a research paper and PowerPoint

 Critical Analysis Assignment Presentation (Theoretical Assessment)You will write a summary and critical review of a journal article using one of the theories and article that I uploaded.You will also upload a PowerPoint (6 slides Max) or video presentation listing the following: •the content of the article  ,•how the chosen theory was used in the research, and  • how well the chosen theory was applied in the study. 

 Each paper should contain the following content: Minimum and Maximum of 3 pages for the body 
Header:

I. Cover Page

II. Summary of the Article answering the following:
how the chosen theory was used in the research, and
how well the chosen theory was applied in the study.
a brief summary of the article and theory used,
1 page maximum for the summary of the article and theory used in the article;

III. Critical Analysis of the Article answering the following:
a discussion of how the theory was used in the article, and
How helpful was the theory in understanding the issue/concept of the article? Why or why not? (Support with scholarly references and citations)
Why do you think this article was grounded in the assigned theory?
2 pages minimum on the critical analysis of the article’s use of the theory.

IV.  Reference Page

The American Psychological Association (APA) Manual’s (7th Edition) style should be used as the format of your paper.
The paper should not exceed (3) pages excluding the cover and reference page from this count. Use 12 pt. font, one-inch margins, and APA format.
Submit your individual APA format Critical Analysis Paper in this assignment. 

Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Work.

http://www.jstor.org

The Strengths Perspective in Social Work

Practice: Extensions and Cautions

Author(s):

Dennis Saleebey

Source: Social Work, Vol. 41, No. 3 (May 1996), pp. 296-305
Published by: Oxford University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23718172
Accessed: 19-03-2015 16:34 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

This content downloaded from 129.81.226.78 on Thu, 19 Mar 2015 16:34:49 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oup

http://www.jstor.org/stable/23718172

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

The Strengths Perspective in Social Work

Practice: Extensions and Cautions
Dennis Saleebey

The strengths perspective in social work practice continues to develop

conceptually. The strengths-based approach to case management
with people with severe mental illness is well established. More

recently, there have been developments in strengths-based practice
with other client groups and the emergence of strengths orientations

in work with communities. To augment these developments,

converging lines of thinking, research, and practice in areas such as

developmental resilience, healing and wellness, and constructionist

narrative and story have provided interesting supports and

challenges to the strengths perspective. This article reviews some

current thinking and research about using a strengths orientation

and assesses conceptual endorsements and criticisms of the

strengths perspective.

Key words: empowerment; health; resilience;
social work practice; wellness

Over

the past few years, a strengths-based ap
proach to case management with people
with severe mental illness has emerged

(Saleebey, 1992; Sullivan & Rapp, 1994; Weick,

Rapp, Sullivan, & Kisthardt, 1989). More recently,
the profession has developed strengths-based

practice with other client groups—elderly people,

youths in trouble, people with addictions, even

communities and schools (Chamberlain & Rapp,

1991; Kretzmann & McKnight, 1993; Miller &

Berg, 1995; Parsons & Cox, 1994). In addition,

ongoing research, thinking, and practice in areas

such as developmental resilience, healing and

wellness, and constructionist narrative and story
have provided some interesting supports and

challenges to the strengths perspective. This ar

ticle briefly outlines some of the principles and

lexicon of the strengths orientation and addresses

CCC Code: 0037-8046/96 $3.00 © 1996
National Association of Social Workers, Inc.

some emergent and supportive ideas in other dis

ciplines and professions to re-examine some ele

ments of social work theory and practice.
In part the impetus for the evolution of a more

strengths-based view of social work practice
comes from the awareness that U.S. culture and

helping professions are saturated with psychoso
cial approaches based on individual, family, and

community pathology, deficits, problems, abnor

mality, victimization, and disorder. A conglom
eration of businesses, professions, institutions,

and individuals—from medicine to the pharma
ceutical industry, from the insurance industry to

the media—assure the nation that everyone has a

storehouse of vulnerabilities born of toxic experi
ences (usually occurring earlier in life) that put
him or her at risk of everything from sex addic

tion to borderline personality disorder (Kaminer,

296

This content downloaded from 129.81.226.78 on Thu, 19 Mar 2015 16:34:49 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

1993; Peele, 1989; Peele & Brodsky, 1991; Rieff,
1991).

The DSM-IV (American Psychiatric Association,
1994), although only seven years removed from

its predecessor, has twice the volume of text on

disorders. Victimhood has become big business as

many adults, prodded by a variety of therapists,

gurus, and ministers, go on the hunt for wounded

inner children and the poisonous ecology of their

family background. These phenomena are not

unlike a social movement or evangelism.

Practicing from a strengths perspective does

not require social workers to ignore the real

troubles that dog individuals and groups. Schizo

phrenia is real. Child sexual abuse is real. Pancre

atic cancer is real. Violence is real. But in the lexi

con of strengths, it is as wrong to deny the

possible as it is to deny the problem. The

strengths perspective does not deny the grip and

thrall of addictions and how they can morally and

physically sink the spirit and possibility of any
individual. But it does deny the overweening reign

of psychopathology as civic, moral, and medical

categorical imperative. It does deny that most

people are victims of abuse or of their own ram

pant appetites. It denies that all people who face

trauma and pain in their lives inevitably are

wounded or incapacitated or become less than

they might. It decries the fact that the so-called

recovery movement, now so far beyond its origi

nal intended boundaries, has

pumped out a host of illnesses and addictions

that were by earlier standards, mere habits, some

good, some bad. Everywhere in public we find

people talking freely, if not excitedly, even

proudly, about their compulsions—whether it

be gambling, sex, shopping, exercise, or the hor

rible desire to please other people. We are awash

in a sea of codependency, wounded inner chil

dren, and intimacy crises. (Wolin & Wolin,

1993, p.7)

To exemplify, in a homely way, this cultural

obsession with pathology, a few notes and num

bers culled from the media and professional

sources follow;

■ Eighty million Americans are codependent

(Kaminer, 1993).
■ Twenty million Americans are gambling

addicts (Peele, 1989).
■ Ninety-six percent of all families are dys

functional (Rieff, 1991).

■ Since 1990, there has been a 300 percent
increase in claims filed with the Prudential
Insurance Company for multiple personal

ity disorder (Harper’s Index, 1993).
■ There is a 3 in 5 chance that if you go to a

physician you will be put on a regimen of
medication (Harper’s Index, 1992).

The appreciations and understandings of the

strengths perspective are an attempt to correct

this overwrought and, in some instances, destruc

tive emphasis on what is wrong, what is missing,
and what is abnormal.

Elements of the Strengths Perspective

The strengths perspective demands a different way

of looking at individuals, families, and communi
ties. All must be seen in the light of their capaci

ties, talents, competencies, possibilities, visions,

values, and hopes, however dashed and distorted

these may have become through circumstance,

oppression, and trauma. The strengths approach

requires an accounting of what people know and

what they can do, however inchoate that may

sometimes seem. It requires composing a roster of

resources existing within and around the indi

vidual, family, or com

munity.

It takes courage and diligence on the part of

social workers to regard professional work

through this different lens. Such a “re-vision” de

mands that they suspend initial disbelief in clients.
Too often practitioners are unprepared to hear

and believe what clients tell them, what their par

ticular stories might be (Lee, 1994), especially if

they have engaged in abusive, destructive, addic

tive, or immoral behavior.

It is also important in rediscovering the whole

ness of clients to recognize that the system—the

bureaucracies and organizations of helping—is

often diametrically opposed to a strengths orien

tation. In both formal and informal venues and

structures, policies, and programs, the preferred

language replaces the clients’ own lexicon with the

vocabulary of problem and disease (Goldstein,

1990; Saleebey, 1992). Finally, the professional

language and the metaphorical devices social

workers use to understand and help sometimes

subvert the possibility of understanding clients in

the light of their capácities. Pursuing a practice

based on the ideas of resilience, rebound, possi

bility, and transformation is difficult because,

oddly enough, it is not natural to the world of

helping and service. Table 1 contrasts the

Saleebey / The Strengths Perspective in Social Work Practice: Extensions and Cautions

297

This content downloaded from 129.81.226.78 on Thu, 19 Mar 2015 16:34:49 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

Comparison of Pathology and

Strengths

Pathology Strengths

Person is defined as a “case”; symptoms add up to a Person is defined as unique; traits, talents, resources

diagnosis. add up to strengths.

Therapy is problem focused. Therapy is possibility focused.

Personal accounts aid in the evocation of a diagnosis Personal accounts are the essential route to knowing

through reinterpretation by an expert. and appreciating the person.

Practitioner is skeptical of personal stories, rational- Practitioner knows the person from the inside out.

izations.

Childhood trauma is the precursor or predictor of Childhood trauma is not predictive; it may weaken

adult pathology. or strengthen the individual.

Centerpiece of therapeutic work is the treatment Centerpiece of work is the aspirations of family, in

plan devised by practitioner. dividual, or community.

Practitioner is the expert on clients’ lives. Individuals, family, or community are the experts.

Possibilities for choice, control, commitment, and Possibilities for choice, control, commitment, and

personal development are limited by pathology. personal development are open.

Resources for work are the knowledge and skills of Resources for work are the strengths, capacities, and

the professional. adaptive skills of the individual, family, or com

munity.

Help is centered on reducing the effects of symp- Help is centered on getting on with one’s life, af

toms and the negative personal and social conse- firming and developing values and commitments,

quences of actions, emotions, thoughts, or rela- and making and finding membership in or as a

tionships. community.

strengths approach with conventional pathology
based approaches.

Language

“We can act,” wrote William James (1902) in re

flecting on Immanuel Kant’s notions about con

ceptions, “as if there were a God; feel as if we were

free; consider nature as if she were full of special

designs; lay plans as if we were to be immortal; and

we find then that these words do make a genuine
difference in our moral life” [italics added] (p.
55). But, as Joseph Conrad (1900) knew, words
can harbor danger as well: “There is a weird

power in a spoken word…. And a word carries

far—very far—deals destruction through time as

the bullets go flying through space” (p. 185).
Language is like a pseudopodia with which we

reach out to the world, grasping its shape and in

corporating, for our own, the sustenance there.

Words do have the power to elevate or destroy.
The profession’s discourse on clients can be noble

or base depending on the words used. Words can

lift and inspire or frighten and constrain. Words

are the aliment that feeds the sense of self. Thus,

social workers are obligated to examine their dic

tionary of helping.
Certain words are key to the strengths perspec

tive. Empowerment, rapidly becoming a hackneyed
idea and term, means assisting individuals, fami

lies, and communities in discovering and using
the resources and tools within and around them

(Kaplan 8t Girard, 1994). The empowerment im

perative also requires that social workers help

people become aware of the tensions and conflicts

that oppress and limit them and help them free

themselves from these restraints (Pinderhughes,

1994).
Resilience means the skills, abilities, knowledge,

and insight that accumulate over time as people

struggle to surmount adversity and meet chal

lenges. It is an ongoing and developing fund of

energy and skill that can be used in current

struggles (Garmezy, 1994).

Membership means that people need to be citi

zens—responsible and valued members in a viable

group or community. To be without membership

Social Work / Volume 41, Number 3 / May 1996

298

This content downloaded from 129.81.226.78 on Thu, 19 Mar 2015 16:34:49 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

is to be alienated, and to be at risk of marginal
ization and oppression, the enemies of civic and

moral strength (Walzer, 1983). As people begin to

realize and use their assets and abilities, collec

tively and individually, as they begin to discover

the pride in having survived and overcome their

difficulties, more and more of their capacities
come into the work and play of daily life. These
build on each other exponentially, reflecting a

kind of synergy. The same synergistic phenom
enon seems true of communities and groups as

well. In both instances, one might suggest that

there are no known limits to individual and col

lective capacities.

Strengths

also provide the diction, symbols, metaphors, and

tools for rebound (Lifton, 1993). Finally, people
who have overcome abuse and trauma often have

“survivor’s pride” (Benard, 1994; Wolin & Wolin,

1993). Such pride is often buried under shame,

guilt, and alienation, but it is often there waiting
to be tapped into.

Resilience

Resilience should not be understood as the blithe

denial of difficult life experiences, pains, and
scars; it is, rather, the ability to go on in spite of
these (Rutter, 1985; Wolin & Wolin, 1993). Dam

age, to be sure, has been done. Despite the

wounds inflicted, for many the trauma also has

been instructive and chastening. Resilience is not

Personal qualities and strengths a trait or static dimension. It

are sometimes forged in the fires is the continuing articulation

of trauma, sickness, abuse, and of capacities and knowledge

oppression. A sense of humor, A sense of humor, loyalty, derived through the interplay
loyalty independence,insight,

independence, insight, and ofri,i®aundProtectionsinthe and other virtues might very ,
~~

world. The environment con

well become the source of en- Other Virtues might very tinually presents demands,
ergy for successful work with well become the SOUrce of stresses, challenges, and op
clients even though their seeds energy for successful work portunities.

These become
were sown in trouble and pain fateful, given a complexity of

(Vaillant, 1993; Wolin&Wolin,
With Clients. other factors—genetic, neuro

1993). What people learn about biological, familial, commu
themselves and others as they nal—for the development of

struggle to surmount difficulty strength, of resilience, or of

can become knowledge useful in getting on with

one’s life. People learn from their trials and tribu

lations, even those that they inflict on themselves

(Anthony 8c Cohler, 1987; Wolin 8c Wolin, 1993).

People learn from the world around them,

through formal education or through the distill

ing of their day-to-day experience. Clients can

often surprise practitioners (and themselves) with

the talents they have (or once had but let fall into

disuse or out of memory). Such talents, whether

juggling, cooking, baking bread, or tending to the
needs of the ill, may become tools for helping to
build a better life.

Extremely important sources of strength are

cultural and personal stories, narratives, and lore.

Cultural approaches to healing may provide a

source for the revival and renewal of energies and

possibilities. Cultural accounts of origins, devel

opment, migrations, and survival may provide

inspiration and meaning. Personal and familial

stories of falls from grace and redemption, failure

and resurrection, and struggle and resilience may

diminution in capacity.
Research on developmental resilience has in

troduced ideas that challenge three dominant

concepts about development: ( 1 ) there are fixed,

inevitable, critical, and universal stages of devel

opment; (2) childhood trauma inevitably leads to

adult psychopathology (Benard, 1994; Garmezy,

1994); and (3) there are social conditions, inter

personal relationships, and institutional arrange
ments that are so toxic they inevitably lead to dec

rements or problems in the everyday functioning

of children and adults, families, and communities

(Rutter, 1994).

Perhaps the most celebrated study of develop

mental resilience in children as they gro\v into

adulthood is the longitudinal research in Kauai,
Hawaii, begun in 1955 by Werner and Smith

(1992). In their earlier report, Werner and Smith

(1982) reported that one of every three children

who was evaluated by several measures to be at

significant risk for adolescent problems actually

developed into competent and confident young

Saleebey / The Strengths Perspective in Social Work Practice: Extensions and Cautions

299

This content downloaded from 129.81.226.78 on Thu, 19 Mar 2015 16:34:49 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

adults at age 18. In their follow-up study, Werner

and Smith (1992) revealed that two of three of the

remaining two-thirds had turned into caring and

efficacious adults by age 32. One of their central

conceptualizations was that individuals have self

righting tendencies. From that, they concluded

that some of the factors that ensure the emergence

of self-correction of the life course can be identi

fied. They also concluded that a significant pro
tective factor for many children is a steadfast, car

ing relationship with at least one adult. This adult

(in a few cases it was a peer) does not have to be a

family member or physically present all of the
time. These relationships provide a protective belt

for the child, and they also invigorate the self

righting capacities of the child. Finally, and most

important, Werner and Smith argued that it is

never too late to change a life trajectory from dis

solution to aspiration and accomplishment.

Critical Factors

Many factors, highly variable, interactive, and dy

namic, affect how an individual or group will re

spond to a series of traumatic, even catastrophic

situations (Benard, 1994; Chess, 1989; Garmezy,

1994). The critical factors have been termed “risk

factors” (they enhance the likelihood of adaptive

struggles and poorer developmental outcomes)

and “protective factors” (they increase the likeli
hood of rebound from trauma and stress). I

would add “generative factors”—remarkable and

revelatory experiences that, taken together, dra

matically increase learning, resource acquisition,
and development, accentuating resilience and har

diness. As examples of some of the ingredients of

resilience and adaptation, Masten (1994) listed

the following: competence or functioning over

time, the nature of adversities faced, individual
and social assets and environmental protections

and challenges, the context in which stresses are

experienced, and individual perceptions and defi
nitions of stressful situations. She cautioned that

these factors must always be understood as dy

namic, interactive, and synergistic and as occur

ring over time.

Community

Over the past few years, another complex of fac

tors has emerged as important in the transactions

among risk, protective, and generative circum

stances: the community. In communities that am

plify individual resilience, there is awareness, rec

ognition, and use of the assets of most members

of the community. Informal networks of indi

viduals, families, and groups; social networks of

peers; and intergenerational mentoring relation

ships provide succor, instruction, support, and

encouragement (Benard, 1994; Kretzmann &

McKnight, 1993). These communities can be un

derstood as “enabling niches” (Taylor, 1993),

places where individuals become known for what

they do, are supported in becoming more adept

and knowledgeable, and can establish solid rela

tionships within and outside the community. In

“entrapping niches” (Taylor, 1993), individuals
are stigmatized and isolated. Membership in the

community is based on collective stigma and

alienation.

In communities that provide protection and

minimize risk, there are many opportunities to

participate, to make significant contributions to

the moral and civic life of the community, and to

take on the role of full-fledged citizen (Benard,

1994; McLaughlin, Irby, & Langman, 1994). In
these communities, high expectations of members

are the rule. Youths, elders, and all members are

expected to do well, are given opportunities to do

so, and are instructed in the use of the tools

needed for meeting such expectations. These ex

pectations are related to the life and needs of the

community as well as to the developing compe
tencies of the individual (Montuori 8c Conti, 1993).

Health and Wellness

The ample literature exploring the relationship
between body, mind, and environment and health

and wellness suggests that this interaction is com

plex, recursive, and reticulate and always impli

cated in keeping people well, assisting individuals

in regenerating after trauma, and helping indi

viduals and communities survive the impact and

aftermath of calamity and ordeal. In a sense, the

strengths perspective itself begins with appreciat

ing the body and its tremendous restorative pow

ers as well as its powers to resist disease (Ornstein

&Sobel, 1987; Saleebey, 1985).
A budding conception of the human brain also

indicates the inherent wisdom of the body and

mind. Over evolutionary time, the human brain

has grown into a lattice work of neuronal modules

that lie beneath many inchoate or heretofore un

expressed capacities. Whether these capacities ap

pear depends mightily on the environment. In a

sense, we already “know” what we need to know

Social Work / Volume 41, Number 3 / May 1996

300

This content downloaded from 129.81.226.78 on Thu, 19 Mar 2015 16:34:49 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

to survive. This knowledge may not be manifest in

behavior and cognition or in language and learn

ing unless the environment requires and elicits it.

The environment, in this way, “selects” from this

enormous neurobiological endowment, and, if all

goes well, individually and collectively, human

kind adapts and thrives (Gazzaniga, 1992). To be
lieve in the naturally selected hardiness and wis

dom of the body is to believe in the possibility of

any individual or group surmounting difficulty
(Dossey, 1989).

Beliefs and Emotions

Positive beliefs about one’s self and condition play
a significant role in health maintenance and re

generation (Cousins, 1989). Supported by positive
beliefs and a supportive environment, the brain

acts as a “health maintenance organization”

(Ornstein 8c Sobel, 1987). Emotions, too, have a

profound effect on wellness and health. They may

act as signals for the body’s immune and recu

perative responses. It does seem the case that

emotions experienced as positive can activate “the

pharmacy within” as well as embolden the appli
cation of reason in day-to-day life (Damasio,
1994; Ornstein 8c Sobel, 1987). When people be

lieve that they can recover, when they have an ar

ray of positive emotions about that prospect in

the context of their daily lives, their bodies often

respond optimally. Under certain conditions,
the

body’s regenerative powers can be augmented.

These factors may operate at the community level

as well.

Health Realization and Community
Empowerment

The health realization-community empowerment

model developed by Mills (1995) is based on edu

cating people and helping them recognize their

innate resilience and knowledge that can be used

in achieving individual aspirations and improving

community vitality. Mills’s idea is that resilience,

health, wisdom, intelligence, and positive motiva

tion are within each person and are accessible

through education, support, and encouragement.

The goals of health realization and community

empowerment are to “reconnect people to
the

health in themselves and then direct them in ways

to bring forth the health of others in their com

munity. The result is a change in people
and com

munities which builds up from within rather than

[being] imposed from without” (cited in Benard,

1994, p. 22). Supportive and instructive relation

ships, predictable and enduring sources of comfort

and guidance, the creation of an ethos of health

and accomplishment, and the soothing hand of

others may inspire health and promote a better

quality of life for individuals and communities.

The resilience and the health and wellness lit

eratures run parallel in many regards. Both imply

that individuals and communities have intrinsic

capacities for restoration and rebound. Both sug

gest that individuals are best served, from a health

and competence standpoint, by creating belief and

thinking around possibility and values, around

accomplishment and renewal, rather than center

ing exclusively on risk factors and disease pro

cesses. Both indicate that health and resilience are,

in the end, community projects, an effect of social

connection, the aggregation of collective vision,

the provision of mentoring, and the reality of be

longing to an organic whole.

Constructionism: Stories and Narratives

The constructionist view, in its many guises, em

phasizes the importance of meaning making in

human affairs (Becker, 1968). Human beings can
build themselves into the world only by creating

meaning, fashioning out of symbols, icons, and

words a sense of what the world is all about

(Bruner, 1990). The building blocks of meaning
making are, for the most part, found in the edifice

of culture. Culture provides the means by which

people receive, organize, rationalize, and under

stand their experiences in the world. Central ele

ments of the patterns woven by culture are story

and narrative. Individuals impart, receive, or af

firm meanings largely through telling and retell

ing stories and recounting narratives, the plots

often laid out by culture. There is always, as

Rosaldo (1989) argued, a tension between struc

ture (culture) and agency (selfhood), so that indi

viduals, families, and subcultures (or “minority”

cultures) may develop their own stories or shape

those laid out by the culture. Groups who suffer

the domination of broader social institutions or

suppression of their own cultural devices
under

the dominant culture frequently do not have their

stories told or heard, not only in the wider world

but also, regrettably, in their own world (Gergen,

1991; Laird, 1989; Rosaldo, 1989). Certainly one

of the characteristics of being oppressed is having
one’s stories buried under the forces of ignorance

and stereotype.

Saleebey / The Strengths Perspective in Social Work Practice: Extensions and Cautions
This content downloaded from 129.81.226.78 on Thu, 19 Mar 2015 16:34:49 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

Lifting oppression and emancipating the moral

imagination, the visions and hopes, and the life

chances of people who are dispossessed involve

recapturing and reconstructing the “generative
themes” (Freire, 1973) of the culture, community,

neighborhood, or family. It is a part of the work

toward liberation to collaborate in the projection
of peoples’ stories, narratives, and myths outward

to the institutions that have ignored or marginal
ized them (Saleebey, 1994).

Criticisms of the Strengths Perspective

Many individuals who present the strengths ap

proach in workshops and training for professional
social workers, in consultation with agencies, and

in the classroom report some common reservations

and objections about the strengths perspective
from practitioners and students: that the strengths

perspective is just positive thinking in another

guise, simply reframes deficits and misery, is “Polly

annaish,” or ignores or downplays real problems.

Positive Thinking in Disguise
America has a long tradition of the idea of the

power of positive thinking from Mary Baker Eddy
to Norman Vincent Peale to Anthony Robbins.

Though its current face is presented in slicker

technological garb, positive thinking has not

drifted very far from Emile Coué, who, at the turn

of the century, advised repeating “Every day, in

every way, I get better and better.”

The strengths perspective, however, is not

predicated on the repetition of uplifting mantras

or the idea that transformation is a matter of a few

minutes and a timely miracle. Rather, the idea is

that to build something of lasting significance
with clients, social workers must use their exper
tise in the service of capitalizing on client re

sources, talents, knowledge, and motivation, as

well as environmental collateral. There is little else

with which to construct possibility and to reach

out for promise. This is hard work. People, espe

cially people in trouble or dire straits, are not

given to thinking of themselves or others in terms

of strengths or as having emerged from scarring
events with something useful and redemptive (de

Shazer, 1991; Lee, 1994). In addition, if they have

been clients of the welfare, social services, or men

tal health systems, they likely have been inculcated

in the doctrine of themselves as deficient and

needy. They are not easily dissuaded from this

identity (Holmes & Saleebey, 1993).

More important, the strengths perspective re

quires formation of appreciative, collaborative

relationships with clients, which social workers

are taught are essential to effective, principled
work. To establish such relationships social work

ers must devise strict and accurate accountings of

client assets.

Reframing Misery

The criticism that the strengths perspective simply
reframes deficit and misery suggests that clients

are not really expected to do the work of transfor

mation and risk action. Rather, they are required

merely to reconceptualize their difficulties so that

they are sanitized and less threatening to self and

others. In this way, schizophrenia, for example,
becomes an exquisite sensitivity to the motives and

meanings of others. The strengths approach hon

ors the reality of schizophrenia and the damage
this neurobiological, psychosocial disorder can do.

The strengths perspective does not deny reality;
it demands some reframing, however, to develop
an attitude and language about the nature of pos

sibility and opportunity and the nature of the in

dividual beneath the diagnostic label. The work

involves creating access to communal resources so

that they become the ticket to expanded choices

and routes to change.

Pollyannaism

Another criticism is that the strengths approach is

Pollyannaish, that it ignores how manipulative
and dangerous or destructive certain clients and

client groups can be. The argument is, apparently,
that some people are simply beyond redemption.

Clearly, there are individuals who commit acts

that are beyond our capacity to understand, let

alone accept.

But the strengths perspective demands that

practitioners ask what useful qualities and skills or

even motivation and aspirations these clients

have, how they can be tapped in the service of

change, and in what more salubrious ways these

individuals can meet their needs and resolve their

conflicts. Social workers cannot automatically dis

count people. There may be genuinely evil people,

beyond grace or hope, but it is best not to make

that assumption first.

Ignoring Reality
A very serious criticism is that the strengths per

spective ignores or downplays real problems. The

Social Work / Volume 41, Number 3 / May 1996
This content downloaded from 129.81.226.78 on Thu, 19 Mar 2015 16:34:49 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

strengths approach does not discount the prob
lems of clients. Often, these problems are where

clients begin, what they are compelled to talk

about, what are most urgent. The individual or

group may need the opportunity for catharsis, for

grieving and mourning, for the expression of rage
or anxiety, for the recounting of barriers to satis

faction and esteem (Wolin & Wolin, 1993).
All helpers should assess and evaluate the

sources and remnants of client troubles, difficul

ties, pains, and disorders. As Cousins (1989) sug
gested, one should not deny the verdict (diagnosis

or assessment) but should defy the sentence. Hav

ing assessed the damage, social workers need to

ensure that the diagnosis does not become a cor

nerstone of identity. To avoid that possibility,
they calculate how clients have managed to sur

vive thus far and what they have drawn on in the

face of misfortune. What part of their struggle has

been useful to them, and what positive or con

structive learning has it yielded? People are not

often thought to think of the afflictions of circum

stance, context, or character in this way, but with

encouragement, they can. Whatever else symp

toms are, they may also be a sign of the soul’s

struggle to be alive, responsible, and involved

(Moore, 1992). For helpers, the goal may be not

the heroic cure but rather the constancy of caring

and connection and collaborative work toward

improving the quality of day-to-day living.

Yes, but…

Many social workers and agencies argue that they

already abide by the strictures of a strengths ori

entation. A review of actual practices reveals that

they often fall short of full endorsement and ap

plication of a strengths-based practice. For ex

ample, in many mental health agencies around the

country, individual service plans (ISPs) are de

vised to “incorporate” the strengths of client and

family in assessment and planning. But many ISPs

the author and other colleagues have examined

are rife with diagnostic assessments and elabora

tions, narratives about decompensation, and ex

plorations of continuing symptomatic struggles

and manifestations. Axes I and II of the DSM are

usually prominently featured. Often, the strengths

assessment is consigned to a few lines at the end

of the evaluation and planning form. The ac

countings rendered on these forms are, for the

most part, in the language of the worker and use

the mental health system lexicon.

Conclusion

The strengths perspective honors two things: the

power of the self to heal and right itself with the

help of the environment, and the need for an alli

ance with the hope that life might really be other

wise. Helpers must hear the individual, family, or

community stories, but people can write the story
of their near and far futures only if they know ev

erything they need to know about their condition

and circumstances. The job is to help individuals

and groups develop the language, summon the

resources, devise the plot, and manage the subjec

tivity of life in their world.
In a strengths approach, how social workers

encounter their fellow human beings is critical.

They must engage individuals as equals. They

must be willing to meet them eye to eye and to

engage in dialogue and a mutual sharing of

knowledge, tools, concerns, aspirations, and re

spect. The process of coming to know is a mutual

and collaborative one. The individuals and groups
the profession assist, also must be able to “name”

their circumstances, their struggles, their experi

ences, themselves. Many alienated people have

been named by others—labeled and diagnosed—

in a kind of total discourse. The power to name

oneself and one’s situation and condition is the

beginning of real empowerment.
The American philosopher Susanne Langer

(1963) wrote, “The limits of thought in any age
are set not so much from the outside by the full

ness or poverty of experience … as from within

by the power of conception and the wealth of for

mative notions with which the mind meets expe

rience” (p. 8). The strengths perspective is a

standpoint. Supporters believe that it offers a new

way of thinking and acting professionally. Clearly,

it is not a theory. But its emerging body of prin

ciple and method does create opportunities for

professional knowing and doing that go beyond

the boundaries of the “technical-rational” ap

proach (Schôn, 1983) so common today.

Some social work practitioners may find little

in this article that is “new” and may regard these

ideas as simply good social work practice. How

ever, it is the experience of those who have

worked to develop it that a strengths-based prac

tice does provide a richness of thought and an ar

ray of actions that go far toward serving well

those who seek help from the profession (Cham

berlain & Rapp, 1991; Sullivan & Rapp, 1994;

Saleebey / The Strengths Perspective in Social Work Practice: Extensions and Cautions

303

This content downloaded from 129.81.226.78 on Thu, 19 Mar 2015 16:34:49 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

Weick et al., 1989). Kaplan and Girard (1994) put
it this way:

People are more motivated to change when their

strengths are supported. Instead of asking family

members what their problems are, a worker can

ask what strengths they bring to the family and

what they think are the strengths of other family
members…. The worker creates a language of

strength, hope, and movement, (p. 53)

In the end, it is that kind of rhetoric that preserves
the possibility and promise of our clients. ■

References

American Psychiatrie Association. (1994). Diagnostic
and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th éd.).

Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.

Anthony, E. J., & Cohler, B. J. (Eds.). (1987). The invul

nerable child. New York: Guilford Press.

Becker, E. (1968). The structure of evil.

New York: Villard.

Benard, B. (1994, December). Applications of resilience.

Paper presented at a conference on the Role of Re

silience in Drug Abuse, Alcohol Abuse, and Mental

Illness, Washington, DC.

Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

Chamberlain, R., & Rapp, C. A. (1991). A decade of

case management: A methodological review of out

come research. Community Mental Health Journal,

27, 171-188.

Chess, S. (1989). Defying the voice of doom. In T. F.

Dugan 8c R. Coles (Eds.), The child in our times:

Studies in the development of resiliency (pp. 179

199). New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Conrad, J. (1900). Lord Jim. Edinburgh 8c London:

William Blackwood 8c Sons.

Cousins, N. (1989). Head first: The biology of hope. New

York: E. P. Dutton.

Damasio, A. R. (1994). Descartes’ error: Emotion, reason,

and the human brain. New York: Grosset/Putnam.

de Shazer, S. (1991). Putting difference to work. New

York: W. W. Norton.

Dossey, L. ( 1989). Recovering the soul: A scientific and

spiritual search. New York: Bantam

Books.

Freire, P. (1973). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York:

Seabury Press.

Garmezy, N. (1994). Reflections and commentary on

risk, resilience, and development. In R. J. Haggerty,
L. R. Sherrod, N. Garmezy, 8c M. Rutter (Eds.),

Stress, risk, and resilience in children and adolescents:

Processes, mechanisms, and interventions (pp. 1-18).

Cambridge,

England: Cambridge University Press.

Gazzaniga, M. (1992). Nature’s mind. New York: Basic

Books.

Gergen, K. (1991). The saturated self. New York: Basic

Books.

Goldstein, H. (1990). Strength or pathology: Ethical

and rhetorical contrasts in approaches to practice.
Families in Society, 71, 267-275.

Harper’s Index. (1992, October). Harper’s Magazine, p.
11.

Harper’s Index. (1993, February). Harper’s Magazine,

p. 13.

Holmes, G., & Saleebey, D. (1993, March). Empower

ment and the politics of clienthood. Journal of Pro

gressive Human Services, 4, 61-78.

James, W. (1902). The varieties of religious experience.
New York: Modern Library

Kaminer, W. (1993). I’m dysfunctional, you’re dysfunc
tional. New York: Vintage Books.

Kaplan, L., & Girard, J. (1994). Strengthening high-risk

families: A handbook for practitioners. New York:

Lexington Books.

Kretzmann, J. P., & McKnight, J. L. (1993). Building
communities from the inside out. Evanston, IL:

Northwestern University, Center for Urban Affairs

and Policy Research.

Laird, J. (1989). Women and stories. In M.

McGoldrick, C. Anderson, 8t F. Walsh (Eds.),

Women in families: A framework for family therapy

(pp. 428-449). New York: W. W. Norton.

Langer, S. (1963). Philosophy in a new key. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.

Lee, J.A.B. (1994). The empowerment approach to social

work practice. New York: Columbia University
Press.

Lifton, R. J. (1993). The protean self: Human resilience

in an age of fragmentation. New York: Basic

Books.

Masten, A. S. (1994). Resilience in individual develop
ment: Successful adaptation despite risk and adver

sity. In M. C. Wang & E. W. Gordon (Eds.), Educa

tional resilience in inner-city America: Challenges and

prospects (pp. 3-25). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum.

McLaughlin, M., Irby, M., & Langman, J. (1994). Ur

ban sanctuaries: Neighborhood organizations in the

lives and futures of inner city youth. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Miller, S. D„ 8t Berg, I. K. (1995). The miracle method:

A radically new approach to problem drinking. New

York: W. W. Norton.

Mills, R. (1995). Realizing mental health. New York:

Sulzberger & Graham.

Social Work / Volume 41, Number 3 / May 1996

304

This content downloaded from 129.81.226.78 on Thu, 19 Mar 2015 16:34:49 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

Montuori, A., & Conti, I. (1993). From power to part

nership: Creating the future of love, work, and com

munity. London:

HarperCollins.

Moore, T. (1992). Care of the soul. New York:

HarperCollins.

Ornstein, R., 8c Sobel, D. (1987). The healing brain.

New York: Simon & Schuster/Touchstone.

Parsons, R. J., & Cox, E. O. (1994). Empowerment-ori

ented social work practice with the elderly. Pacific

Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Peele, S. (1989). The diseasing of America. Lexington,

MA: Lexington Books.

Peele, S., 8t Brodsky, A. (1991). The truth about addic

tion and recovery. New York: Simon 8c Schuster.

Pinderhughes, E. (1994). Empowerment as an inter

vention goal: Early ideas. In L. Gutierrez 8c P.

Nurius (Eds.), Education and research for empower

ment practice (pp. 17-31). Seattle: University of

Washington, School of Social Work, Center for

Policy and Practice Research.

Rieff, D. (1991, October). Victims all. Harper’s Maga

zine, pp. 49-56.

Rosaldo, R. (1989). Culture and truth: The remaking of

social analysis. Boston: Beacon Press.

Rutter, M. (1985). Resilience in the face of adversity:

Protective factors and resistance to psychiatric

disorder. British Journal of Psychiatry, 147, 598-611.

Rutter, M. (1994). Stress research: Accomplishments

and tasks ahead. In R. J. Haggerty, L. R. Sherrod, N.

Garmezy, 8c M. Rutter (Eds.), Stress, risk, and resil

ience in children and adolescents: Processes, mecha

nisms, and interventions (pp. 354-385). Cambridge,

England: Cambridge University Press.

Saleebey, D. (1985). In clinical social work practice, is

the body politic? Social Service Review, 59, 578-592.

Saleebey, D. (1992). The strengths perspective in social

work practice. White Plains, NY: Longman.

Saleebey, D. (1994). Culture, theory, and narrative: The

intersection of meanings in practice. Social Work,

39, 352-359.

Schôn, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New

York: Basic Books.

Sullivan, W. P., 8c Rapp, C. A. (1994). Breaking away:

The potential and promise of a strengths-based ap

proach to social work practice. In R. G. Meinert,

J. T. Pardeck, 8c W. P. Sullivan (Eds.), Issues in social

work: A critical analysis (pp. 83-104). Westport, CT:

Auburn House.

Taylor, J. (1993). Poverty and niches: A systems view.

Unpublished manuscript.

Vaillant, G. E. (1993). The wisdom of the ego. Cam

bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Walzer, M. (1983). Spheres of justice. New York: Basic

Books.

Weick, A., Rapp, C., Sullivan, W. P., & Kisthardt, W.

(1989). A strengths perspective for social work prac

tice. Social Work, 34, 350-354.

Werner, E., 8c Smith, R. S. (1982). Vulnerable but invin

cible. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Werner, E., 8c Smith, R. S. (1992). Overcoming the odds:

High risk children from birth to adulthood. Ithaca,

NY: Cornell University Press.

Wolin, S. J., 8c Wolin, S. (1993). The resilient self: How

survivors of troubled families rise above adversity.

New York: Villard.

Dennis Saleebey, DSW, LMSW, is chair, PhD pro
gram in social welfare, and professor, School of So
cial Welfare, University of Kansas, Twente Hall,

Lawrence, KS 66045.

Accepted August 18, 1995

MSW’s

Join the dynamic team at Saint Margaret

Mercy Healthcare Centers and become

a part of Northwest Indiana’s premier
medical facility. Rapid growth and

expansion in our Home Care

Department has created exceptional

opportunities for MSW’s interested

in fee-for-service positions.

Please call or send your resume to:

Sonja Ogrizovich, Professional Recruiter,

219/933-2180 or 708/891-9305, ext.

32180, Saint Margaret Mercy Healthcare

Centers, North Campus, 5454 Hohman Ave,

Hammond, IN 46320.

EOE M/F/V/D

Saint Margaret Mercy ^ Healthcare Centers *

Saleebey / The Strengths Perspective in Social Work Practice: Extensions and Cautions

305

This content downloaded from 129.81.226.78 on Thu, 19 Mar 2015 16:34:49 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

• Article Contents

p. 296
p. 297
p. 298
p. 299
p. 300
p. 301
p. 302
p. 303
p. 304
p. 305

• Issue Table of Contents

Social Work, Vol. 41, No. 3 (May 1996) pp. 241-336
Front Matter
Editorial: Affordable Housing: A Basic Need and a Social Issue [pp. 245-249]
Female Gang Members: A Profile of Aggression and Victimization [pp. 251-257]
Empowering Battered Women Transnationally: The Case for Postmodern Interventions [pp. 261-268]
When Social Workers and Physicians Collaborate: Positive and Negative Interdisciplinary Experiences [pp. 270-281]
Afrocentricity: An Emerging Paradigm in Social Work Practice [pp. 284-294]
The Strengths Perspective in Social Work Practice: Extensions and Cautions [pp. 296-305]
Radicalizing Recovery: Addiction, Spirituality, and Politics [pp. 306-312]
Correction: Pathways of Older Adolescents out of Foster Care: Implications for Independent Living Services [pp. 312-312]
Practice Update
Training and Supporting the Telephone Intake Worker for an AIDS Prevention Counseling Study [pp. 314-319]
Commentary
The Personal Is Ecological: Environmentalism of Social Work [pp. 320-323]
Points &Viewpoints
HIV/AIDS and Suicide: Be Open [pp. 324-324]
HIV/AIDS and Suicide: Further Precautions [pp. 325-326]
Books
Review: untitled [pp. 328-328]
Review: untitled [pp. 328-329]
Review: untitled [pp. 329-330]
Review: untitled [pp. 330-331]
Review: untitled [pp. 331-331]
Review: untitled [pp. 331-332]
Selected Books Received [pp. 332-334]
Letters
Classism in the Curriculum [pp. 336-336]