Lifeworld-Orientation in Social Work

Table of contents

1 Introduction

2 Life world and life world orientation

3 The concept of life-world-oriented social work
3.1 The concept as an interplay of 4 different scientific concepts
3.1.1 Hermeneutic-pragmatic pedagogy
3.1.2 Phenomenological-interactionist paradigm
3.1.3 Critical everyday theory
3.1.4 Analysis of social structures
3.2 Dimensions of life world analysis
3.3 Structural and action maxims of a life-world-oriented social work
3.4 Core ideas of the concept

4 Consequences of the concept
4.1 Demands on institutions and specialist staff
4.2 Limits and opportunities of life-world-oriented social work

5 Conclusion

6 Bibliography and sources

1 Introduction

The terms "life world" and "life world orientation" are in constant use and appear ubiquitous.

Life world seems to be almost self-evident, since hardly any more detail is dealt with or a concrete demarcation to other terms, such as "everyday life" or "social space", takes place. Due to this almost everyday use, the theoretical justifications are hardly recognizable.

The concept of life-world orientation plays an important role in social pedagogy, especially child and family assistance. At the latest since the Eighth Youth Report (cf. Federal Minister for Youth, Family, Women and Health 1990), the so-called life-world orientation is considered a central paradigm of youth welfare. This began in the early 1990s (...) ein regeler Boom lebensweltorientierter Überlegungen" (curly 2006, p. 117 f., Omissions by the editor). Especially the educator Hans Thiersch who was also involved in the preparation of this report has coined the term "life-world orientation".

The discussion of a life-world-oriented social work was triggered by the change in society. Today's coping with everyday life requires many more prerequisites, such as self-competence and social competence, assertiveness or self-confidence, than in previous decades, when the gender and generational roles, the educational, health and nutritional ideas as well as the career paths were still predetermined by stable traditions and social relationships.

Today, society is determined by increasing social inequalities. In addition to structural factors, such as regional differentiation, demographic development and the development of the labour market, certain forms of life also lead to considerable differences in the life situation (cf. Federal Minister for Youth, Family, Women and Health 1990, P. 197). The increasing change in existing life forms and patterns is characterized in the context of the individualization of lifestyle and the pluralization of life situations, for example, by a different lifetime-related weighting and distribution of work and leisure, by a re-formation of gender roles as well as by a changed relationship between the generations.

Coping with life as a design of one's own life concept in an open situation, however, not only brings with it creative freedom and possibilities, but also new demands on personal abilities in order to legitimize one's own life plan (cf. Grunwald/Thiersch 2004, P. 15). Diverse patterns of coping with everyday life as well as individual life plans and designs are forming, which social work can no longer counter with processing programs.

The concept of life-world-oriented social work, which was originally developed from and for youth welfare, pursues the goal of looking at people in the totality of their circumstances, their resources, their denied opportunities for participation and their difficulties of everyday life. This requires the concentration of attention on the actual everyday life of the client¹ as well as a reorientation of social work institutions from problem-related editing programs to dialogical life-world-oriented and holistic approaches. (cf. Thiersch 2002, p. 134 f.) Accordingly, life-world-oriented social work tries to help people through support, provocation and work on alternatives to better conditions and more sustainable skills.

In the context of this study work, after a brief explanation of living environment and life world orientation, it is to be presented,

- which scientific concepts are the basis for the theoretical background of the orientation towards the living environment,
- which dimensions in which the human being is located must be considered in the analysis of the living environment and in the fulfilment of tasks,
- in which structural and action maxims the concept of life-world-oriented social work is operationalized and
- what consequences result from the concept, on the one hand by showing the demands on institutions and specialist staff and on the other hand the limits and opportunities of the concept.

2 Life world and life world orientation

Living world is one of E. Husserl introduced concept of phenomenological sociology. This is understood as the pre-scientific reality, which surrounds man and is self-evident. The living environment is shaped by the personal experience and perception of the everyday and direct environment of the human being. He obtains these on the one hand through primary experiences and on the other hand through dreams, fantasies and theories. (cf. tuner 1994, p. 304) All perception takes place against the background of a personal horizon of experience. The result of perception is thus always dependent on the socialization, culturalization and personalization of the perceiver. Furthermore, living environment is not simply to be understood as the natural environment of man. after Honer (2006) it is rather "the total subsentuous world of reality" (Honer 2006, P. 110). It is influenced both historically and socially. People move within it within the guidelines that society determines. (cf. Thiersch 1999, P. 120)

The question of the relationship to life in social work refers to Thiersch (1996) "initially to the elementary context of predetermined life structures, tasks and follow-up responses of social work" (Thiersch 1996, P. 141). In addition, the question aims to analyze the structures of experiences and patterns of action in which people first experience themselves, are confronted with problems and try to cope with them. for Thiersch (1996), the question of the living environment is not only discussed in many ways, but is also very differently oriented, whereby the following two contradictory intentions seem particularly relevant:

- On the one hand, the living world means a reality in which man has always found himself taken for granted.
- On the other hand, living environment means a reality that requires special and elaborate efforts in order to be able to cope with it. (cf. Thiersch 1996, P. 142)

In accordance with Thiersch (1996) aims the question of the living environment at a relationship to reality in which people first find themselves in the family, work and the public. Living world means a place in which reality is experienced and dealt with by acting. (cf. Thiersch 1996, p. 142) In this context, lifeworld is also "the interface of the subjective and the objective (meant), the place where people have to cope with the social structures objectively given to them in the experiential space of their subjective patterns of interpretation and action" (Thiersch 1999, p. 120, Ergänzungen d. d. Verf.). However, life world, as much as it is determined by the given, must not be understood as static (cf. Thiersch 1996, P. 143).

To thematize the world of life therefore means to consider man in his patterns of interpretation and action as well as subjective patterns of life, in which he knows, asserts and realizes himself in his immediate experience accessible world. These challenges must determine the tasks of a life-world-oriented social work.

Life world orientation is starting from the everyday experiences of people in their social situation and how this social situation is presented in people's everyday lives (cf. Thiersch/Grunwald/Köngeter 2002, P. 164). Lifeworld orientation sees in it:

- everyday life with its socially given living conditions of the addressees,
- the stubborn structures in everyday life, its practical attempts to cope with it and the self-image of the participants,
- the experiential space, structured in the regulations of time, space and relationship, and above all
- the individual, social and political resources related to social networks and local/regional structures. (cf. Thiersch/Grunwald/Köngeter 2002, P. 164)

Understood in this way, life-world orientation means the support of social contexts by promoting the existing resources and their use in solving the social problems of the participants. Lifeworld orientation is the concept of an action that responds to current specific living conditions and makes it possible to draw methodological and institutional consequences (cf. Thiersch/Grun-wald/Köngeter 2002, P. 161).

Life world and everyday orientation are become by Thiersch (2005). However, the term everyday orientation can also be used in a narrower sense to describe pragmatically manageable patterns of understanding and action. (cf. Thiersch 2005, p. 5 f.)

In the development of the concept is Thiersch (2005) based on the thesis that "in the diverse and differentiated developments over the last few years, problem views and work developments have emerged which are similar in the different institutions and patterns of intervention, which can be understood as parallel trends to a common view of problems" (Thiersch 2005, P. 17). In this context, life-world orientation as a work concept has established itself not only as a framework concept, but also through its operationalization, in the form of general structural and action maxims, as a concept of action in social work (cf. Thiersch 2005, p. 6 f.). As a concept of action, it combines "respect for the given with trust in potentials and development opportunities in the field" (Thiersch/Grunwald/Köngeter 2002, P. 164).

3 The concept of life-world-oriented social work

3.1 The concept as an interplay of 4 different scientific concepts

Life-world orientation as a concept of social work becomes understandable in its outlines only against the background of theoretical assumptions. With these, it is possible to conceptually grasp the social situation and the consequences for the analysis and construction of social work.

Lifeworld orientation draws on different scientific concepts. It relates, on the one hand, to the hermeneutic-pragmatic pedagogy (Representative: Dilthey, Nohl, Less) and its further development to Social sciences and critical pedagogy (Representative: Roth, Mollenhauer). It also refers to the Phenomenological and interactionist analyses of everyday life and the world of life, as they are by Schütz, Berger/Luckmann and Goffman were unfolded. Other theoretical assumptions are the critical everyday theory from Heller, Kosik, Lefebvre or Bourdieu And the Theories of modernization (analysis of social structures), e.B of Habermas, Beck, Rauschenbach, and Böhnisch. (cf. Thiersch 2002, P. 130)

3.1.1 Hermeneutic-pragmatic pedagogy

Lifeworld orientation as a concept of social work refers to the continuation of the hermeneutic-pragmatic Tradition line of social pedagogy, which in its questions makes the everyday life and the own worlds of the people the starting point for its pedagogical concept (cf. Thiersch 2002, P. 130).

Hermeneutic-pragmatic pedagogy, as a concept of the theory of science, tries to elucidate the "educational reality in its everyday executions understanding and related to action" (Thiersch/Ruprecht/Hermann 1978, P. 11). The subject of a pedagogy understood in this way is life in its specific form as a life of its own and everyday life. The focus is on the found and yet malleable reality of life, both with its historical, social and cultural dimensions, as well as in the interplay of norms and facts as well as of experience and expression. (cf. Thiersch/Ruprecht/Hermann 1978, p. 11 f.) This means that hermeneutic-pragmatic pedagogy ties in with everyday life and at the individually interpreted world of the people and pursues the goal of better understanding this everyday life and the people in their coping actions, in order to discuss this deeper understand to be able to help the addressees more appropriately. In this context, the hermeneutic-pragmatic social pedagogy Structural patterns of pedagogical action developed, which can be combined with approaches of social work (cf. Thiersch 2002, P. 131). Nevertheless, the hermeneutic-pragmatic concept due to:

- the one-sided priority of practical relevance,
- the insufficient differentiation of practice and science, due to the associated neglect of reflexivity and criticism of historical, social and political conditions, as well as
- of restraint in empirical questions

as too narrow and inadequate (cf. Thiersch 2002, P. 131). The concept remained plausible in the dimensions of its formal structural patterns, but at the same time had to be continued in the context of the generally prevailing social science approaches to knowledge. Life world orientation is according to Thiersch (2002) as such an attempt (cf. Thiersch 2002, P. 131).

3.1.2 Phenomenological-interactionist paradigm

Life world or everyday orientation is also characterized by the phenomenological-interactionist paradigm as well as its specific approach to the reconstruction of everyday living conditions and patterns of action (cf. Thiersch 2002, P. 131). Everyday life and living environment can be characterized by the structuredness

- the time experienced,
- of the experienced space as well as
- of the experienced social references and structures. (cf. Thiersch 2002, P. 131)

They are determined by intersubjectivity and concrete combination of pragmatism and routines. People are not seen abstractly as functionaries within a system or as representatives of social structures, but in their everyday circumstances, by which they are determined and shaped and which at the same time actively shape and determine them through their actions. (cf. Thiersch 2002, p. 131) In this respect, everyday life shapes people, but also everyday life. In coping with everyday life, patterns of interpretation and strategies of action are formed. In addition, the important is distinguished from the inconsesesible.

by the phenomenological-interactionist paradigm the human being is seen in the experienced time as a context of his age, his sense of time and the specific perspectives (or lack of prospects) of his biography. He is perceived in the structures of the social space or milieu he experiences and interprets as well as its connection with experiences and persons. Man is seen in the social references and structures he experiences of different social relationships between relatives, neighbors and friends, their familiarity, resilience, but also hostility. (cf. Thiersch 2002, P. 132)

Consequently, the phenomenological-interactionist paradigm Starting point of the everyday life, whereby its general patterns of understanding and action in everyday worlds are concretized as certain areas of life or situations.

3.1.3 Critical everyday theory

Life-world-oriented social work is for Thiersch (2002) mainly by the critical everyday theory embossed. According to this, everyday life can be understood not only in its appearance, but only within exciting biographical, social and societal references, which must be seen in contradiction between the given and the abandoned. Everyday life is determined by the relieving function of routines. On the one hand, these enable action, security and productivity, but at the same time restrict and hinder human life in the form of narrowness, immobility and limitation. (cf. Thiersch 2002, p. 132) Accordingly, everyday life be viewed from two sides. On the one hand, struggles for better living conditions take place, motivated by needs, dreams, hopes or anger, on the other hand, people also despair out of grief and resignation.

The central approach is that the critical everyday theory does not stop at a paralysing juxtaposition of the given and the possible, but emphasizes the potential for protest in the opposites and contradictions of everyday life. This combines for Thiersch (2002) the respect for the findable everyday life expressed within phenomenology with the question of the necessity of the decomposition of everyday life in the name of social justice. Both orientations, the respect for the lived everyday life and the critical examination of it in the interest of other or new possibilities, form a field of tension, which only approximately with the aim of a "more successful everyday life" (Thiersch 2002, p. 133), whereby not the successful everyday life is meant. (cf. Thiersch 2002, p. 132 f.)

Life-world-oriented social pedagogy must be the everyday life and the resources respect, but also constructively criticize narrow-mindedness and procedure and show hidden opportunities. To do this, she has to find the balance in the contradictions, with the aim of a more successful everyday life.

3.1.4 Analysis of social structures

The question of everyday life and the world of life acquires particular relevance in view of recent social developments, as they are characterized under titles of "reflexive modernity", but also of the "society of confusion" or the "risk structure". Society is determined by changing and again increasing social inequalities as well as by uncertainties of life-worldly experiences in the context of the individualization of lifestyle and pluralization of life situations. Social inequalities in terms of material resources, belonging to the nation, generation and gender, and participation in education, work, health promotion, and social services go hand in hand with the growing decay of existing patterns and structures. The production of new, reliable references and the active design of one's own life arrangement in space, time and social relationships are becoming increasingly complex and difficult. Coping with life as the task of a decision in open situations and as a choice of one's own concept in given uncertainties becomes the central quantity (cf. Thiersch 2002, p. 133 f.). However, these trends do not determine the current situation alone, but are also confused with reliability that still exists.

The living world thus represents, so to speak, the intersection that contains what is possible in a particular life. after Thiersch (2002) it is important to question the respective mixed situation, the carrying capacity of existing living resources and the possibilities of how living world conditions can be re-staged and created under new precarious conditions (cf. Thiersch 2002, P. 134). Therefore, social work requires extensive knowledge of material, social, ideological for its actions resources, z.B. Gender roles, Migration culture, poverty or wealth, and about the individual way in which those affected deal with it. Coping patterns in everyday life are gaining a new profile. Since reliability no longer applies independently, it comes to Thiersch (2002), when it comes to "the reflexive design of life plans, to the staging of living spaces", to "convey openness and reliability in the experiences of space, time and social relations, in contradiction of pseudo-concretity and practice" (Thiersch 2002, P. 134).

[...]

¹ The German language is still predominantly determined by masculine designations. In order to do justice to the gender aspect, both gender-specific designations should always be used correctly. For many text passages, however, this would permanently impair the readability of the text. Therefore, in this student thesis, the cumbersome double naming (e.B. client and client) is dispensed with and usually the male form is chosen. (Editor's note)