Addressing the Contradictions of Social Work: Lessons from Critical Realism, the Social Solidarity Economy, and the Hull-House Tradition of Social Work

Abstract

Social Work, which is a profession and an academic discipline, has two major contradictions that pertain to its co-dependency with the capitalist hegemony and its inconsistent ontology, epistemology, and methodology. Addressing these contradictions is essential for Social Work to achieve its current mission and core mandate of promoting social change, social development, social cohesion, and the empowerment and liberation of people. In this theoretical paper, we argue that Social Work can address its contradictions by adopting Critical Realism as a philosophical foundation and learning lessons from its Hull-House tradition and current endeavors of the Social Solidarity Economy. Doing so helps Social Work realize its full potential and contribute more to sustainability transformation, as it has a crucial role to play in addressing the multiple crises of our time.

1. Introduction

This is a follow-up article that builds upon and updates our previously published research titled “The Social Solidarity Economy and the Hull-House Tradition of Social Work: Keys for Unlocking the Potential of Social Work for Sustainable Social Development.” In our previous article, we discussed SW’s two major contradictions/dilemmas that have to do with its co-dependency with the capitalist hegemony and its inconsistent ontology, epistemology, and methodology. We asserted that addressing these contradictions is essential for SW to achieve its current mission and core mandate of promoting social change, social development, social cohesion, and the empowerment and liberation of people. We also proposed that SW could address its contradictions by learning from current endeavors of the Social Solidarity Economy (SSE) and the Hull-House tradition of SW (see Tadesse and Elsen 2023).

The current article builds on the themes discussed in the previous one by elaborating the key arguments and incorporating new insights using the philosophy of Critical Realism. In this article, we assert that SW should learn lessons not only from the Hull-House tradition and SSE but also from Critical Realism, which is a philosophy of science that emphasizes ontology, epistemology, and methodology. We also make some references to the ecosocial approach in SW (Boetto 2017; Obeng and Tadesse 2024; Tadesse and Obeng 2023) and ecosocialism (Hickel 2020, 2023).

We want to remind readers that both our previous and current papers are based on lessons that have been learned from our specific ASTRA research project,1 which is titled “Eco-social Innovation and Social Solidarity Economy in Marginalized Local Communities: Exploring the Social Solidarity Economy of People of African Descent in Europe.”

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. First, we discuss the problem with SW, i.e., the two major contradictions. Then, we discuss the proposed solutions that include learning from and applying critical realism, the SSE, and the Hull-House tradition. Finally, we provide concluding remarks and recommendations.

2. The Problem: The Two Major Contradictions of Social Work

As discussed in our previous article (Tadesse and Elsen 2023), SW, especially in the West, has been criticized for failing to address its two major contradictions.2 The first is the inconsistency among SW’s ontology, epistemology, and methodology. The second concerns SW’s co-dependency with the capitalist hegemony, which is the major cause of unsustainability and multiple crises that primarily affect the most vulnerable (Bell 2012; Boetto 2017; Coates 2003; Tadesse and Elsen 2023).

2.1. Inconsistent Ontology, Epistemology, and Methodology

There is inconsistency between SW’s (i) dominant modernist and positivist ontology/root and methodology and (ii) epistemological base and contemporary mission (Boetto 2017).3 Mainstream SW predominantly depends on paradigms that are based on modernist and positivist ontology, resulting in the use of biomedical (Bell 2012) and psychotherapy-based models of intervention (Specht and Courtney 1995) as well as managerialism in SW.

Ontology can be defined as ways of being or a worldview about existence or reality (Parton and O’Byrne 2000). Various authors argue that the dominant ontological base of SW is modernist, underpinned by individualism, rationalism, universalism, and neoliberal ideology (Bell 2012; Boetto 2017). This ontological base creates a rational–technical and positivist approach to SW and “reinforces oppressive hierarchies” (Bell 2012). While the above argument is true in terms of identifying the dominant ontology in SW, it is important to remember that SW has had at least two competing traditions, i.e., (i) the aforementioned dominant positivist and individualist path followed by scholars such as Mary Richmond; and (ii) the largely ignored pragmatist and community-based tradition followed by scholars such as Jane Addams, who is considered one of the main radical pragmatist public philosophers (Hamington 2022, n.d.; Morrison 2016).

Epistemology is defined as ways of knowing (Parton and O’Byrne 2000) or the thinking dimension of practice. SW’s epistemological base is primarily about its: (i) professional values, principles, and ethical standards, and (ii) professional knowledge (Boetto 2017). SW’s professional values, principles, and ethical standards are about the inherent worth and dignity of human beings, human rights, social justice, collective responsibility, and respect for diversity. SW’s professional knowledge is both interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary, drawing on a wide array of theories and research from, among others, SW itself, community development, social pedagogy, sociology, anthropology, ecology, economics, education, psychology, and public health (IFSW n.d.). SW’s epistemology contradicts and goes beyond its dominant modernist ontology (Boetto 2017). It can be argued that SW’s epistemology is broader and covers aspects of Social Constructivism, Postmodernism, and Pragmatism. Unlike its dominant ontology and methodology, SW’s epistemological bases (especially its values, principles, and ethical standards) are in line with its true mission and core mandate of promoting social change and development, social cohesion, and the empowerment and liberation of people (IFSW n.d.).

Methodology refers to the doing (action, intervention, or practice) aspects or strategies of SW (Boetto 2017). As shown in Figure 1, the dominant methodology of SW, instead of being informed by its epistemological base that features a collectivist and cooperativist nature, has largely been informed by its dominant modernist tradition that emphasizes individualist strategies such as individual and family casework. As a result, transformative practices such as community work have been marginalized, especially in the West (Bell 2012; Boetto 2017). This shows that there is a need, in SW, for creating consistency among its ontological, epistemological, and methodological foundations.

2.2. Co-Dependency with the Capitalist Hegemony

SW, especially in the West, is criticized for its role in sustaining the root cause of the very social problems it promises to address. SW is sustaining the capitalist hegemony that has created and exacerbated the multiple and interconnected social, economic, and ecological crises that primarily affect the most vulnerable/marginalized individuals, groups, communities, and societies. Such criticism, as illustrated in Figure 2, is best evidenced in the mutual co-dependency between SW, the welfare state (which hosts SW), and the capitalism hegemony (which hosts both SW and the welfare state) (Boetto 2017; Coates 2003). To find employment, resources, and a client base, social workers rely on human service organizations, which are part and parcel of the welfare state of the capitalist hegemony that uses neoliberal and managerialist notions of welfare (Healy 2014).

Here, it is important to note that the welfare state in the West, even in the form of social democracy (let alone in the form of neoliberalism or right-wing conservatism),4 is criticised for being largely dependent on the exploitation of the majority world (e.g., African countries). The welfare state in the West is an example of what Brand and Wissen (2021) described as the “imperial mode of living,” which relies on unequal exchange between Western countries and the global majority, i.e., the disproportionate appropriation of labor, natural resources, and ecosystems from the majority world, such as African countries. This mirrors the pattern of extraction that characterised colonialism. Now it is done in the form of neo-colonialism/neocolonial North–South relations (Brand and Wissen 2021; Hickel 2020; Hickel et al. 2023).

While working in such a context (i.e., in the welfare state in the West), social workers can be seen as contributing to sustaining the capitalist hegemony (imperial mode of living) by helping people to adapt to and participate in an economy and society characterized by neoliberal values such as individualism and competition (Boetto 2017; Coates 2003). This is despite SW having contrary values and principles to capitalism, as shown in Figure 3.

It can be argued that such co-dependency is possible between the capitalist hegemony and SW, despite their contrasting values and principles, as a result of the commonality between the principles/values of the capitalist hegemony and SW’s dominant modernist/positivist ontology and methodology, which is mainly individualist and rational–technical. Figure 4 below depicts this situation.

2.3. Consequences for Social Work

The two major contradictions discussed above have led to SW, especially SW in the West, being accused of being an accomplice or at least a bystander in the perpetration of the capitalist hegemony, i.e., racial capitalism/the imperial mode of living. This situation is even worse when viewed in relation to the damage being done to the majority world and the natural environment. These contradictions have also made SW less effective at tackling social problems in the West. This is because, in its dominant current form (individualist and rational-technical SW), SW is not targeting the root causes of most of the social problems that can be attributed to the capitalist hegemony.

3. The Solution: Learning from and Applying Critical Realism, SSE, and the Hull-House Tradition

If SW wants to address social problems successfully, stay true to its professional values, and achieve its core mandate, its ultimate goal should be countering and helping to counter the capitalist hegemony (i.e., racial capitalism/the imperial mode of living). In order to do so, SW should learn lessons from and apply Critical Realism, SSE, and one of its largely neglected traditions, i.e., the Hull-House tradition of SW.

3.1. Learning from and Applying Critical Realism

Learning from and applying Critical Realism can help SW to resolve its contradictions. The following key concepts of Critical Realism are important in this case: ontological realism involving stratified reality, epistemological relativism, judgmental rationality, structure and agency, open system, four-planar social being, and seriousness.

SW’s contradiction in the case of having inconsistent ontology, epistemology, and methodology could be resolved by adopting Critical Realism’s concepts of ontological realism (involving stratified reality), epistemological relativism, and judgmental rationality. Like Positivism, Critical Realism maintains the idea of ontological realism, indicating the existence of a reality independent of our perceptions, thoughts, or beliefs. Critical Realism further asserts that this reality is structured and stratified at three levels: the empirical (the domain of experiences and observations); the actual (the domain of events and occurrences, whether experienced/observed or not); and the real (the domain of underlying structures, mechanisms, and powers, generating events and experiences). However, unlike positivism, Critical Realism believes in epistemic relativism, claiming that our knowledge of the world is not absolute since it is filtered through our specific historical, cultural, and social contexts. This means that different perspectives and interpretations can coexist. This is a similar view to that of social constructivism. Yet, unlike social constructivism, Critical Realism believes in the concept of judgmental rationality. It underscores the need for critically evaluating different perspectives (knowledge claims) to determine their strengths and limitations (Bhaskar 1975, 2016; Price and Martin 2018; Houston 2001). If SW applies the above concepts of Critical Realism (ontological realism, epistemological relativism, and judgmental rationality), it can achieve “metatheoretical unity by admitting the value of the empirical moment of positivism, the hermeneutical moment of the interpretivist methodologies and the linguistic moment of postmodernism” (Price and Martin 2018).

SW’s problem in relation to its co-dependency with the capitalist hegemony can be tackled by applying Critical Realism’s concepts of structure and agency, open system, four-planar social being, and seriousness. For example, in the case of structure and agency, SW should underline the idea that structure and agency are interdependent (mutually constitutive), i.e., structures shape the actions of individuals and at the same time individuals (including collectives) can also reproduce or transform these structures through their actions (Bhaskar 1975, 2016; Price and Martin 2018; Houston 2001). SW needs to do so, especially in its analysis of social problems and design of interventions. Accordingly, SW should always be looking for the underlying structures (systems) that are behind a social problem. This means that one must dig deeper and deeper—from the empirical (the domain of experiences and observations) to the actual (the domain of events and occurrences, whether experienced/observed or not), and to the real (the domain of underlying structures, mechanisms, and powers, generating events and experiences). And interventions should focus primarily on the domain of underlying structures, mechanisms, and powers.5 It can be argued that the underlying structure behind most social problems SW is trying to address is the capitalist hegemony (racial capitalism). This means that if the capitalist hegemony is targeted and transformed, most social problems will be resolved. However, SW should still maintain Critical Realism’s assumption of an open system (that posits that multiple different causal mechanisms operate and interact simultaneously) (Houston 2001), and examine if there are other structures/systems reinforcing or contradicting each other. At the same time, SW should also look at the different agents (including formal and informal corporate agents) (Archer 1995; Karlsson 2020) that work to maintain or transform the structure, and collaborate and support those (e.g., SSE Organizations (SSEOs)) that try to change it in order to bring about development, wellbeing, and emancipation.

SW can also adopt Critical Realism’s concept of four-planar social being, which could help it to become more comprehensive in terms of, for example, including environmental issues. According to Critical Realism, all social events occur simultaneously on four planes, i.e., material transaction with nature, social interactions between people, social structure, and the stratification of the embodied personality. Critical Realism argues that there are interconnected crises at all four planes. In the case of material transactions with nature, we have ecological crises such as climate change. In the case of social interactions between people, we have ethical or moral crises involving crises of social justice (e.g., unequal distribution of income, wealth, resources, and opportunities); crises of political legitimacy and democracy; and crises of violence, terror, and war. In the case of social structure, we have, for example, economic and fiscal crisis (e.g., economics of austerity). Finally, in the case of the stratification of the embodied personality, we have existential crises such as crises of identity and centricity and crises of addiction and apathy,6 leading to a collapse of subjectivity, our capacity to lead a rich inner life (Bhaskar 2013, 2016; Price and Martin 2018). In all these cases, one can easily see the huge role the capitalist hegemony played in creating, maintaining, and exacerbating these crises. SW can make use of the idea of four-planar social being to expand on its bio-psycho-social-spiritual model and emerging ecosocial approach. This idea is especially important for the ecosocial approach, which emphasizes sustainability, involving ecological, social, and economic dimensions (Boetto 2017; Obeng and Tadesse 2024; Tadesse and Obeng 2023). Again, both Critical Realism and the ecosocial approach in SW point to the capitalist hegemony as the primary source of the interconnected multiple crises (e.g., ecological, social, and economic crises), underlining the urgent need for radical transformation.

Critical Realism also advocates for the idea of seriousness. Critical Realism argues that there should be a unity of theory and practice in social sciences, to have practical relevance and engage in the practice of human emancipation, the ultimate destination being the realization of universal human flourishing, an existence which is vastly superior to the one we currently have (Bhaskar 2013, 2014, 2016). In relation to this, it argues that social science should not be value-free. Uncovering causal/structural mechanisms alone is not enough; we need to go beyond uncovering causal/structural mechanisms to challenge their existence where they lead to human oppression (Houston 2001). Using the idea of seriousness, we can contend that if SW wants to be (more) serious and solve social problems, it should work on addressing causal/structural mechanisms such as racial capitalism to achieve human emancipation and universal human flourishing. In order to do so, according to Bhaskar (2013), we must have a clear concept of an alternative to the current system (see the next sections for a discussion of alternatives in the form of, for example, SSE).

In summary, applying Critical Realism helps not only to resolve the two contradictions in SW but also “to overcome the force oppositions between objectivism and subjectivism and agency and structure that have traditionally beset social theory” (Houston 2001). SW can adopt Critical Realism as its philosophical foundation and combine it with its key and useful ideas and approaches, such as the person-in-environment framework, bio-psycho-social-spiritual approach, strengths perspective, the Hull-House tradition, community work, and ecosocial approach. Critical Realism can help to tie everything together for SW.

3.2. Learning from and Applying SSE and the Hull-House Tradition

As discussed in our previous article (Tadesse and Elsen 2023), SW can also learn key lessons from the SSE (which can be considered as a movement, theory, and practice) and the largely neglected Hull-House tradition of SW, epitomized by the works of Jane Addams and her colleagues at Hull-House.7 Both demonstrate remarkable similarities and potential to help transform SW. They can also be viewed as examples of what Critical Realism and Bhaskar (2013) called for—“concrete utopianism,” i.e., a clear concept of an alternative to the current system.

The lessons that can be learned from SSE and the Hull-House tradition can be discussed in relation to their similarities, providing insights into how to address the problems of co-dependency with capitalism and inconsistent ontology, epistemology, and methodology. Reading the history of the Hull-House tradition and comparing it with SSE shows that there are substantial parallels between the Hull-House tradition and the SSE, especially SSE by marginalized groups (self-organized SSEOs such as SSEOs of People of African Descent (PAD)) and SSE with marginalized groups (collaborative SSE efforts).8

Before discussing the parallels, stating the two main points of difference between the two is important. The first difference is that the activities of Hull-House occurred in a historical time when, despite the presence of a myriad of social problems, there were limited or no social rights, policies, and infrastructures. In contrast, current SSE activities are happening in a time when there are social rights, policies, and infrastructures, even though such provisions are inadequate, and in many cases implemented discriminatorily, for example, based on immigration status and citizenship. The second point of difference, especially comparing Hull-House with the SSE of PAD, is that while most Hull-House initiatives were “supported self-help” (i.e., SSE with marginalized groups, where the initial initiatives came from Addams and her colleagues),9 most of the SSEOs of PAD were self-initiated and organized by the immigrants themselves.

In the case of the parallels, there are four major interrelated similarities between the two. These are: the non-positivist and non-individualistic philosophical bases; anti-capitalist nature; special experience and contribution during times of crises, such as the “immigration crises;” and innovative methods of addressing social problems.

3.2.1. Non-Positivist and Non-Individualistic Philosophical Bases

The first parallel between the two is related to their non-positivist and non-individualistic ontological and epistemological stances, which is in contrast with the stances of capitalism and the Charity Organization Society (COS) tradition of SW, which is the foundation for mainstream SW characterized by individualist and rational–technical approach (e.g., individual and family casework, biomedical and psychotherapy-based interventions, and managerialism in SW). For example, Jane Addams, the main proponent of the Hull-House tradition, herself was one of the main pragmatist philosophers and advocates of collectivism/cooperativism. Hence, Hull-House’s responses to social problems were informed by pragmatism that located the main cause of social problems in the social structure and underscored collective action and social reforms (Morrison 2016).

A related ontological stance can also be noted in the case of the SSE and the SSE of PAD. “SSE develops a more realist, non-essentialist social ontology to understand better—through the a posteriori and constructivist lens—that economic systems are run by significant non-economic motives; that economy is deeply embedded in society; that we do not live our social life and our economic life […] in two distinct ‘spheres’; that the self is not ‘separate’ but ‘soluble’ and that cooperation and reciprocity, morality and common good are the warp and woof of the superior ontological status of human beings as homo sapiens” (Dash 2016, p. 79). The SSE is based on a pre-analytic vision of (assumption about) the economy as an open and interdependent subsystem of the ecosystem (as opposed to a closed and disembedded system). The SSE assumes that the economy can be shaped and reconstructed to help meet fundamental human needs, including ecological, social, and economic needs (Elsen 2018). Furthermore, it views humans as relational or whole beings who are not only rational but also emotional and normative. It asserts that economic agents are not autonomous but socially situated. It advocates for the superior ontology of the embedded agency. Consequently, the SSE is based on a cooperative logic (emphasizing cooperation, reciprocity, morality, and the common good) as opposed to a competitive logic (Dash 2016). The SSE of PAD is also based on assumptions, values, and principles derived from African collectivist philosophies such as Ubuntu that enable the embedding of economic activities into sociocultural, environmental, political, and spiritual contexts. In short, “the SSE is conceptually anchored on a ‘flourishing services’ approach, or a social provisioning approach to economics. It may as well be referred to as the ‘sustainable livelihood’ approach, which refers to the study of how humans make a living from their social and natural environment in a socially just, environmentally responsible, and morally correct way” (Dash 2016, p. 70).

The above discussion indicates that SW should emphasize a non-positivist and non-individualistic philosophical base that goes in the direction of Pragmatism and Critical Realism. SW is not new to such philosophies. The Hull-House tradition of SW used Pragmatism, which shares similarities with Critical Realism, as its philosophical base. Like Critical Realism, Pragmatism rejects the extremes of both positivism and social constructivism/postmodernism while acknowledging both objective and subjective dimensions and focusing on practice. However, this philosophy has been largely neglected in mainstream SW. Therefore, there is a need to revisit and learn from the application of such a philosophy. SW can also go beyond or expand on pragmatic philosophy and adopt Critical Realism, which emerged relatively recently (in the 1970s) and is comprehensive, at least, in relation to ontology and epistemology.

3.2.2. Anti-Capitalist Stance and Response to the Capitalist Hegemony and the Resultant Crises

The second parallel is that both the Hull-House tradition and SSE are anti-capitalist and anti-laissez-faire. They recognize that the capitalist system is the main cause of the multiple crises the world is experiencing. Accordingly, they respond to the capitalist hegemony and its multiple crises by proactively providing time-tested as well as new experimental solutions. They provide alternative ways of producing goods, services, and knowledge while fostering solidarity.

SW itself was created in the late 19th century as a response to the multitude of social problems resulting from rapid industrialization and urbanization. Unlike the advocates of capitalism, the Hull-House tradition of SW located the main cause of individuals’ poverty in the macrosystem or in the social conditions. Accordingly, they promoted collective and democratic group- and community-based SW as well as social action and social reform, for instance, for improved working and living conditions in industrial cities (Addams 2008; Eberhart 2009; Franklin 1986; Melgar et al. 2021; On the Commons 2010). Jane Addams strongly believed in the power of cooperation over competition. She was also deeply influenced by Beatrice Webb’s work “The Co-operative Movement in Great Britain.” “To Addams, cooperation was not only an alternative approach to organizing economic activity, but also a principle of social democracy” (On the Commons 2010).10 Addams and Hull-House’s work was not limited to supporting activities that are against the exploitative economy and repairing the social and ecological destruction it causes. Their work had a controlling, correcting, and limiting effect in the economic and political spheres. It developed independent social economies and enforced comprehensive social participation against dominant capital interests (Elsen 2011).

Similarly, the SSE (re)emerged in the West in the first half of the 19th century as a response to the social problems (e.g., miserable working conditions and low wages) created by the capitalist system. The famous example in this case is the Rochdale Equitable Pioneers Society, which was established in 1844 by 28 working-class weavers and artisans working in the cotton mills in the town of Rochdale, England. Most current SSE initiatives in industrialized countries are responses to the inhumane nature of the capitalist hegemony. Time and time again, we have observed that SSE is a rescuer or a place where everybody looks for solutions during times of crisis, such as the great depression and the 2008 financial crisis (Elsen 2018). This study also indicated that the SSE of PAD in the West exists mainly because of the social and economic exclusions that are created and exacerbated by the capitalist hegemony (see also Hossein 2018; Nembhard 2014). SSE aspires to negate the capitalist hegemony and the resultant multiple crises by working to re-embed economic activities into social, cultural, and ecological contexts and make the economy controlled by local people so that the economy can be life-serving instead of life-threatening (Elsen 2018).

Anti-capitalist stance and response by the Hull-House tradition and SSE can provide insights, contributing to addressing the problem of SW’s co-dependency with capitalism. SW needs to acknowledge/realize that racial capitalism is the root cause of most of the social problems it tries to address and work on countering racial capitalism. This means SW should aim to bring about sustainability transformation at the global level. In this case, SW should strive to help achieve a post-capitalist economy and society, that is based on, for example, Democratic Ecosocialism, which is characterized by decolonization and degrowth (see Hickel 2020, 2023),11 where SSE and the Hull-House tradition of SW can be used as one of the strategies.

3.2.3. Experience with the “Immigration Crises”

Among the main crises created and exacerbated by the capitalist hegemony are the so-called “immigration crises.” Both the Hull-House tradition of SW and the current SSE have unique experiences in addressing the immigration crises of their particular times. As mentioned above, professional SW originated in the late 19th century in the USA as a response to social problems affecting especially those tens of millions of European immigrants associated with the mass migration “crises” (Franklin 1986; NASW n.d.). This situation was what Jane Addams and her colleagues wanted to address by establishing Hull-House in impoverished immigrant neighborhoods where they lived and worked with the immigrants.

Unfortunately, “migration crises” are still happening and have become commonplace as a result of the imperial mode of living. A good example, in this case, is Europe’s “migration crisis” of 2015, in which more than 1 million migrants arrived in Europe (Greenhill 2016). This time was full of tragedies involving loss of life, human rights violations, racial discrimination, and a shortage of social services such as education. (BBC 2020; Spindler 2015). The situation also required the intervention of SSE. For example, many SSE initiatives (whether self-organized or not) in Europe are targeted at improving the inclusion and well-being of immigrants by providing various social services and protection. The same is true in the case of the SSEOs of PAD in Europe.

In short, in both periods, we observe that when the capitalist system fails vulnerable immigrants, both the Hull-House tradition of SW and SSE were there to provide innovative solutions and address the social problems affecting immigrants in the host countries. Current SW still has to deal with such “crises,” and the best way to do this is to address the root cause, which is the imperial mode of living. SW needs to emphasize transnationality and solidarity beyond national borders, especially given that we are living in a much more globalized world characterized by widespread forced migration. SW in the minority world should do so in relation to the majority world, helping to counter the imperial mode of living.

3.2.4. Innovative and Realistic Solutions to Social Problems

The innovative solutions of the Hull-House tradition and the SSE are based on group and community work that emphasize collective and social action, as presented in

Table 1. Examples of solutions to social problems practiced by the Hull-House tradition and the SSE of PAD in Europe ¹.

Example Solutions to Social Problems/Needs Practiced by The Hull-House Tradition & the SSE Of PAD
Hull-House Tradition	SSE of PAD
Kindergartens & day nursery	Hometown associations (HTAs)
Working People’s Social Science Club	Rotating Savings & Credit Associations (ROSCAs)
Hull-House Women’s Club	Accumulating Savings & Credit Associations (ASCAs)
Hull-House Boys’ Club	Micro-credit associations
Hull-House Men’s Club	Burial societies
Public baths	Urban community gardens (commons)
Public kitchen & coffee-house	Cooperatives
Hull-House Labor Museum	Foundations
Chicago Arts & Crafts Society	Social enterprises
Employment bureau	Development associations
Hull-House Cooperative Coal Association	Professional & occupational associations
Housing cooperative for young working women (Jane Club)	Student associations
Housing co-ops of young men (Phalanx Club & Culver Club)	Women’s association
Trade union-related activities	Anti-Racist & anti-imperialist/anti-colonialist associations
Social movements (e.g., anti-WWI movement)	Youth & sports-oriented association
SW education & social research	Socio-cultural associations
The Hull-House college extension program	Welfare/humanitarian/charitable organizations
Vocational training programs	Religion-oriented associations (Mahiber, Dahira, NOI)
Book lending library	Housing associations
Playground	Educational institutions
Art & music schools	Health-oriented associations
Semi-professional theatre	African–European friendship associations
Sports hall & sports teams	Online/internet-based associations
Pharmacy	Federations/umbrella organizations

¹ Table 1 should be read down the columns.

. “Addams introduced the notion that a well-organized community life and culture can exist even among poor people and that one means by which to make society better is to attend to and nurture that community life and culture” (Specht and Courtney 1995, chp. 1). Hull-House itself was a cooperative undertaking that included various SSE initiatives and organizations within itself. In addition to organizing SSEOs and initiatives, Hull-House carried out other community-based activities contributing to SW research and education, social movements, and social reforms. Hull-House’s work was guided by three basic principles, i.e., respect for the dignity of all people, participation of and collaborative work with community residents, and the conception of the causes of poverty and inequality as a structural phenomenon (Malekoff and Papell 2012). Hull-House’s work can be summarized in the motto of the three Rs, i.e., Residence, Research, and Reform (Branco 2016).12

Similar approaches are observed in SSE. For example, in the case of SSE in general, the following innovative aspects are noted: bottom-linked governance and democratic decision-making; participation, self-determination, and empowerment of users; integrative and cooperative knowledge production (as opposed to the concentration of knowledge and dependencies on professionals); sector-transgressing solutions that combine resources and adapt to specific needs; the mix of material and nonmaterial resources from different sources; and integration of collaborating social networks, volunteers, and stakeholders (Elsen 2023). Also, in the case of the SSE of PAD in Europe, it can be noted that their institutions and organizations are founded on the principles of self-organization and cooperativism, enabling them to provide available, accessible, and affordable social protection and services.

In both Hull-House and SSE cases, the secret to their innovative and realistic solutions to social problems lies in how the fundamental needs of people are met. In both cases, service users’ needs were met while they were seen as participants, co-creators, and people with dignity and agency. For instance, Addams and her colleagues believed that being a service user should not be a degrading experience (NASW Foundation n.d.). To understand the significance of such approaches, Max-Neef’s (2017) concept of fundamental human needs is indispensable. The key idea in his work is that the way we satisfy fundamental needs can make a great difference since not all satisfiers are equal. There are synergetic satisfiers, which are capable of satisfying multiple needs at the same time. For example, infant formula and breastfeeding are both satisfiers of the need for subsistence. However, breastfeeding is a much better satisfier since it simultaneously satisfies other needs such as needs for protection, affection, understanding, participation, identity, and freedom (Max-Neef 2017). Similarly, consuming vegetables bought as economic goods and consuming vegetables produced in a social cooperative have different qualities in terms of their contribution to empowerment, social inclusion, well-being, and freedom from market dependencies (Elsen 2023).

The above lessons from the Hull-House tradition and SSE can help to inform SW’s methodology directly. More collectivist, cooperativist, and community-based methods of intervention, as well as policy practice (macro SW), are needed in SW. However, this is not to argue that SW should abandon the individualistic approach altogether. Given the variety and complexity of problems SW addresses, it is important for the profession to be versatile and have a complete toolbox of strategies and interventions, including the individualistic approach. In all cases, SW should emphasize culturally appropriate and synergetic satisfiers of fundamental human needs as opposed to using singular satisfiers that address one particular need without affecting the satisfaction of any others.

4. Concluding Remarks and Recommendations

In this paper we have asserted that SW could address its major contradictions by adopting Critical Realism as a philosophical foundation/stance (especially with regard to ontology and epistemology) and learning from the SSE and Hull-House tradition of SW (especially in relation to methodology/practice). There are significant communalities between Critical Realism, SSE, and the Hull-House tradition that could be emphasized by SW. These include emphasizing: (i) going beyond positivist and social constructivist ontology, epistemology, and methodology; (ii) social structures and causal mechanisms (especially in terms of considering the capitalist hegemony as the main structure causing, exacerbating, and maintaining unsustainability); (iii) agency and the possibility of change; and (iv) concrete alternatives to the current system. Learning from them can help SW to address its contradictions that have hindered it from realizing its full potential (i.e., achieving its contemporary mission of promoting social change and development, social cohesion, and the empowerment and liberation of people) in the 21st century and to remain relevant in the rapidly changing world. Doing so also helps SW to contribute more to sustainability transformation as SW has a crucial role to play in addressing the multiple crises of our time, especially in relation to social sustainability. Doing so enables SW to truly be the profession that specializes in social sustainability.

In general, it can be argued that the ultimate mission of SW, SSE (of PAD), and other sustainability efforts should be to help bring about wellbeing, which can be defined as, as Gibson-Graham et al. (2013) put it, “surviving together well and equitably” with others including the natural environment (earth others) and communities and societies all over the world. Accordingly, one specific objective for them should be countering the capitalist hegemony (racial capitalism/the imperial mode of living) by for example, engaging in community-based initiatives (SSE/community economies); bring about specific structural changes with regard to immigration and citizenship policies, land policies, economic policies, social protection policies, etc.; and fighting against neo-colonialism and neo-imperialism. In relation to this, they need to promote a political model that promotes a post-capitalist economy, which “ensures human well-being and ecological stability without needing imperialism” (Hickel 2020, 2025). At the political level, Democratic Ecosocialism could be a promising solution in transforming the global capitalist hegemony (racial capitalism/the imperial mode of living) and achieving a sustainable and peaceful world. Ecosocialism, characterized by degrowth (a conscious and equitable downscaling of energy and resource use in high-income countries)13 and decolonization (an anti-imperialist and decolonial project), can be understood as a planned and democratic transition to such a future (see Hickel 2020, 2023). This model helps to stop making the welfare state and SW in the West dependent on the exploitation of the majority world. This idea of promoting Ecosocialism and degrowth is also consistent with SW’s emerging ecosocial approach that seeks to contribute to sustainability transformation (see Boetto 2017; Obeng and Tadesse 2024; Tadesse and Obeng 2023).

The arguments we have made so far should be viewed in relation to the limitations of this paper. This is a theoretical paper that intends to point to a potential way of addressing the contradictions of SW. It does not cover all the evidence and examples from SW and the SSE that could further support the arguments made here. We also acknowledge the potential tension between our radical critique and the need for professional pragmatism. A potential solution to this tension could be found in what Gibson-Graham and their colleagues at Community Economies Collective (CEC) and Community Economies Research Network (CERN) recommend in order to “take back the economy”, i.e., scaling out (rather than up) local place-based community economies, which can be defined as ethical non-capitalist and more-than-capitalist economic practices (Gibson-Graham 2006; Gibson-Graham and Dombroski 2020; Gibson-Graham et al. 2013). In the context of SW, this could mean scaling out local place-based community work as well as integrating community economy and SSE activities into SW practice.14 Such a strategy, coupled with policy practice, could help address such a tension. We believe that there is a need for more research, debate, and practical experiments in this direction.

Finally, we would like to close by reiterating the following specific recommendations. SW should emphasize Critical Realism, SSE and the Hull-House tradition by: (i) teaching its students and practitioners about Critical Realism, the Hull-House tradition, and current concepts and practices of SSE;15 (ii) establishing SSEOs and projects; (iii) referring service users to SSEOs for employment, internship, volunteering, and visits; (iv) encouraging service users to establish their own SSEOs; (v) providing training for members of SSEOs; (vi) collaborating and cocreating with SSEOs in other ways (especially with those that are considered as SSE by marginalized groups and SSE with marginalized groups); and (vii) advocating for SSEOs to help them address their major challenges, such as financial difficulties, lack of visibility, and lack of recognition.