透過您的圖書館登入
IP:3.146.221.204
  • 學位論文

少年吔,安啦?穿梭在遊蕩少年日常生活中的社福實作

“Siàu-Liân Leh, An Lah!”?: The Prevalent Social-Work Practices among Wandering Juveniles’ Everyday Life

指導教授 : 黃克先
若您是本文的作者,可授權文章由華藝線上圖書館中協助推廣。

摘要


遊蕩在街頭、有逃家逃學傾向的青少年,在國家治理邏輯上經歷了從懲罰到保護的轉變,尤以2019年《少年事件處理法》草案修正通過,作為兒少權益提升的里程碑。保護兒少的治理邏輯與社會工作知識不謀而合,兩端遇合也使得前線社工輔導在外遊蕩的少年的正當性和需求大於警察。立基於此,本研究試圖呈現勾勒少年的日常生活,以及社工專業實作的動態過程。本文搜集的資料是在市郊的邊緣地區中,一所公辦民營服務少年的社福組織,進行兩年的田野觀察,除了參與在Y中心內與少年相處,同時也跟隨社工進行外展工作。 研究發現分為以下三部分:第一部分指出,外界辨識出少年身上的危險訊號,例如刀械、混和暴力的自述事蹟,是少年群體在有限的資源下,作為街頭生活中一套共同認可的非支配資本,同時也扮演建構陽剛氣概的材料。第二部分則以青少年社工的特殊性:復健(rehabilitation)與預防,主張主動積極接觸少年來預防風險。本研究分析青少年社工如何透過一系列的工作流程來引導少年,指出社工透過提供免費的資源、建立吸引少年的人設,打造看似對等、雙向的友誼關係來包裝權力關係,在達成「尊重少年意願」下將社會福利鑲嵌入少年日常生活。第三部分指出,社福目的著重在少年的生活方式與人際關係正軌化,前者意指讓少年融入社會規範;後者指少年的關係不使其受害,更好是幫助其成長。然而本文發現,社工的專業實作是與少年相互競爭和依賴中構成。換言之,社福目的對少年的想像不能在實作中一蹴可及,反之是一場與少年的攻防戰。儘管如此,本研究發現雙方「友誼關係」仍得以長期維持,是因為雙方各自得利:少年獲取免費的資源、有公開展示陽剛氣概的觀眾;社工仰賴此完成工作目的。也因如此,本文發現社工有意識的包容少年不被國家認可的非支配資本,使其不像「忠誠的國家基層代理人」,而這也讓社工持續介入少年的日常生活成為可能。 本文採用中心的在地語彙,提出「陪伴工作」的概念,說明國家主張柔性的治理手段下,社工如何開展社福實作。本文認為,尊重意願的治理性,使少年的不羈得到部分接納,但卻也在這過程中,不自覺使自己的身體與關係落入充滿暗示的權力關係裡,直到年齡脫離了服務階段。最後本研究提出方法論上的反省與建議。

關鍵字

遊蕩少年 社工 陪伴工作 實作

並列摘要


Wandering on streets and running away from home and school, these juveniles have experienced the transformation of governance from punishment to protection. This is especially so after the amendment of Juvenile Justice Act in 2019, which is considered as the milestone of the protection for children and teenagers. The governmental logic of protecting children and teenagers coincides with the professional knowledge of social work, increasing the demand of front line social workers over polices. This study attempts to represent the dynamic process between the everyday life of the wandering juveniles and the professional practices of social workers. A two-year fieldwork is conducted in a teenager service center (center Y). Except for establishing a rapport with these juveniles in the center, the researcher also outreached them with the center’s social workers outside in parks and streets. This study finds the below. First, the seemingly dangerous information of these juveniles, such as bringing knifes and violence-related self-narratives, is in fact the co-acknowledged non-dominant cultural capital among these juveniles of restricted resource. These weapons and narratives also construct their masculinity. Secondly, the rehabilitation and prevention projects of social work claim risk prevention by outreaching these wandering juveniles. For example, the social workers provide them with free resources, build up persona that is attractive to them, and fake mutual and equal friendship with them where power relations are imbued; within the purpose of “respecting the juveniles’ will power”, social welfare thus is ingrained in their everyday life. Lastly, although social welfare policy aims at the normalization of the juveniles’ lifestyle and relationship (they are arranged to comply with social regulations and their relationships are not to harm them, or even better, help them), the professional practices of social workers and the juveniles actually compete with and rely on each other. In other words, the imagination of social welfare is in practice not achieved without effort and is instead a battle between the two ends. Despite of this, the study indicates that their “friendship” is maintained because of a win-win situation: the juveniles gain free resource and audience for their masculinity, while the social workers accomplish their job. Alas, the study shows that the social workers consciously tolerate the juveniles’ non-dominant cultural capital, which makes them less like “a loyal agent of the state” and facilitate them to intervene in the juveniles’ everyday life. The study takes up the local terms of the center, “accompany work” (péi bàngōng zuò), to explicate how, under the soft and flexible governance of the state, social workers can develop social welfare practices. This study suggests that, throughout the governance of respecting will power, the juveniles’ unruliness is partly accepted, while their bodies are at the same time trapped in certain power relations, until they have passed the age of these social service. Methodological reflection and suggestion are offered at the end of this study.

參考文獻


中文文獻
Durkheim, Emile.著,2002,《社會分工論》。台北:左岸。
Eubanks, Virginia.著、洪慧芳譯,2021,《懲罰貧窮:大數據橫行的自動化時代,隱藏在演算法之下的不平等歧視》。台北:寶鼎。
Foucault, Michel.著、劉北成譯,1992,《規訓與懲罰:監獄的誕生》。台灣:桂冠。
──錢翰譯,2003,《不正常的人:法蘭西學院演講系列,1974-1975》。上海:上海人民。

延伸閱讀