c








 

  
   
  

  


  

  

  
   
   

  

 

 
 
  
     
!
 

   "


" "
 

"# 
$ 

      

  %
 
&  
 
  &
  

!
 
  
 
 &
    
 ! & 
 
 &
 


 
 &
  

 &
  

&

  
 
 &
  
 
 ! &
&

&    
   &
 
 



The term 'social pedagogy' has been used in countries such

as Germany, Holland and Hungary to embrace the activities of youth workers, residential or day care workers (with
children or adults), work with offenders, and play and occupational therapists (Galuske 2009). It has also been used to
describe aspects of church work and some community development activity. In a few European countries the notion
of animation is utilized to cover a similar arena of practice. With the growth of more integrated children's services in
Britain, there has been an interest in social pedagogy as a means of making sense of the professional development of
staff in these areas of state service (Edwards and Hatch 2003; Cameron 2004; DfES 2005). There also has been some
usage of the term from those seeking to explore classroom group work (e.g. Blatchford Ê

2003).

As an idea 
 first started being used around the middle of the nineteenth century in Germany as a way
of describing alternatives to the dominant models of schooling. However, by the second half of the twentieth century
social pedagogy became increasingly associated with social work and notions of social education in a number of
European countries. Within the traditions that emerged there has been a concern with the well-being or happiness of
the person, and with what might described as a holistic and educational approach. This has included an interest in
social groups - and how they might be worked with (see social groupwork). In this piece we explore the historical
development of the concept, and some of the issues that inform its usage.

 
'
  

To fully appreciate some of the debates around social pedagogy and the role of pedagogues it is worth going back to
the distinction made between teachers and pedagogues in in ancient Greece. We know that people had 'jobs' as
specialist educators. For example, Achilles had a tutor, Phoenix, who had the task of teaching him to be 'both a
speaker of words and a doer of deeds' (reported in the ninth book of the h). Some centuries later, in Athenian
society, there were schools (perhaps based on earlier Babylonian models).

Pedagogues were family attendants (usually slaves) whose duties were to supervise, and be with, the young sons of
the house. Chosen for their reliability (and sometimes their inability to undertake heavier duties), pedagogues took the
boys to the gym and the school (and sat with them in the classroom). As E. B. Castle (1961: 63) has commented, this
attendance of the pedagogue ( ) on the boys was not purely protective.

The  was also expected to supervise his young charge's manners in the home and in the street and even in
school, where he was in attendance as a symbol of parental authority throughout the school day. This moral
supervision by the  must be stressed. He was more important than the schoolmaster, because the latter
only taught a boy his letters, but the  taught him how to behave, a much more important matter in the eyes
of his parents. He was, moreover, even if a slave, a member of the household, in touch with its ways and with the
father's authority and views. The schoolmaster had no such close contact with his pupils. (Castle 1961: 63-4)

The low status of both teacher and pedagogue meant that they were frequently disrespected by the boys - and the
hovering presence of the pedagogue was hardly likely to endear itself (

).


  
!
 
  
   

By the sixteenth century the notion of pedagogy had come to be understood as referring to the activities of tutors and
school teachers. The notion of social pedagogy (
 is said to have been coined in 1844 by Karl Mager
(1810-1858) (he was editor of the 
ÊÊÊfrom 1840-48). He used 
 as an alternative to
'Collectivpädagogik' - and in contrast to 'Individualpädagogik' (van Ghent 1994: 95). However, it was the progressive
Prussian educational thinker Friedrich Diesterweg (1790 - 1866) (whom Mager drew upon), who brought the idea to a
broader audience. Diesterweg was exercised by the separation of theory and practice within teaching and is sometimes
credited with originating the maxim 'learn to do by doing' (see Kliebard 1987: 37).

Friedrich Diesterweg looked to  , ( 
and, later, Froebel in his educational writing (but was also well
aware of classical Greek thought). He believed that people were able to develop, to respect and care for others, and to
work for the good of the community (see Günther 1994: 296 - 297). He came to emphasise the idea of people carrying
out their own activity, and of the fundamental importance of democracy, especially following the 1848 Revolution.
Evolution was his central organizing idea:

The educational principle of evolution demands in the educational field: respect for human nature and of the
individual; its stimulation to full development, expression, activity and initiative; natural, hence joyful, experience of
life; stimulation to develop the senses, strengthening the body, to explore, to be lucid and to discover things;
providing the minds with suitable nourishment; constant progress. It forbids: arbitrary assumptions and manipulations
of human nature; any encouragement to act blindly and mechanically; any kind of drill; rote learning; uniformity;
force-feeding with subject matter that is not understood etc. (quoted in Günther 1994: 297)

Diestersweg was keen to reform schooling - to take it away from the influence of the church and politics, and to turn
it into a force for social change. He believed that general education should be open to everyone: 'First educate men,
before worrying about their professional training or class, [because] the proletarian and the peasant should both be
educated to become human beings'. He went on to argue for social pedagogy: 'educational action by which one aims
to help the poor in society' (1850, quoted in Cannan et al 1992: 73). Van Ghent comments, that as far as the poor were
concerned, he did not distinguish between adolescents and adults, whereas such a distinction was necessary in the
educational doctrines that were applied to the bourgeoisie. 'The threat of socio-economic struggles was apparently
considered to be far more dangerous than the conflicts between generations' (van Ghent 1994: 96).

)
    
 ! 

What began to emerge was a conception of education concerned with Ê development. Here the earlier
contribution of Friedrich Ernest Schleiermacher, the noted theologian and philosopher (1768-1834) was of some
significance. He went 'beyond the pedagogical principles of "natural self-development"
to embrace an "education for community" (ëÊÊ )' (Lorenz 1994: 91). 'Social' in this sense could relate to the
aim of the educational endeavour - the creation of community - and to the site for the process - in society. Examining
Schleiermacher's thinking, Lorenz says the following:

One of his theories is that individual intentions are already directed (by their nature as human intentions) towards
sociability, towards universal social goals. The other is that only democracy allows the individual will to form. Public
life needs to correspond to and reflect what is pedagogically, psychologically necessary for the healthy growth of the
individual. The conditions for good education are those of a sound democracy; pedagogical and political processes
condition each other. (op cit. 91-92)

This linking of pedagogy with community and democracy has remained a key theme - and can be seen in the work of
later writers such as 
 and c 
. However, it did not instantly recommend itself to those charged with
responsibility for developing German schooling!

*  
 
 

As the nineteenth century progressed, debates and insights around the idea of community developed (Dollinger 2006).
For example, Tönnies (1855-1936) published ëÊÊ ëÊÊ (Community and Society) in 1887.
There community was defined as 'the permanent and real form of living together, while society is only transitory and
apparent, and therefore community should be seen as a living organism and society as a mechanical aggregate and
artefact'. It was this idea of community, van Ghent argues, that became fixed in one of the most influential versions of
social pedagogy - that proposed by the prominent German philosopher Paul Natorp (1854-1924) (See Kim 2003 for a
discussion of his philosophical work). According to him atomization had made Germany sick - what was needed was
a strong sense of community (ëÊÊ ), education, and a fight to close the gap between rich and poor. Such
education was to take place in three environments: 'from the educating community of the household, through the
national and uniform school, into the free self-education of adults of all social backgrounds' (Marburger 1979 quoted
in van Ghent 1994: 97).

Paul Natorp may have been a progressive but such a vision of social pedagogy can, in the hands of a paternalistic or
totalitarian state, serve as a new form of social engineering and adjustment (see Lorenz 1994). It was to take such a
turn under National Socialism

*
 

 
 

In a narrow and exclusive form, social pedagogy can become 'education' that directs the individual will towards the
'higher level of a communal will'. For example Ernst Krieck argued for Nationalpolitische Erziehung (national-
political education - 'a totalitarian kind of education', based on irrationalism (van Ghent 1994: 100). As Sunker and
Otto (1997) have shown when the pivotal notion of '’ community' (Volksgemeinschaft) is introduced into the
notion of social pedagogy there is considerable danger. They argue (following Franz Neumann), that the totalitarian
state, the Ê principle, and the ideology of the ’ community are intertwined. National socialist rule involved
putting total, authoritarian organization in the place of pluralism; and the atomization of the individual. This latter
element entailed breaking down the influence of groupings such as the family, the church and unions and replacing
them with an identity to the ’ community and to its guardians/leaders. In the ’ community social contradictions
and conflicts are overcome. Character would be formed as part of a larger whole and one's first duty was to the ’ .
A pernicious twist comes in the politics of inclusion and exclusion. The ’ was one of 'blood and soil'. Those of
other 'races', those with disabilities, those who sought to question were not fit to be members.

In Germany it was young people who were to become the particular object of such 'education' (see, for example,
Becker 1946, Harvey 1993). Youth organizations such as the Ê Ê
Ê (League of German Girls)
involved a strict separation of the adult world and that of youth. They assigned girls to youth and this allowed for their
intervention in the 'modernization' of female life and in countering the influence of family (see Reese in Sunker and

Otto 1997). 'Because the state here penetrated by means of racist

legislation into the most intimate spheres, in the area of the family, education, reproduction and the body, it displaced
the personal bonds that were still dominant there and replaced them with new societal authorities and state violence'
(Reese 1997: 114). One of the particular forms utilized as an instrument of social discipline was the camp. Dudek (in
Sunker and Otto 1997) has examined some of the key practices and ideas. For example, how the idea of team and
service could be used to bind the behaviour of the individual and the camp community into the collective ’
community; and how 'comradeship' strengthened group identification. In a similar fashion Schiedeck and Stahlman
have focused on the totalizing experience of education camps. (See organized camps).

)
  

 

Jnsurprisingly, there was a reaction to this understanding of social pedagogy during post-war reconstruction. The fear
that the educational socialization apparently implied within social pedagogy could be directed to the needs of the
nation at the cost of individuals and of significant groups hung heavy. Moves towards more individual, problem-
based work seemed a safer option than the mass and group work of the then recent past. However, there was a limited
counterbalance through the influence of writers such as +

 (1948; 1951) on American 're-education' efforts. He
made a strong case for the use of small groups in the resolution of conflicts and the promotion of democracy. It was a
theme also taken up by somewhat more pessimistically by +
  (who also advised the British army education
service in Germany - see Stewart 1987: 212-214). Thus, as the German social welfare system evolved, social
pedagogy did not take quite the course that Diestersweg envisaged. Rather than informing the shape of schooling it
became seen as the 'third' area of welfare beside the family and school. It can be represented as:

a perspective, including social action which aims to promote human welfare through child-rearing and education
practices; and to prevent or ease social problems by providing people with the means to manage their own lives, and
make changes in their circumstances. (Cannan et al 1992: 73-74)

Conceived in this way it includes a wide range of practice including youth projects, crèches and nurseries, day-care
centres, parent-education, work with offenders and some areas of church work. The linkage with social problems and
crisis work situates social pedagogy alongside social work. Social work in Germany was divided into two major
branches: VÊ (casework/management) and V
 . The former can be seen as a 'general social
work service to families and other selected groups' (Cannan et al 1992: 73). Workers in both areas undertook a
common first foundation year of training (V ÊÊ) and then specialized in the different approaches. Around half
of those qualified as social workers in Germany trained as social pedagogues.
)
  



Many of the ideas that informed debates around social pedagogy in the late nineteenth century began to influence
developments in American educational thought. From the late nineteenth century on there was a JS journal and
community of practice centred around social education (see, for example, Scott 1908). 
, through the work of
Hebart - and his knowledge of Rousseau, Froebel and Pestalozzi - sought to develop what could be described as child-
centred theory. But he added to this a powerful dimension (and one that connects with the concerns of many early
champions of social pedagogy) - that the experience required for learning was participation in community life
(community was defined by Dewey in terms of sharing in a common life). Thus, his classroom was to be a
community in itself - a place where there are group activities - where people cooperate. Teachers were to join in with
the activities - to take part in a common endeavour. A critical point here is that Dewey saw the environment as .
People learn through interacting with a social environment.

This then links across to his - and other contemporary American writers - concern for democracy. People like Mary
Parker Follett and Ä +
  studied German developments. We can see a number of similarities with the
concerns identified in Follett's notion of training 'for the new democracy' (see  !
 

!).

These ideas also aroused considerable interest amongst JK educators - especially those operating within what might
be called the informal education tradition. They were reflected in some of the key post-war developments around
community centres and associations, community work, community education and youth work. Perhaps the most
significant shift in terms of practice was the reconceptualization of youth work as social education during the second
half of the 1960s (see, in particular, the work of Davies and Gibson 1967). For a significant period 'social education'
became the dominant way of describing both the content and the process of youth work. However, it was subject to
some critique and gradually became less prominent - especially as 'informal education' came back into use and gained
a stronger theoretical base (see Smith 1988).

The notion of social education (as being concerned with the relationship we have with ourselves, others and the
world) also became an aspect of debates around schooling. Social and personal education, then social, personal and
health education were part of the curriculum of many schools. Significantly, in terms of social work and care work,
there was a trend in the 1970s of re-labelling centres for adults with special education needs as social education
centres. Subsequently, other labels and concerns came to predominate - especially as schooling became more
centralized and focused on achieving national curriculum and other state objectives. More recently in the JK with a
growing interest in happiness and well-being, and appreciation of the problems of the individualistic and outcome
turn that both schooling and social welfare have taken, there appears to be some movement towards the 'social' (see,
for example, Layard and Dunn 2009).

)
  
 
 

The existence of a longstanding discourse around youth work and work with young people, and interest in social
education help to explain why social pedagogy didn't make much headway as the social professions developed in
north America and Britain and Ireland. Another factor was the growing adoption of ways of thinking and practising
drawn from social group work. As with some key traditions of social pedagogy there was in social group work
concern with mutuality, self-help, and democracy. This was joined with a growing appreciation of group process and
how more facilitative forms of intervention may happen.

Early proponents of social group work such as Grace Coyle drew heavily on the work of John Dewey - and others
concerned with social education. They were also often strongly based in civil society (working in social and
university settlements, the YWCA and YMCA and youth organizations). The setting for their activities was
associational. Furthermore, a number of the key writers and researchers in the group work field had been forced to
flee from National Socialism and this made its mark. Kurt Lewin (1948; 1951), for example, had an appreciation of
some of the philosophical themes that could be found running through German traditions of social pedagogy but
placed a strong emphasis upon democratic endeavour. Similarly, Gisela Konopka (1949; 1954; 1963) infused her
work with compassion and a concern for justice. She warned about an over-emphasis upon technique. In Britain
Josephine Klein (1956; 1961) had a strong grasp of the social setting of group activity and looked to the way in which
decisions could be made in an informed way. However, as was the case with social pedagogy in Germany after the
Second World War, group work in north America changed 'its emphasis from social action and preparation of group
members for social responsibility to problems of individual adjustment¶ (Reid 1981: 154). Yet, within group work, as
Allan Brown (1992: 8) has pointed out, while many workers are purely concerned to enhance individual functioning,
others still look beyond helping the individual with a problem. Groupwork can emphasize µaction and influence as
well as reaction and adaption¶ (

). It can, thus, be argued that:

« groupwork provides a context in which Ê Ê Ê; it is a method of helping groups as well as
helping individuals; and it can enable individuals and groups to ÊÊ and Ê personal, group, organizational
and community problems. (Brown 1992: 8. Emphasis in the original)

A strong strand of 'social goals group work' remains (see, for example, Twelvetress 2008).

More recently the notion of social pedagogy has begun to be used as a way of conceptualizing group activity in
classrooms (see Blatchford Ê
2003). However, in this literature thus far there has been little appreciation of social
pedagogy as a longstanding tradition of thinking and practice.

)
  
 
 ! 

In some respects the tradition of practice within English-speaking countries that has the strongest resemblance to
social pedagogy (at least to those strands that retain an emphasis on community and sociality) is Scottish. The concern
in Scotland from the early 1970s to develop a comprehensive approach to first, community education, and more
recently community learning and development allowed for important innovations in practice. The Scottish Executive
has argued that community learning and development 'is a way of listening and of working with people'. The paper
continued:

We define this as informal learning and social development work with individuals and groups in their communities.
The aim of this work is to strengthen communities by improving people's knowledge, skills and confidence,
organisational ability and resources. Community learning and development makes an important contribution towards
promoting lifelong learning, social inclusion and active citizenship. (Scottish Executive 2003)

There has been some tension between seeing community as the 'place' where learning and development happens, and
community as the aim of intervention. There has also been resistance. Youth organizations have argued that young
people have been marginalized, and community and voluntary groups have seen the framework applied strongly to
the advantage of state-defined objectives and state-run services. This said, the community education, and then the
community learning and development, framework have created potential for coherent practice.

)


The history of social pedagogy highlights a number of issues and questions - especially linked into its usage within
National Socialism. Here though we want to focus on three areas:

Ôp Social pedagogy as a domesticating ideology.

Ôp The pedagogue as an alternative way of constructing a professional framework and identity;
Ôp The problem of pedagogy

)
 

  
  ,

Lorenz poses a a question of lasting significance:

Is social pedagogy essentially the embodiment of dominant societal interests which regard all educational projects,
schools, kindergarten or adult education, as a way of taking its values to all sections of the population and of
exercising more effective social control; or is social pedagogy the critical conscience of pedagogy, the thorn in the
flesh of official agenda, an emancipatory programme for self-directed learning processes inside and outside the
education system geared towards the transformation of society? (Lorenz 1994: 93)

This question has special significance given the nature of the ideologies that informed the activities of National
Socialists in Germany during the 1930s and the first half of the 1940s. As we have already seen social pedagogy
became 'education' that directed the individual will towards the 'higher level of a communal will'. The issue also
emerges in the experiences of a number of societies struggling to throw off the shackles of colonialism such as in the
Indian social education programmes of the late 1940s (see Steele and Taylor 1994) and has been a feature of some of
the educational debates around nationalism. The basic issue here is whether the vision of community or society
entailed is pluralistic and democratic, or narrow and totalitarian (or even elitist). The former is concerned with
education so that all may share in a common life (as Dewey put it); the latter with advantaging a particular group.
When social pedagogy becomes detached from democratic pluralism it can quickly deteriorate into a pernicious form.
The same could be said of many other aspects of social policy, but the particular use that social pedagogy was able to
be put under National Socialism highlights our responsibility to take special care.

( 
 

       
! 


Some reading this will be resistant to the notion that they could be considered as social workers, others that they
might be described as educators. Others, perhaps still used to the ways of discussing social work that are dominant in
the JK, might be surprised at the extent to which education could be considered as part of the work. As Cannan Ê


(1992: 139) commented, within Britain there has been a long and political battle between two schools of activity -
social work and community work.

This distinction exists in other European countries, but there is not quite the same separate philosophical or political
rhetoric. Many people who work in community and social action programmes... in Britain, describe themselves as
community workers or perhaps just project workers. There would be less shyness about using the term 'social worker'
in many other European countries. (ibid.)

What is also of interest in the German and Danish traditions is the readiness of significant numbers of workers to
describe themselves as pedagogues. Pedagogy and casework appeal to different theoretical traditions - but both
provide insights to the other. Furthermore, and of significance in relation to the usage of the notion of informal
education (as, say against youth work) in the JK, is the way in which the notion of social pedagogy similarly
transcends particular organizational settings.

Social pedagogy defines the task and the process of all 'social activity' from theoretical positions beyond any distinct
institutional setting and instrumental interest, and thereby safeguards the autonomy of the profession and appeals to
the reflective and communicative abilities of the worker as the key to competence. Social work, by contrast, tends to
take the diversity of social services and agency settings as the starting point for the search for appropriate theories, a
search which used to be guided by the desire to find a general, unifying theory of social work but has since given way
to the more pragmatic and often eclectic use of theory elements from neighbouring disciplines. (Lorenz 1994: 97)

Just how autonomous practitioners can be within state-funded agencies is a matter of some debate - especially where
they are in settings that are dominated by contrasting or antagonistic ideologies. However, Lorenz does have a point.
The taking of the notion of 'pedagogy' into the way in which you name yourself makes a direct appeal to a particular
body of theory and practice - and a particular paradigm.

It is this paradigm - especially the holistic view of the child that runs through social pedagogy, and the pedagogy
tradition that can be found in Denmark - that has appealed to a number of commentators trying to make sense of
developing the children's workforce in Britain. In Scotland in particular, there has been a significant discussion
around the introduction of a 'new profession' - the Scottish pedagogue (see, for example, Children in Scotland 2008).
This profession could embrace the activities of classroom assistants, residential care workers, family support workers,
family and children centre workers, youth workers and so on. Browen Cohen (2008) and others have argued that
pedagogy should be the central basis for workforce reform.
Rather oddly, very little attention in this has been given to the approaches and understandings already generated
within the Scottish tradition of community education and community learning and development (see above). Perhaps
one of the reasons for this has been the readiness on the part of proponents to abandon the notion of the 'social' in the
interest of using the pedagogue paradigm to embrace a wide range of existing occupational groups. Even where the
'social' is retained within recent British discussion however, a rather narrow appreciation has been dominant. This has
largely been the result of the location of the debate within the largely individualistic and deficit frameworks of
contemporary social work and social care. What all of this loses is an orientation toward a pedagogy for  !-
one that involves engagement with associational life, civic society, and local social systems.

  

A further set of issues and complications arises from the the usage of the term 'pedagogy' to describe the process.
Here three particular issues arise. First, there is the problem of at whom the process is aimed. Etymologically,
pedagogy is derived from the Greek paidagōgeō meaning literally, 'to lead the child'. In common usage it is often to
describe the principles and practice of teaching children. Much of the work that 'social pedagogy' has been used to
describe has been with children and young people. While writers like Paulo Freire (1972) have used the notion of
pedagogy to refer to working with adults, there are others who argue that it is inextricably linked to teaching children.
For example, Malcolm Knowles (1970) was convinced that adults learned differently to children - and that this
provided the basis for a distinctive field of enquiry. He, thus, set andragogy - the art and science' of helping adults
learn - against pedagogy. We might wish to question the assertion that the way in which children and adults learn is
significantly different - but what does tend to be true is that educators tend to approach them differently and employ
contrasting strategies.

Second, there are questions around the extent to which the notion of pedagogy has been formed by the context in
which it is predominantly sited - the school. When we use the term are we importing assumptions and practices that
we may not intend? Discussion of pedagogy is invariably linked to notions such as curriculum, instruction and
subject. As such it may well be useful for thinking about aspects of what informal educators and animateurs do, but is
much less helpful for exploring conversational and convivial forms of practice.

Third, and linked to the above, as Street and Street (1991: 163) highlighted with respect to Freire, there is the danger
of the 'pedagogization' or 'schooling' of everyday life:

When we participate in the language of an institution, whether as speakers, listeners, writers, or readers, we become
positioned by that language; in that moment of assent, myriad relationships of power, authority, status are implied and
reaffirmed. At the heart of this language in contemporary society, there is a relentless commitment to instruction.

Our language use as workers, and the way in which we define space can act to constrain exploration and to
subordinate people.

-


The notion of social pedagogy offers an interesting set of paradigms for informal educators - especially where it
highlights education for sociality. The social education and social group work traditions carry within them some
overlapping concerns, but it is the Scottish community education and then community learning and development
tradition which provides the closest approximation to the spirit of social pedagogy. The way that 'social pedagogy'
and 'pedagogue' has been used within the JK (from a social care perspective) has tended to strip away its democratic
and communal significance reducing it to a pedagogy for case management. However, there is always the possibility
of appealing to the traditions from which it springs - and in the end, nothing is really added without recognizing the
significance of group work and community organization and development.

c    


There is a marked shortage of English-language explorations of social pedagogy and animation. However, the
situation is slowly changing - and here we are particularly indebted to the work of Walter Lorenz and Crescy Cannan.
Aluffi-Pentini, A. and Lorenz, W. (eds.) (1996) P "   # $Ê Ê
% ÊÊ& ÊÊÊ
 Ê, Lyme Regis: Russell House Publishing. 208 + x pages. Collection of material which explores racism and
the nation state; oppositional and relational identities; pedagogical principles and approaches plus case material from
Britain, Germany, and the Netherlands. Particularly welcome as the editors contribute substantial chapters concerning
pedagogy.

Cannan, C., Berry, L. and Lyons, K. (1992) V  % Ê, London: Macmillan. 181 + xii pages. Includes
some discussion of social pedagogy, animation etc. Has chapters on social Europe; social policies and social trends in
Europe; social workers, organizations and the state; branches and themes of social work (concentrates on Germany
and France); French social work; participation; and social action.

Cannan, C. and Warren, C. (eds.) (1997) VP # 'ÊÊ
P !ÊÊ Ê 
  !#ÊÊ, London: Routledge. 225 + xiv pages. This book looks beyond the usual narrow
confines of British social work texts - looking at more community oriented forms of engagement (especially family
centres) and drawing on traditions of practice from the JK, Germany and France. There is some recognition of the
potential of more educative approaches and a concern with local networks and institutions.

Lorenz, W. (1994) V  '% Ê, London: Routledge. 206 + xii pages. Excellent discussion of
social work in Europe in the twentieth century - especially strong on animation and social pedagogy. Chapters on
social work within different welfare regimes; ideological positions; social work Fascism and democratic
reconstruction; social work and social movements; social work , multiculturalism and anti-racist practice; and
emerging issues.

Sunker, H. and Otto, H-J. (eds.) (1997) % 
 Ê  !Ê (
ëÊ!, London: Taylor and Francis. 180 + viii pages. Excellent collection of papers that explore the use of social
pedagogy (pedagogy oriented toward 'folk community') to develop an ideology sympathetic to the social framework
and programmes of the Nazis. Chapters explore the context; identity formation and social practice; work camps;
correctional education; emancipation or social incorporation - the experience of girls and young women; why social
workers adopted the new order; social work as social education; the quest for democratic education.