicaland interpersonalwreckage of the trauma; people trapped in the inferno, facing certain death, who called their loved ones to tell them goodbye and to express their love: Many of these pushed the boundaries of the heroic outward and upward. Clearly, the destruction wrought on that day was a deliberate, heinous, and murderous crime. But even on the other side, given their point of view, the terrorists thought themselves to be heroic. In a letter to his wife, speaking of his certain death, one of them wrote, “. . . Know that my death is a martyrdom, my impris onment hermitage,my exile tourismin God’sland.I wouldliketo meet you in heaven,so please help me by waking up at night to pray, fasting during the day, and staying away from tempta tion” (Cullison,2004, p. 66). Obviously,we are required here to make a moraljudgment about the lethal and vicious acts they committed against us, but we must also look through their eyes to understand more fully the meaning of heroism for the human condition.

Alienation and Oppression: Anxiety and Evil The circumstances around us will not let us deny the existence of harsh and tyrannical insti tutions, relationships, circumstances, and regimes. Bigotry, hatred, war, slaughter, repres sion, and, more quietly but no less devastating, setting people aside, treating them as the despised other, and acting as though they are not fully human, are all daily reminders of the existence of evil, brutality, and despotism. But why is the capacity for evil the seeming com panion to the urge to the heroic? How often do we stand, agape, horrified at what we see or hear about or read about? Viciousacts of cruelty, violence born of intolerance and hate—how can they happen, we cry? Yet,aren’t there times when we have been propelled to act or have been a party to actions that haveinflictedemotionalor physicalpainon others,oftenthosewhoare differentfrom us?Why? We are small, and vulnerable. The cosmos is enormous. We tremble at the insignifi cance and frailty of our being when cast against the magnitude of time and the vastness of space. At times, our fear and trembling is best handled by taking matters into our own hands, individually or collectively, and dealing the instrumentalities of fear and loathing onto oth ers. Thus we subdue our own uncertainties and obscure our cosmic smallness. It may even be that some of these acts of violence or marginalizing are “immortality projects” designed to blind us to the reality of our own organismic vulnerability and eventual demise (Becker, 1973; Fromm, 1973; Rank, 1941). But from the ashes of destruction, mayhem, and oppression may emerge the human spirit, the capacity for the heroic. So we can never dismiss the possibility of redemption, resurrection, and regeneration. However, the sweep of history, the grandeur of wholesale

i

lll’:

LKXICON

better

dynamic

spective

the

strengths

a

that

to

examine

words

guage

these

were

about

“We

tral

mind

porting

comes

revise

ing worker

astation,

grieving,

had young

father.

six

the gone.

and

mother school

These

is gle

profound work

creation

CHAPTER

practice

assets

becoming

clients

to

months

an

mother

mother

hurt

can

These

left

A full

words

future

devoted

conceptions,

are

and

We

a

their

for.

The

to

girl

impressive

She

sweeping

simple

can

OF

an

must

is

of

strengths

our allows,

approach

them

act,”

of of this

her.

actually

and

experiencing

a

ONE

plummeting,

have

The

think

words

speaks

strengths

effect

orientation

mother

had

personal

ago.

do

or had

words

be part

and

individuals, special

STRENGTHS and

dictionary

young

make

Never!

destruction

to morose,

quality

wrote

in

mother

found

[emphasis

device

experienced

seen

but,

INTRODUCTION

vowed daughter.

of

You

of

her

the

dire

on

have

generalities

perspective.

a

helping

to

capture,

themselves

wonders

“as

lode

the

an

designs;

language

girl’s

she

strengths

discovery

the

meanings

10-year-old

spend

that

William

practice,

And

in

financial

of

is

alliance

to

for

f

power.

of

uncommunicative,

nutriment

to

and

rage,

Figure

of

says.

way

families,

worried.

there

life.

strengths

the

added

helping

herself eventually

Eventually,

spirit,

she

clients

framing

considerable

technical

I

friends

physical if

lay

preoccupation

that

think,

and

in

occur

her

that,

James

of

some

They These

were

maintained

and

and

and

straits.

with

1.1.

I

spite

plans against

daughter.

individuals

make

Her

never

grow,

daughter’s

that

and

we

feeling

to

how

narratives.

as

articulation

in

and

seem

a

the

this

in

words

can

see

and

are find

and

regard (1902)

daughter,

God: of

well

communities. you

the

feeds

It

as

the

a

they

to

develop,

remembering

core

time

all

the

what

tiny, had

elevate

genuine

meant

sexual

unimportant

i/we

the

their

theoretical

end,

tell

her

They

discover

small

anxious,

as

are

feel

odds,

financial

act. with

one’s

clients,

and been

current

over

in

values

wounds

amazing

a

our What

anyone!

vow

essential

way

were

may

once

lies

statement

as

to

reflecting

depredation

have

Not

confines

and

change

groups

difference

flourished.

problems

the

words

a

give

if

sense

until

in

that

into

marriage

follows

and

have

we

of their

sweet

woes

to

only

inspire

hardships

next

come

writing,

of

hope

to

the

soul.

Never

you

be

the

were

for

and

the

he

of requires. weepy.

portend

directions, her.

violation.

a of

that,

world,

of

weeks

essentials

aren’t

immortal;

upon

and

strengths

and

a a

self

to

pronounced

and

left.

is

in

direct nooks

and

daily

or

the

Now

Father

vital period

free:

of

to

the

a

may

our

our

compliant,

demoralize

maybe

possibility;

brief

pathologies,

youthful

let

Now

lmmanuel brutality The

then

principles

related

exploring

for

and

timily

life

the

sense

consider

professional moral

us

and

But

him

be

realize

left

of

clients.

of

and

glossary

quality

lexicon. their

to

we

she

mother

as

less

it

almost

crannies

in

the

know

an

the

to

effect

of

well.

is

service

life”

are

we

misjudgments,

at

ajoy

was

the

his

the

troubles.

appreciation

better

of

what

their

fruitful

the

and Kant’s

nature

family

strengths

the

Any

compelled find

while

of

and

(p.

ashes

of

practice

how

The

You

situation

leaving

two

falling

on

vision diction

tohe

hands

destroy.

her

of

a

visions, agency

terms

approach

55).

that

then

the

the

frame

as

years

central see

suddenly

our

much

notions

produc

when

of

work

In

around.

if

social

he

of

Lan

per apart.

of

way

about

cen

a

that

sup

has

dev

lives.

the

she

with

of

you

to

sin

her

has

the

a

If

the

of

or

he

it

at 9 10 PART I THE PHILOSOPHY. PRINCIPLES. AND LANGUAGE OF THE STRENGThS PERSPECTIVE

C R

Where C stands for: Competence,capacities, courage

And P symbolizes:

Promise, possibility,positive expectations, potential

And R signifies:

Resilience,reserves, resources,resourcefulness

FIGURE 1.1 Essentials of the Strengths Perspective Thanks to my daughter Meghan for suggesting this. Plasticity (and the Placebo Effect)

It is a miracle of the brain that it “never loses the power to transform itself on the basis ol experience and that the transformation can occur over short intervals.. . . your brain is dii ferent today than it was yesterday” (Restak, 2003, P. 8). It was once thought that after ado lescence the brain is pretty much a structural monolith, hardly changing. But now, thanks to sophisticated imaging techniques, it is clear that the brain, in ways minute and substantial. continually undergoes change. Most of these changes take place at the synapse (the place where neurons communicate with each other) and are the result of experience and learning or simply one’s current state of mind (LeDoux, 2002). These relationships are, at one site or another, in flux and are the basis of plasticity. Therefore, we have a marvelous capacity to alter, extend, and reshape behavior, feeling, and cognition. Of course, much of what hap pens here is beyond our conscious recognition. The placebo effect has been long noted (even before modem medicine, although it wa not called that). In contemporary usage it refers to a phenomenon in the clinical trials of van ous medical procedures and medications. Typically, one group is given the actual drug and anotheris givenan inertsubstance(althoughnow it is becomingmorecommon to givea placebo : that does provoke side effects so that people are less likely to guess they are being given thc placebo). Neither the administrators of the drugs and placebos nor the “patients” know which

is which. A drug’s power is thought to be measured in the extent to which it is superior to ilie-’ I placebo in promoting the appropriateeffects. In many clinical trials of psychoactivedrugs it i not uncommon for 40 to 60 percent of the placebo group to experience the therapeutic out come provided by the drug. And we do not really know how many of the people who get the actual drug experienced a placebo rather than a drug effect (or some combination of the two Recently,four physicians, using the Freedom of InformationAct, were able to get the result’ of clinical trials done over the last fifteenyears from the Food and DrugAdministration (FDA) for sixof the mostpopularantidepressantdrugs. Pharmaceuticalcompaniesconduct clinical in als and then send the results to the FDA. Until then no one had access to the results of the%c (IIAPTERONE INTRODUCTION 11

trials, so we had to take the drug company’s word that its drug is effective.These researchers conducted meta-analyses of the clinical trials and found, no matter how generous or conserv ative their statistical analysis, that there were no clinically significant diftèrences between the placebosand the drugs (Kirsch et al., 2003). Whateverelse this means, it does, I think, bespeak the power of hope, positive expectations, and belief in the healing ministration, It seems odd that we would not have made more of the placebo effect (even if it is only a short-term one).

Empowerment

In danger of becoming hackneyed, empowerment indicates the intent to, and the processes ot, assisting individuals, groups, families, and communities to discover and expend the resources and tools within and around them. Rapp and Goscha (2006) argue that” [tjo be empowered’ a person or group requires an environment that provides options and ascribes authority to the person to choose” (p. 27). It also requires, they suggest, that a person must be aware of those options, have the authority to act, and must have the resources and abil ity to act on them. Finally, empowerment only becomes a transformative phenomenon when it is constructed through dialogue and action. Todiscoverthe power within people and communities,we must subvertand abjure pejo rative labels; provide opportunities for connections to family, institutional, and communal resources;assail the victim mindset;foreswearpaternalism;trust people’sintuitions,accounts, perspectives,and energies; and believe in people’sdreams. Barbara Levy Simon (1994) builds the concept of empowerment with fivenecessary ideas: collaborativepartnerships with clients and constituents; an emphasis on the expansion of client strengths and capacities; a focus on both the individualor family and the environment;assuming that clients are activesubjectsand agents; and directing one’s energies to the historically disenfranchised and oppressed. Pursu ing the empowerment agenda requires a deep conviction about the necessity of democracy. It requires us to address the tensions and conflicts, the institutions and people that subdue and limit those we help, and compels us to help people free themselves from these restraints (Pin derhughes, 1994).Too often, helping professions (although social work has been very wary of falling into this trap) have thwarted this imperative by assuming a paternalistic posture, informing people about what is good for them and exhorting people to do the right thing. The strengths approach imposes a different attitude and commitment. The strengths of individu als and communities are renewable and expandableresources. Furthermore, the assets of indi vidualsalmostalwayslieembeddedin a communityof interestand involvement.Thus, the ideas of community and membership are central to the strengths approach.

Membership To be without membership, writes Michael Walzer, is to be in a “condition of infinite dan ger” (1983, p. 32). To be without membership is to be alienated, to be at risk for marginal ization and oppression. People need to be citizens, responsible and valued members of a community. To sever people from the roots of their “place” subverts, for all, civic and moral vigor. The strengths orientation proceeds from the recognition that all of those whom we serve are, like ourselves, members of a species, entitled to the dignity, respect, and respon sibility that comes with such membership. But, too often, people we help have either no place to be (or to be comfortable) or no sense of belonging. The sigh of relief from those who come to be members and citizens and bask in the attendant rights and responsibilities,

12

any

stressful parents

problems.

abused, any nities

age human

A

Resilience

of

development

Lisbeth

stream

School

world. their

membership struggle assurances

writes

membership PART

growing

community

population

misfortune 70

I

Much

needs

do

solving

You strengths—whether between

Community

and gram,

lies, The

gizing

in classrooms

hope,

and

is

Despite

eloquently

to affairs

who

He

is whose

THE

in

Schorr

times

experiences,

not

with

surmount

75%”

priorities.

never

their

can

same

and

the describes

.

body

and

more

and of

PHILOSOPHY.

a were

.

met,

place

of

abilities—are

and

—more

the

projects

place

the

of

is

building—empowerment,

South

see

organizations

the

this

parents

of games,

likely

now

(1997)

children

very

kind securities,

(Benard, that

crisis

isolation

an

of

with

that

building..

to

children

seriously

ignorance,

about

as

that

neighborhood

literature

Community

and

outlook

of

inquiry and

redress

people

well,

places

of

Bronx

far

to

even

of is

to

their

it

sorrow,

the

divorced,

says

all

trustful

then

overcome

the

that

afflict

is

and

these

they

from seek

PRINCIPLES.

and

2004,

although

seen

ingredients

a

over

that

is

ongoing

than

voices

mentally

lived

of

and

this

do within

is

place

people

uncomplicated inequities,

.

adults.

documents

hostility,

betrayal

are

the

out

is

the

but

make

one

refuge,

children

as

research

building

energy

rebound

an

more

this

about

p. and

practice

found

who

experience

the

first

central.

of

at halls

and

activity.

serious

the

such

the

7).

The

must ones,

AND

it

least

country. priest irresistible

the

that

ill

an

breath

faced

than of

their

These in

neighborhood. lack

burdens resurrection,

is

successful

of

addresses

and

orientation

and

and

has

from

reality place.

and

systems

poured

churches,

may

membership, LANGUAGE

the

(pp.

often

makes

during

do

St.

can

It

joy.

and

do

of

questions

so

found

abandonment,

catalyzes

these

of

to

demonstrates

strengths

of

not

361—362)

be

percentages Ann’s.

serious

In

regard,

often

not.

For

that

forth.

Here,

people, band

vitality

of

troubling

reach

empowerment.

suggested

into

the

it

outside

her

the

lead

community-building

segregation

findings

block

grown-ups

to

than

clear

In

they seem

OF

and

hours

developmental

together

community-building

As

be

investigation

It

and

a

Mother

most

trouble,

their

and

inevitably

and

perspective and,

THE

process

especially

a

changes

bring

clubs,

at

a

membership.

that

technique,

its

at

their

adversity.

by

matter

destructive

when

include

greater

energy

that studies

STRENGTHS

developmental

would

dreams.

certainly,

first

boundaries.

these

in

the

with

to

Martha,

and

local

that

of

paperpads

particularly the

There

the

overwhelming.

children make

change

rule,

of

to

children,

and governing

risk

stand. them

separation

neighborhood,

children

the

abound

individuals

needs

more

leadership,

of

nature

vulnerability fact,

“In

Jonathon

indigenous

sometimes

policies

their

is

figure not

St.

programs the than

PERSPECTIVE

programs:

when

A

grounded

fact,

a

another

of

you

till

and

Ann’s

and

mission

of

community’s

pastor,

the

delays,

in

who

individuals,

voices

realities,

normal

demanding

who

its

the

seems

could

their

from

this

for

they

or

neighborhood

exception,

of

Kozol

and

(p.

corridors

are

its

Church

relationship

complicated

it

meaning

have just

that

resilience.

the

in

failure

definition

than

33) invites

come

notebooks

heard,

is

who

the

commu

problem-

for

identify

poor

local

to

St.

an

outside

(2000)

about

work,

aver

a

main

been

Ann’s

fami

later

ener

own

and

had

pro

here

and

and

life and

the

get

to

in of

only

Paulo

ers.

knowledge,

firm

Dialogue

Humans

a

observes

tially

of

nity,

most

in

the

Healing hosts? Common

sands

you

zation,

But,

of

the

tendencies,

the

level

ment. erate

beneficent

Healing

ones

Healing

knowledge.

propitious.

ness

experiences:

wial)!.

up

(IIAPTFR

Wolin,

new

a

the

course,

Without

case

power

context

the in

resilience

humble

can

or

the

of

community—building—”a

Dialogue

Freire

of

to

social of

and

developers

spite

The

Healing

world,

sociaL

and,

us.

importance

and

can

bottom

that.

and

years

that

organization

expect

1996).

that

implies

sense.

()Nh

and

resist

and

of.

can

most

natural

no

relationship

(1973)

ol

that

not

even

such

,)sv(Iu)/)cIt/u)Iov

and

unit

only

Resilience

all

self—regeneration

insight,

the

In

network—are

however

neither

the

without

these

heightening

literature

occurs

be

requires

Wholeness

Collaboration

the

Resilience

human

Otherwise,

it IN

line

spite

generates

of

when

loving

and

therapeutic

both

though

come

transactions,

organism

to

compromised

CRODt

of

state

the

was

least,

of

ordeals.

is

occur

sharing

the

and

of

is

from

when

wholeness

others

this:

hospitals,

time,

faced

chastening.

organisms

convinced,

is

dialogue

it

into of

between

empathy,

CTION

the

assures

by

they

East

the

virtues

a

and

affairs

of

is

in

If

cell

how

some

the

on

process—the wounds,

more

to

being

with

Damage

work

and

collective

not

spontaneous

naive

ones

another

can

(Benard.

supports

Side

collective.

are

call.

restore

there

healer

to

could

HMOs.

by

us

can

the the

and

begin

of

derived

kr

disorder,

health

have

self—image,

identification

be

intrinsic

based

that

through

discounting

awareness

Healing that

trauma,

Institute

our

can

cheerful

individual

human however,

compromised

surmount

has

the

and

or

itself

we

the

she

commitment

to

2004:

it.

professional

physicians.

promoting individuals

the

on

be

creative

inborn

been

continuing

through

heal

healing

Some

have

another.

inclination

a

disease,

and

life

his

almost

no

by

individual

(Cousins.

htings.

creative

for

disregard

Katz.

and

is

done.

for

the

years

environmental

discovery

survived

ol

her

the

support

and

hcility

milieus—whether

with,

the

Short-Term

process

occurs

lifl.’s

many

internal

rift

meeting

Such

always

colleagues

barrier

than

(Werner

and

psychiatrists.

the

evolved

have

repair

1997:

intervention

to Emotional

of

growth

and

for

between

and

makes

1989:

its

pains.

work

of

systems,

larger

disruption.

of

others.

the

as

organismic

miraculously

healing.

of

emergent

and

naturally

sustainability”

Werner

is

strengths.

of

one’s

the of the

a

the

people

trials

&

relationship over

species

and

with

Pelletier.

an

Therapy

mistrust

ones

testing

It

social

do

toxins.

body

inclusion

self,

Smith.

demands

Lois

and

is.

alliance

difficult

philosophies

always

pharniacists.

eons

articulation

This

at

have

oppressed

&

rather,

family.

bringing

occurring

Healing

mind

relationship

other,

physical

the

and

ingenuity

Holiman

tr

In and

Smith.

of

by

built

iii

evolutionary

1992). ol

2000:

in

been

dialogue,

Institute

one’s

hundreds the

with,

one

hound

of

working

and

bodily

physical

(p.

and

and

t

New

the

and

i

group,

me

from

other

also

iiiind

into

instructive

peoples.

2). 1992:

scars

human

Weil.

ability

challenges

it

body. of

traumatic

and

self

or

or

(2002).

powers.

and

institution.

only

York

and

seems

disorgani

with

existence

capacities.

as

talk

instigates

requires

years

we

commit—

people.

systems.

to

and.

of

environ

hear

righting

at Wolin

essen

occurs

legacy.

1995).

Just

makes

being.

regen to

con

City.

thou

show

every

oth

that

one

also

no

of

hear

br

wit

and

life

as

of

13

& a

(Bledstein,

era, observer

and

If

into

clients’

likely

own

they this

there

representations

less

abuse

beliefs us our

DSM

text

other

ture

It

less Suspension

eted

sometimes

views clients,

projects.

and group

iii ung

IkI

the

I would

liii

•

•

where

I)IIIklII1I

which

reinforcement

then

frame

help.

relevant

the

culpable

in

community

interpretations

are

of

dedicated

are

so

rise

and

By Professionals

By

nali’m

I

helping

But,

to

IV

their

The

a

and

which

professionalism.

accounts

because

we

professions.

talking

that ground

a be

I

has

using

many

be

imposing

TR

of

This III

largely

Myths

we

mutual

certain

of

the

aspirations

idea

become

1978).

children

slathered

we

hard

usd1

the

been

in

we

.unl

mind

and

should in

liii

we

professions,

of

requires

idea

representations

assessment

to

may

context

professions of

about

this of

of

we is

can

comes

preemptive

to

and

Disbelief

trust

work, the

ISI

detachment healing

upon

other

transfigured

of

their

reality.

a

their

would

collaboration

exaggerate

have

their

less

that )I’IIY

regard

have

think

to

community

The

proceed

the

give

rampant

over

narratives

and

between

of

those

us

love,

than

agency

own

that

from

subject

own

there

institutions

While

agents,

checked

i’RIN

those

ideal

great

and

seem

to

voice

that

clients’

that,

in

we

than

(and

frame

hypotheses and

a

humility,

be

theories

the

an

who

with

and

empowerment.

Manhattan

subjugation

are have

into

of

they lI

the

the

of

difficulty

protocols,

social with

open

encouraged

to

to

other

about

interrogative their

to

affirming

the

radiation that

the

IS.

has

the

the

restraint

valid

faulty extent

own abuse

dialoguers

subvert

the

circumspection

a

our

are

presumptions

of

ideology

certain

whom

real

\NI)

consultants,

to

confirms

affirmation

professions,

scientific a

over

work

people

and

groups

socialization

experts

understanding?

clients.

more

negotiation

that,

representations

recall,

substances,

of

1ANGUAGEOFTHE

world.

assuming

internist’s?

for

this

of

the

faith,

in

of

the

we

disbelief

because

incredulity

by

in

scientific

accepting

is

style

and

the

specific

of

example,

of

idea

ground

theories

othemess,

on

collaborate.

the

or

Comfortably

investigator

the

the

Is,

professionalism)

dialogue

clients,

of

knowledge

stakeholders

and

problems

their

their

a

end,

designed

say,

and

that

Logical

such

and

profession

clients little

and

of

of

can

Second,

through

preferences,

focus.

thinking

and a its

clients own restraint.

Perhaps

confirm own

about, clients’

clients

may

to

of

social

a

Lakota

from,

raise circumspection

becomes

in

enduring

conjoint

consequence”

appreciate

STRENGThS

reality

in

accounts

Our

we

as

lives.

interpretive

to

part

obscure

When

and

ensconced

a

to

encounters

and

with

and

a

control

often

objective

ascertain

words

say,

confront.

and

number

suspicions

throughout

the

voices

understanding curtain

begin

Sometimes

by

wisdom

was

And,

distancing

is

their

often

a

them

posture.

suspension

values

agency, people

we

giving

do

questionable.

of horizontal

the

the

and

part

PERSPECTIVE

during

work

may

are

clients.

know

stories

work

of

of

forestructures

certain

and

driven

in (pp.

in

person

is

The

authenticity

that

stories

of

about of

ways:

certainty

may

each

social warranted.

mutually

our

who

the

have

with

they

we

dispassionate

the

from,

the

79—80).

the

are

weight

together

exactly

made

of

culture

of

expert

relationship

by

diagnostic

fancy

who

physically person

the

act

extension

oppressed.

Victorian

egalitarian

in

clients

fever to

workers’

are

belief

the

That

clients.

the

client.

be

on

before

crafted

sense

of

A

seeks

of

valid

what

itself

Like

con

role,

less with

and

any cul

qui

our

car

and

the

the

is,

in in (IIAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 15

• By engaging in self-protective maneuvers (like skepticism) designed to prevent the ulti mate embarrassment for a professional—being fooled by or lied to by a cunning client.

l’hefrequent talk about manipulative and resistant clients in many social agencies may stem from the fear of being made the fool. To protect self-esteem, nonnormative lifestyles, self interests, or benefits, clients may have a vested interest in not telling the truth. But we must consider the possibility that avoiding the truth may be a function of the manner in which the professional pursues and/or asserts the truth. The professional’s knowledge, information, and perspective are privileged and carry institutional and legal weight. The client’s do not. In summary, the lexicon of strengths provides us with a vocabulary of appreciation and not aspersion about those with whom we work. In essence, the effort is to move away from defining professional work as the articulation of the power of expert knowledge toward col laboration with the power within the individual or community toward a life that is palpably better—and better on the clients’ own terms. l’RINCIPLES OF THE STRENGTHS PERSPECTIVE

What exactly is a perspective? It is not a theory. Theories seek to explain some phenomena, or at least describe them analytically. It is not a model. Models are meant to represent, log ically and graphically, some aspect of the world. A perspective is somewhat harder to define. At the least it is a standpoint, a way of viewing and understanding certain aspects of expe rience. It is a lens through which we choose to perceive and appreciate. It provides us with a slant on the world, built of words and principles. We have already reviewed some of the words. What follows now are some of the principles. The principles that follow are the guiding assumptions and regulating understandings of the strengths perspective. They are tentative, still evolving, and subject to revision. They do, however, give a flavor of what practicing from a strengths appreciation involves.

1. Every Individual, Group, Family, and Community Has Strengths. For a variety of reasons—professional identities and credos, cultural preferences, or agency norms, who knows?—it is sometimes hard to take the stance that the individual, family, or com munity that you intend to help comes to you already possessing knowledge, wisdom, goals, and assets that, at least at the outset, you know nothing about. First and foremost, the strengths perspective is about discerning those resources, and respecting them and the potential they may have for reversing misfortune, countering illness, easing pain, and reaching goals. To detect strengths, however, the social work practitioner must be genuinely interested in, and respectful of, clients’ stories, narratives, and accounts—the interpretive angles they take on their own experiences. These are important “theories” that can guide practice. The unearthing of clients’ identities and realities does not come only from a rit ual litany of troubles, embarrassments, snares, foibles, and barriers. Rather, clients come into view when you assume that they know something, have learned lessons from expe rience, have hopes, have interests, and can do some things masterfully. These may be obscured by the stresses of the moment, submerged under the weight of crisis, oppression, or illness but, nonetheless, they abide.

16

cannot

even

nosis

we

tic

fessionals Change

Girard

resourceful,

a

many growth

gado,

distraction,

certainly

ment

Wolins

nity

also

hood.

trials,

violence.

seen

any

hood,

and

Sources

simism,

model”

believe

t’oLIrCeS

hi

PART

similar

3.

sets

sometimes

2.

considered

wh.tI

strengths

or

to

troubled

may

Assume

way

movement.

this

to

People

ing

as

2000;

in

people Individuals,

imagine

I

Not

the

(1994) learn are

Trauma

the

when Iii

and

be

(1993)

the

,i

they

having

merely of

TI

family

and

belief,

not

assume

process

of

acquire

to

iiiierciice ihc

ihcir

Rather,

drawn

parameters

thought

that

in

assessment

development

within

or

family

Take

Kretzmann

think

and, skills

are

Challenge

can

P1111

they

who

ind.

without

marvel the

relationships.

or

put

That

self-doubt.

they

refer

the

history,

taking—and and

members

met

more

passive the

.

possibilities

Individua4

surmount

from

that

though

the victim

children

traits about

.

it are

)‘(

LIICflI%

struggle groups,

and

and

prospect and always

.

do

Abuse,

this

You

(p.

to

)

observation

to

life’s

at

worker

funded

motivated

wounds.

a

of

not

becomes

this

having around

what develop

and

you,

and 53)

the

diagnosis,

themselves..

&

and

way:

Do

recipients

so

mindset.

possibility

what

want

in

But

McKnight,

suffer.

challenges

to

are

and

as adversity

road

to

that

prevalent

Illness

capacities

(

of

Individuals

pain,

that

Not

they

the Group,

by

helps

for

Opportunity.

be

“survivor’s

find

when seen

their

prevailed

similar

to

Often

them.

IPI

communities

to

personal

you

the

a

distance

we

victims

rebound.

you

of

They

Know

think know

IS

verdict

change motivated

It

an

their

the

and

as

of

problems currency

traveled—a

many

and

believe

it

for

and

also AN!)

.

will

this

in

assessment, But

active

and

. 1993).

parental

exists that

dizzying

do.

family

The

are

that

Struggle

today’s

the

exposed

their

daily

or

Community over

that

begin

attributes

pride’

and LANGUAGE

when

foretells

pride

most

In

listen

who

Not

walked

are

the

to

The

worker

you

that

Upper

and

the

and

of

While

are

are,

for

we

clients.

obstacles

a

discover

be

bread,

preservative

strengths

that

the

practice

unpredictability,

sentence. their

their

of

is

and

thinking

road

Wolins’ to

Wolins

actually

developing they

It

more

have achievement

damaged

is to

a

May

a

buried

all,

away,

climb

them,

a

creates worker

is

they

that

lit,

the

Limits

a

profile,

unanticipated

OFTHE

capacities,

strengths

Aspirations

continuing

a

that

a

In

variety can

come.

clients

job,

Be

likely

its it

deep-dwelling

strengths

to

do

stand

of

using (1997)

“challenge

our

can

care

only toward

not

that

under

Our

we,

capabilities build

Injurious,

can

a

one’s

not in

other

of

STRENGTHS

and

or

or

language

personal

individuals

For

ignite

without

to of

ways

you

at

about

are

clients

leads

them want

ask

the

shelter

a

a

on

bear

knowledge,

embarrassment,

life

something

point

the

continue

abuses,

demographic

strengths

transformation

growth future

family

perspective

our Seriously. abuse,

supported.

what their

will

Capacity

destinations.

that

the

scars.

affirming.

outset,

model:’

to

them,

to

in

clients,

but

of

will

fear,

are

lives,

and

sense out

discouragement,

know

respect

good

PERSPECTIVE

engine

strengths

of

terms.

strength, obscure

members.

disappointment,

especially

who,

and

They

development

They

already be

that

that

formulate

approach

psychopathology

even

might of

Too

and

looking children

of

Instead

to

too

stead

better

maturing.

that

is

value

through

characteris

There

of

how

them

Kaplan accomplish the

May

powered

do.

Grow

often, skills

The

and

confusion,

or

often,

terror,

they

hope,

change.

not

you

resilient,

Through

in “damage

But

in served

override

they

of

with

also

growth.

no

back,

a is

diag

are

is

have

bring

adult

(Del

child

and pro

really

these

new ask

and

we and

that

they

dig

The

and

and

mat-

pes

by

fare

not

the

Be or

dom

removed and

many

to elements

preemption

stories

mately, cial

ing

to

Ms.

strated even

ing successfully

public

assets.

have

presumed, sional

The

viduals selves

jheingj goals

everyone

empowerment

muted

an

less

l)wspects,

mean

in

icals

health. when (IIAPTER

high

try

those

teach

4.

to

our

businesses.

alliance

changes.

views.

Johnson

and

success:

result

fortifying

esoteric,

some

of

stuff

We

our

that

We

of

may

and that

we

housing

It

and

A

by genome

intelligence

who a

imposed

our and

us

Emotions

from

resources

is

of

his

collaborative

helper

make

expectations

Best ONE

circumstance, make

has

relax,

them

and

narratives,

There

people

tools

becoming

is

because

of

that

not then

helping:

clients

with

communities

need

projects

raised

but

Her our

a

their

client

knowledge innate

other

provide change

This Serve

projects

project

and

their

a

(Damasio,

INTRODUCTION

an

into

direct

at

help

may

would

from

ability

the

to serious contributions

is

do

experienced

daily

of

overt

the

are

eleven

and

something

of

hear

views.

uplifting

is the

paternalism,

residents

hopes

wisdom,

body’s

are

not

their increasingly

tight

their

best

Clients

ready

without”

part

them

crafted

specialized

than in

the of

stance

be

narrow are

vigor,

reality.

to

pact

are

them—schools,

to

get

error

people

clients

and

have

be

children.

best

intended

adapt

hopes

privileged

It infection,

of

1994).

are

based

“reconnect

anyone

accessible

in

regenerative

but

sick.

with

is

expectations

defined

the

by

understanding.

may of

even

intelligence,

in

when

palpable,

liberating,

ways as

likewise

vantage

confines

Furthermore, the

to

(Mills,

definitely

to

and

the

her

and

Collaborating

and

victim-blaming

role

positive

on When their

clear

the

It

education

capacity

situations,

make

as

I

beneficiaries

does

She

halls community.

to

we similar

communities and

can

fears,

make

to

as

community

of

her

through

promise

1993,

point people

that

bring

important

of

work

people

subjugate

their

a

agencies,

advocacy.

maintained

restore.

us think mean

powers

of

for

can

community

collaborator

not

a

(Well.

their

and

allegiance

emotions

for

diagnostic

Congress

less principles

these

from

cited

and

all forth

Ms. bodies

with

even

the

activate

to

education,

of.

and

that

restoration

motivating

believe

wherewithal

with

parties

vulnerable

I

(or,

the This

and and

only

experience,

are,

to

Johnson

employers,

policies

which

1995).

certainly

Over

in

clients’ her. which

The

the

highly possibility.

when

get

a

often

Benard,

[physical

more

have

recipients.

augment

Them.

with

demeanor

simply

underwent

or

is

the

health

one

category

(see

or

that

policies

involved,

the

the

undoubtedly

to

the

Roger

builds

people

support,

consultant:

rarely

inner

toxic a

respond

wisdom

currently,

and

in

emotions

knows

their

appreciate

Chapter

stories

they

would

course

profound

to

State

The

and

the

of

local

1994,

put,

to

This

and

them

some

rebound.

or

and

ones,

pharmacoepia.

others

Mills’s

up

take

hopes,

can

know

of

situation

are

resources

dramatic,

in

role

more

treatment

amazing.

House

and

and

not

governments,

optimally.

of

and

mental)

means

from

p.

poise.

regulations

connecting

13).

sick,

recover,

with

and

victim-creating),

advantage

of

eftct

an

that

thirty-five

clients’

22).

part

presume

of

encouragement.

views

some in

knowledge

visions,

about

the (1995)

Mills’s

individual

within

that

and expert

their

real

healers

were

that

to

and

of

So

rather

health

often on

more

protocol.

She

have

of

our

things

that

strengths

That

are

these,

it

thriving

we

but

she

wellness

community.

those

of

to community

not

clients is

that

and

rather

to

idea

years.

churches.

or

has

evolution-

often

frighten

than

can

they

that

political

must

relevant.

the

work

nonethe

in

demon

clients’

does

to

foretold

profes

clearly

even

affect

and

values.

much

them

chem

is

Ulti

wis

offi

make

indi

and

try than

have

out

in

and

she The

far

hold

that

on

and

not

to

17

a if I ‘ARI’I I’HEPHILOSOPHY, PRINCIPLES. AND LANGUAGE OF THE STRENGTHS PERSPECTIVE

5. Every Environment Is Full of Resources. (See Chapters 12, 13, and 14.) In com munities that seem to amplify individual and group resilience, there is awareness, recogni tion, and use of the assets of most members of the community (Kretzmann & McKnight, 1993).Informal systems and associations of individuals, families, and groups, social circuits of peers, and intergenerational mentoring work to assist, support, instruct, and include all members of a community (Schorr, 1997). In inclusive communities, there are many oppor tunities for involvement, to make contributions to the moral and civic life of the whole; to become, in other words, a citizen in place. No matter how harsh an environment, how it may test the mettle of its inhabitants, it can also be understood as a potentially lush topog raphy of resources and possibilities. In every environment, there are individuals, associations, groups, and institutions who have something to give, something that others may desper ately need: knowledge, succor, an actual resource or talent, or simply time and place. Such resources usually exist outside the usual matrix of social and human service agencies. And, for the most part, they are unsolicited and untapped. Melvin Delgado (2000), in his articu lation of the capacity-enhancement approach to urban social work practice, describes the five critical assumptions of that approach: “(1) The community has the will and the resources to help itself; (2) it knows what is best for itself; (3) ownership of the strategy rests within, rather than outside, the community; (4) partnerships involving organizations and communities are the preferred route for initiatives; and (5) the use of strengths in one area will translate into

strengths in other areas. . . a ripple effect” (p. 28). Such a view of the environment, while seeming to comfort those who believe that people(s) should pull themselves up by their collective and individual bootstraps, does not abrogate the responsibility for working for social and economic justice. It does, however, recognize that while we await political transformation, there are reservoirs of energy, ideas, talents, and tools out there on which to draw. To regard the environment as only inimical or toxic moves us to disregard these resources or mistakenlyjudge them as disreputable. When it comes, the community that is aware of and employing its human and social capital to the degree possible is in a much better position to drink the cooling waters of social justice. 6. Caring, Caretaking, and Context. The idea that care is essential to human well-being does not sit well in a society beset by centuries of rugged individualism. Deborah Stone (2000) says that we have three rights to care. First, all families must be permitted and assisted in caring for their members. Second, all those paid caregivers need to be able give the sup port and quality care that is commensurate with the highest ideals of care without subvert ing their own well-being. Finally, a right to care boils down to this: that all people (and there may be 38 million children under the age of 10 who clearly need care and anywhere between 30 and 50 million adults who need some degree of care) who need care get it. We do have a horror of dependence. But, as Stone says,

Caringfor eachotheris the mostbasicformof civicparticipation.Welearn to care in fam ilies,andweenlargeourcommunitiesof concernas wemature.Caringis theessentialdemo craticact,theprerequisiteto voting,joiningassociations,attendingmeetings,holdingoffice, and all the otherwayswesustaindemocracy.(p. 15)

In one sense, social work is about care and caretaking. Ann Weick (2000) makes the case that social caretaking as an activity is the profession’s hidden (and first) voice; hidden

d)IK

PRELIMINARY

positive

ories

for

functions

psychological

tors

the

are

interests

spective

seems

the

sional,

vate

ers’

gize

strengths.

Social

policies—local,

that

ships

lortified

tionary

strengths

because

(1

our

rise

quite

other

IAPTER

have

social

obligations:

that

sinew

client

The

right

in

we The

the

clients, to

more

in

of Like

est

need

pay

rather

for

work Recognizing

attributes

of,

of

making

possibility

different,

and define

have

driven

be

same by

family,

hand,

private

real

ideas

it

From

ONE

historical

work radical

social

to

perspective.

attention

capacities.

is

say,

content

to

social

technically

the is

disorders.

has

than

also

be

thinking

we

choice

been

turn

time

also

about

such

to

clinical

expression

an

social

a

to its

INTRODUCTION

state,

practice

neighborhood,

had

work

must

of

THOUGHTS discounting

significantly

hope

profession

caretaking,

retain

maybe a our

active

inception

the

to

of

resolved

the

woman’s

to

clients

before

new

an

and

strengthening

give

something

and hope;

every

Bertha

attention

also strength

and

work

capacity

practice

and

While

adept,

alignment

social

level citizen?

and

the

continuing

even

national—that

with

us

psychopathology

exercise

dry-eyed

of

draw

dimension

hope

which

toward

recently

as

as

interest its

vendorship,

Capen

voice.

we

the

and

to

of

work

dependent

of

one

to

at

for

and

a

social

demands

community,

focus

of

our

respect (p.

a

profession,

must

individual

the

realized

odds.

are

social

the

hand

toughness

person’s

will

extraordinary

social

a

a

and

reality

175,

Caretaking

Reynolds

attention

humblest

tension

in

workers

in

dissociative

typically

social

model

on

it

respect

stand

and

While

favor

encompasses.

social

those

affect

and

emphasis

work, and

“function” on

the

action,

through

life?

brings

withhold

web

and

the

and

theories

the

possibilities,

comparability

forthrightly

of

culture,

mass

is

between

of

activities

the

and of

the

there

(1951)

action

oriented

the

whether

Or

practice

opportunities

field

communal

the connecting

tenderness,

is,

social

the

diligence

us

impact

added)

quality

history

define the

appeal

shall

strengths

in

former.

rather

is

with

back

(Specht

infusion

has

and

Social

and

looked

strengthened

a

no

the

we

of

action

we

toward

for

that

diffuse

the

the

of been

of

our

of

country. social to

implacable

with

are

desire

the

than

become

to

among

us

capacities

for

human

problems

The life

work

DSM

the

perspective

other,

lesson

is

to

efforts.

&

and

at

assure

of

all.

or

exhorted

redress

clear

regard

more

family “cause”

be

and caretaking

Courtney,

challenges

the

sense,

psychodynamic

writing,

community

(p.

to is

barriers

IV

passive

to

conscious

That

the

well-being,

of

sinew

social

issue

life

reason

become

that

401)

build

heavily

TR

our

conflict

on

of

to

professions,

of

and

also

chances

to

(Lee,

contextual

is

the all.

the

building

among

first

lexicon,

in

or

social

afforded careWking.

of

up

respect

and

and

1993). of

about

individual

active..

terms

resources

The

quality the

of

social

or

development more

aligned

caretaking.

voice

1929),

between

offer

including

fluid

our

tear

for

work

inequities

other

strength

the

thinking,

The

and

and

on

of

own

by

and,

tells

profes

our

citizens. relation

down sinew

.

inWition.

of

to revolu

. work

.

client

dys

with

social

ener

the

and

Shall

fac per of

.

life

ele

bold

the

part us

.

on the

But

We

at

the

of

19

is to

CONCLUSION

20

of

resourcefulness cal

affirms This

help.

persistent

and

(subjects

stated

done

tage

ments resilience-based

management

liminary,

in

troubled

edge

process.

ceptual

2001).

It

ferent occurred.

example.

that away

strengths

ing

si

puts

I

‘k

us;

is

icngths

their

elements

practice

of

not

I

edition

the

point

The

on

base

it

to

I

In

Finally,

objectives of

from

concept.

Although There

paying

It

100

The

if

or,

strengths

this

futures

work and

unusual

the

Chapter

problem

I

In

a

loes

youth

a

suggests

and

I

central

but

and and

In

Ih

Furthermore,

rather,

for

strengths

years

of

miracle

the

literature

critical way:

the

of

is

clinical

P1111

of

essence,

that

(Rapp

attention

provide

clients)

together

practice

a

resources

significant

the

so

seem

But

words

the

the

and,

to,

that

strengths

ago,

problem

for

()S(

practice;

today’s

much

of

proposition

are and

reaffirms,

15,

has

research

that

it

book

as

strengths

factors

occurred

the

& )P[IY.

perspective solution-focused

individuals,

therefore,

has

ground

to

mostly

on

I

reinforcing

of

poet

it

not

from how

little

Goscha,

to

talk

creates

will

to

it

be

stakeholders

regards

of

resilience,

been

Benard client

continues

may

people’s

social PRINCIPLES,

surmount

or

criticisms

been

approach

solution-focused

today

group

in

Emily

the

to guidance

on

discuss

the

without

our

pathology

for

perspective.

successful neglected

of

overnight

be

employ

a

the

goals

case

to

2006).

outset.

apparent,

dedication that

clients

sense

work

about

(1994;

social

employing

an

families,

members

the

strengths

convey

Dickinson

effectiveness

discussed

the

in

adversity effective

fanfare.

make

that

of

includes and

AND

to

and/or

strengths

practitioners

strengths

more

practice

of

Related

them

The for

effort

work

it.

see in the

perspective.

therapy

and

optimism

group

visions

LANGUAGE

this

or

At

the

too

a

and

since and

student

to

also

results

(p.

difference.

detail

therapy;

client

to

in

those

the

practice,

its and

briefly

to urges,

long.

and

understanding light

positive

the

communities and

research

247)

aid their

texts

perspective.

helping,

expand

Chapter

philosophical work

provide

of

the

problem

are

economical

trouble;

some views

wellness.

to

and times

strengths

However,

in

of

or

a

of

dwell days

neighborhoods.

earlier

OF

the

strengths

typically

The

ask

community

the

the worker

what

has

as

expectation

Research

hope.

THE

on

the

some

of centerpiece

we

11),

of

when

I how

and

solving

research

solution-focused

no

to

in

a

see

power

in

the

This

they

conceptual,

the

STRENGTHS

I

good

are

bring

long

as

and

confront

“Using

possibility,

about

It

framework

longer

this

concerns

will

things

associated

core,

it,

approach,

nod

converging

original

exceptions

allows

a

is

currently

have

actually

revering

is

of

central

of group

building;

chapter,

history

hardly

to

also

are

to

in

to

how

Andrew

this

identified mind/health

resilience

would

of

held

us

them”

done

the the

exploit

to

anyone

settlement

address

PERSPECTIVE

work

the

clinical,

of

when

perspective a

to

to

for

be

support

done part

although

appalling

new

of

direction

the

also

(de

seeing

the

to

make

lines

work

well,

and

be

have

approach

used

practice

Malekoff

(p.

practice

attention

difficulty

resources

the

of

they

or

Jong

positively

problems.

from

working

provides

as

stakeholders

the

some

4).

of

revolutionary

and

the

realization;

an

confidence

those

for to

to the

houses

best

movement

very

seek

research

research

be

account

with

& of

the

achieve

merely

helping

the

has

practi

or

knowl

of

(2001)

is

in

Berg, done.

to

client

times

van

case

with

have

con

and

pre

our

ele

been

over

the

dif

one

all

all the

DIS(USSION

perceptions

ical clinics

human

surely

(and

struggles problems,

tencies. gles

restoring

of

ground

heroically, the (I-IAPTFR

2.

1.

problems

model

tools

Which

Which

down Take

you

I

that To

problem-focused

of

In

reach

to

power circumstances

ication,

If

Duncan

The

defined

help

serious

adies.

Now

Patients

is

use Let

and

nature

therapists

your

with

personal

assess

an

Jerome

careening

think

you

ONE

some

a available

for

emphasis

some

illness,

those the

it

in agencies,

their

my

individual,

QUESTIONS

and

of

of piece

in

back

For

determination

view, the in be

think

our

science.

its

hints

of and

and

the

the

are

the

your

term

response

the

INTRODUCTION

years

interest.

goals. balance

qualities

said

to

belief

Groopman

as

limits.

recovery.

to

of

are

work

lists

lists

awash

and direction

of

the

Miller

what live

positive

work

out

knowledge must

and

the

paper

advisedly)

within

on

even

as

once

to

I

one?

I

(p.

was

is

human

in

adversity.

diverted

longer,

of

clients

I

together family,

problems

weaknesses

resist is

are

As

intimations,

to

longer?

go

client

that, in

see

that

216)

and

(2000)

control.

formed

in

When

easiest

attributes,

again.

our

a

and

social us

deep.

the

of

(2005),

hope

personal

ay

sea

they

with

the

make

and

condition,

rather

of

and

capacity

or

hopes.

etThrts—a

has grit:

most or

we

with

While

of

professionals

your

Clients

dismissed

pull put

to

by

and

at

workers

it

a The

do.

The

community

around

or

three

a

are

statements

little

do?

will

to

the

than a

the

talents,

significant

or

it

tightening

to

deficits. clients.

strengths: relationships

all

dreams,

pathologies,

physician.

grab

medical/psychiatric/pharmaceutical/insurance

to siren

just

well:

practitioners

The

very

solid

lessons

steer

help

can

columns.

work,

It

block believe

conquer

balance

we

us:

their

is

beginning

the

skills,

Lths

hardest?

use

heart

all

clients

de

evidence

are

In

use

about

could

to

and

client

but hands

taught

contrasts

an

inquiries

to

the

grip

rigueur

perspective

that

says

obligated wrestle

even

and

In

of

their

live

that

ally

no

possibilities.

that

to

second

automatically of

one

become

the

healing.

capacities,

this

on

of

competencies.

to

allow

to

matter

extreme this

better.

in

requires the

of

inevitable

more

others

column, link

appreciate

me

because

in

between the

overcoming

approach,

distress

strengths,

perspective

about

column,

to popular

by

what

strengths.

between

ways

(p.

For

what

is

resist

importantly

(and

and

my

clients

that

212)

no!

I

list

those

his

a

is

positions

did

toward

and

patients

that

we

march

record hope’s

often

strengths

the

In

culture,

problematic

at

those

we

about

practice:

often

capacities.

not

their

Now,

the

claim

disagree

the

disillusionment

can

who

siren

we

appreciate

dangerous)

know

diagnosis

third

aspects

those

unwaveringly,

reach very

dramatic

even

emotions

and

see

of

,giio,.ing

we

have

ask

in

call

as

approach

power

column,

how

the

the

and

yourself:

qualities

a look least,

about

more

and

hope,

and

to

of

of

profession,

stirrings

media,

and

obstacles

sei/e

the

to

the

consider

yourself

personal

and

have

to

at

tunisian.

compe

readily is

answer. the

and

write it

cartel

strug

med

med

hand

to

about

those

that

mal

may

even

our

role

not

the

in

a

21 of 22 PART I THE PHILOSOPHY, PRINCIPLES. AND LANGUAGE OF THE STRENGTHS PERSPECTIVE

Which of the lists is more compelling or interesting? Why did you answer the three questions above the way that you did?

REFERENCES

American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical ,nanual of mental disorders (DSM IV TR). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association. Becker. E. (1973). The denial of death. New York: Free Press. Becker, H. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance. New York: Free Press. Benard. B. (1994). Applications of resilience. Paper presented at a conference on the Role of Resilience in Drug Abuse, Alcohol Abuse, and Mental Illness. Dec. 5—6.Washington, DC. Benard, B. (2004). Resiliency: What we have learned. San Francisco: WestEd. Bledstein. B. (1978). The culture of professionalism. New York: Norton.

Clark, M. D. (1997, April). Strengths-based practice: The new paradigm. Corrections Today, /65, I 10—IIi. Cousins, N. (1989). Headfirst: The biology of hope. New York: Dutton. Cullison, A. (September, 2004). Inside AI-Qaeda’s hard drive. The Atlantic, 294, 55—70. Damasio, A. R. (1994). Descartes’ error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain. New York: Grosset! Dunlap Books. deJong, P. & Berg, I. K. (2001). Interviewing for solutions (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Delgado, M. (2000). Communit’t social work practice in an urban context: The potential of a capacity- enhancement perspective. New York: Oxford University Press. Duncan, B. 1. & Miller, S. D. (2000). The heroic client: Doing client-directed, outcome-informed therapy. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Freire. P.(1973). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Seabury. Freire, P.(1996). Pedagogy of hope: Reliving pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum. Fromm, E. (1973). The anatomy of hwnan destructiveness. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Gergen, K. J. (1994). Realities and relationships: Soundings in social construction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Glover, J. (2000). Humanity: A moral history of the twentieth century. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Goffman, E. (1961). Asylums: Essays on the situation of mental patients and other inmates. Garden City, NY:Anchor/Doubleday. Groopman, J. (2005). The anatomy of hope: How people prevail in the face of illness. New York: Random House. Holzman, L. (2002, December). Practicing a psychology that builds communities. Keynote address. Amer ican Psychological Association, Division 27, Society for Community Research and Action Confer ence. Boston, Massachusetts. James, W. (1902). The varieties of religious experience. New York: Modern Library. Kaplan, L. & Girard, J. (1994). Strengthening high-risk families. New York: Lexington Books. Katz, M. (1997). On playing a poor hand well: Insights from the lives of those who have overcome child hood risks and adversities. New York: Norton. Kirsch, I., Moore, T. J., Scoboria, A., & Nicholls, S. (2003). The emperor’s new drugs: An analysis of anti depressant medication data submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Prevention & Treat ,nent, 5, 5—23.It is an online journal: http://journals.apa.orglprevention/volume5/preOO50023a.html. Kozol, J. (2000). Ordinary resurrections: Children in the years of hope. New York: Crowne Publishers. Kretzmann, J. P. & McKnight, J. L. (1993). Building communitiesfrom the inside out: Towardfinding and mobilizing a community s assets. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University, Center for Urban Affairs and Policy Research. Langewiesche, W. (2003). American ground: Unbuilding the World Trade Centes’:New York: North Point Press. LeDoux, J. (2002). Synaptic sef How our brains become who we are. New York: Viking. Lee, P R. (1929).Social work:Cause and function.Proceedingsof the National ConferenceofSocial Work.3—20.

Wolin,

Wolin,

Wolin,

Werner,

Weil,

Walzer,

Weick,

Stone,

Specht,

Simon,

Schorr,

Schdn,

Scheff,

Saleebey,

Rogers,

Reynolds,

Restak, Rapp,

Rank,

Pransky,

Pinderhughes,

Pelletier,

Parsons,

Mills,

Miller,

Maltingly,

Malekoff, CHAPTER

A.

2,

abusing

New

S.

D.

S.

Free

S.

Press. C.A.

0.

A. York:

556—563.

Spring,

disabilities.

R.

D.

B.

H. Realization

T.

School

(Eds.),

M. Schuster

L.

E. Park, Graham.

Teacher’s

New

C.

R.

practice.

In

(1995).

S.

23—28.

&

J.

J.

& (2000).

R.

(1941).

(2000).

J.

D. (1995).

L.

& A.

K.

B.

&

(2003). D.

R.

B.

(1983).

D.

&

(1998).

York:

Wolin,

A.

ONE

Press.

C.

&

Wolin,

(1984).

J.

Courtney,

Anchor/Doubleday.

(1994).

York:

Smith,

(1989).

(1983).

R.

CA:

(1997).

(1961).

Wolin,

A.

C.

&

parents.

&

(1991).

Goscha,

Education

(2001).

of

MD:

E.

Spontaneous

(2000).

Schon

Cox,

(1951).

Families

Berg,

Why

Villard.

Social

Beyond

Hidden

Realizing

College

Sage.

INTRODUCTION

(1994).

The

S.

Spheres Modello:

Norton.

Publications.

New

S.

Being

R.

National

The

S.

Professions

The

J.

On

Common

J.

E.

Narrative

M.

new

Adolescent The

we

S.

I.

(1997).

R.

(1993).

(Ed.),

The

York: Work,

(1996). empowerment becoming

0.

Social

reflective

psychology.

and K.

voices.

(1992).

(1993).

need

in

Press.

J.

mentally

Empowerment

brain:

of

power

mental

(1994).

A

best

(2006).

(1995).

Socier

healing.

Association

justice.

research

The

Oxford story

purpose:

Center

Shifting

The a

reflections

work

The

Social

in

care

alternative

Unfaithfi4l

Overcoming

How

Substance

of

reflective

a

practitioner

health:

resilient

crisis:

ill: Empowerment-oriented

of

person:

The

The

82,

group

challenge

New

New

New

movement.

and

hope

for

University

for

the

A

tradition

paradigms:

Work,

rebuilding

243—250.

strengths

miracle

sociological

of

Policy

as

The

modern

York:

social

Toward

York: empowerment

York:

for

on

angels:

work

se/fr

Social

A

turn:

medicine:

Abuse

intervention

45,

practical

the

therapists

estrangement

the

model:

New

in

and

Basic

Dover

How

Knopf.

Press.

living:

method:

The

with

odds.

395-402.

Case

age

inner a

model:

social

Workers.

families

How

Talking

and

new

Practice

York:

Nation,

theory

survivors

is

Books.

kids:

actions:

What

Working

studies

Books.

Dual

Ithaca,

city

social

rewiring

psychology

view

Explorations

work:

practice.

goals:

A

Case

Basic

a

social

and

and

A

of

radically

(3rd

works?

paradoxical

Disorders,

of

Research.

270,

work

practitioner’s

NY:

A

in

knowing

Two

management

psychotherapy.

of

beyond.

neighborhoods

Early

with

Books.

your

history.

ed.).

and

work

troubled

Seattle,

13—15.

Cornell

has

experiments

of

What

strengths

mind. new on

in

New

ideas.

resiliency.

practice

abandoned

5,

Burlington,

and

philosophy

New

approach.

educational

does

WA:

243—256.

approach

families

York:

University

New

doing.

reflection

with

In

York:

Boston:

in

not?

to

University

L.

with

in

York:

New

Aldine.

people

children

rebuild

Gutierrez

its

reflective

Resiliency

Social

rise

VT:

Columbia

and

New the

to

mission.

practice.

York:

Press.

Houghton

on

St.

problem

above

NorthEast

elderly.

with

practice.

America.

York:

Martin’s

strengths-based

Casework

of

of

Sulzburger

story-telling.

&

Washington

psychiatric

New

in substance

University

adversity.

New

R

Simon

Newbury

Action,

drinking.

Mifflin.

Nurius

Health

Silver

York:

Press.

New

York:

70,

23

& &