Human and Machine: A Journey - Part 1
Through the Philosophical Landscape of Welfare
When we talk about "human and machine" in welfare, it's about much more than just the challenges of digitalization. It's about fundamental questions concerning the nature of society, the essence of knowledge, and the origin of power. Let's begin this journey with a simple observation: every time a social worker makes a decision, it activates a complex network of systems, values, and forms of knowledge.
The Challenge of Variation
At the heart of social work lies a fundamental tension between equity and individual adaptation. When developing systems for assessment and decision-making, we constantly swing between two poles:
Standardization to ensure legal security and equity
Flexibility required to meet each person's unique situation
This is not just a practical challenge – it's a philosophical question about how we view knowledge and truth. Can human experiences really be captured in standardized categories? Where is the line between necessary structure and excessive control?
Society's Machinery
Our modern society can be seen as a gigantic machinery of institutions, laws, and systems. But where does the power in this machinery really come from? When we as social workers exercise authority, what is the source of our authority?
Hannah Arendt reminds us that the political space – and thus also the arena of social work – is created through citizens' voluntary limitation of their own freedom. We are therefore stewards of a social contract, where power ultimately rests on mutual recognition between citizens.
The Many Faces of Knowledge
In the meeting between human and machine, the nature of knowledge also becomes clear. We see at least three different forms of knowledge at play:
Technical knowledge about systems and methods
Practical wisdom from experience and reflection
Relational knowledge that emerges in meetings with people
How these forms of knowledge interact – or clash – often determines the quality of social work.
The Configuration of Technology
When developing new technical systems for social work, we constantly make choices that affect both practitioners and clients. Every form, every digital solution, every automated process carries embedded assumptions about:
What is worth measuring and documenting
How people's needs can be categorized
What type of knowledge counts as legitimate
These are not just technical decisions – they are ontological positions about the nature of reality.
The Way Forward
As a profession, we face the task of actively shaping the interaction between human and machine in welfare. This requires:
Deeper understanding of society's fundamental mechanisms
Critical reflection on the nature and legitimacy of knowledge
Active participation in shaping future systems
Above all, it requires courage to ask the big questions: What is really the purpose of our systems? What kind of society do we want to create? How do we preserve the human element in an increasingly systematized world?
In upcoming posts, we will explore these themes deeper, always with the goal of contributing to a more nuanced and well-thought-out development of future social services.
This is an introductory post in a series exploring the field of tension between human and machine in modern welfare. Join the journey by subscribing to the blog.
Makes me think about ”the professional domains of action and the question of neutrality”(Lang/Little/Cronen). Each professional have to navigate between the Estetical/ethical, production and explanation domains. And the notion of developing trust in your intuitive knowledge/skills (10.000 hours of practice)
As I mentioned to you before, I am not a social worker, but one thing stands out to me as key to transformation is the access of Knowledge Data for under privileged to secure in a safe and technically affordable environment. The challenge of welfare survival should allow this access as underwritten by philanthropy and various institutions. There exist granting institutions to make this possible. But am I writing anything that this Substack owner does not already know? Who is the audience of your work? /s/