What do you think?
Rate this book
Unfaithful Angels: How Social Work Has Abandoned Its Mission
An examination of the fall of social work from its original mission to aid and serve the underprivileged shows how a national faith in individualistic solutions to social problems led social workers to leave social services.
209 pages, Hardcover
First published November 1, 1993
23 people are currently reading
539 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews
October 11, 2018
Recently I’ve realized that I’m something of a self-hating social worker. I often feel ashamed of my professed humanitarian goals when I catch myself in my most honest moments of ambitious career advancement, or when I am having a particularly difficult time identifying with clients from radically different backgrounds than myself. That, and I recently got a part-time job in the private sector. I’d gotten a fire in my belly read something professionally self-deprecating, something that would remind me of just how much shit I’m full of. Enter Specht & Courtney. It was delightful to find companionship in their most radical of assertions: social work has become a field of upwardly mobile members of the middle-class that are too preoccupied with social elevation to be of any genuine utility to social justice. They put simple words to the most indescribable complexities that taunt my professional life and mock my inflated sense of professional importance.
It wasn’t all cotton candy and sunshine, though (which now seems like an inappropriate turn of phrase, what with the self-loathing and all). Given the polarizing title and hype of the book being “provocative and controversial,” the majority of its content is quite dry. It’s not a long book by most standards, and it felt like most of it was spent recounting a history of social work and its major players. Despite so many words dedicated to historical context, it seems like the book was mostly written with a social worker audience in mind, as the authors seem to assume some level a priori content knowledge (e.g. Carl Rogers is first referred to as “Rogers” with no accompanying biography).
Reading Unfaithful Angels is frustrating at times due simply to shoddy writing, an unfortunate aspect that plagues the field as a whole by my estimation. The paragraphs at times lack cohesion, with the writers sometimes connecting unrelated concepts together or even flat out contradicting the beginning of a paragraph with the ending. For example, in the discussion of social workers’ proclivity toward psychiatry on pages 94-95, it’s difficult for me to understand if they are saying that social workers were more or less likely to support psychiatry than physicians of the time. Specht & Courtney also have a tendency to go off on tangents regarding information that is related but not all that important to the central theses (i.e. notions of self-esteem in the context of the efficacy of psychotherapy). Maybe they just needed a better editor. Maybe they just needed to be more comfortable with an even shorter book.
The latter part of the book was that which I enjoyed the most. Specht & Courtney strike a much more headstrong and critical note in opposition to the trend toward psychotherapy as the primary social work practice modality. They argue that the field should focus more on helping people to build more supportive social networks and environments. They rail at psychotherapy’s and psychoanalysis’s sense of unearned entitlement, as well as it’s judgmental, outdated, and often incorrect assumption that the individual ought to be the level of intervention in the majority of cases. We too seldom ask ourselves in the profession who psychotherapy is really for and who really benefits from its perpetuation as the primary “cure” to social ails. We do not interrogate it as a means of making people dependent upon ourselves, the ordained and privileged few with access to the divine knowledge of the human psyche. Even our client-centered, collaborative approaches lose legitimacy when such services become mandated due to involvement with the welfare state or justice system.
Some other readers have commented that they were encouraged or elected to read this book as part of their college education in social work. I could not agree more. Though difficult to follow at times, Specht & Courtney’s perspective is just as welcome and relevant today (if not more so) as it was when they first penned Unfaithful Angels.
It wasn’t all cotton candy and sunshine, though (which now seems like an inappropriate turn of phrase, what with the self-loathing and all). Given the polarizing title and hype of the book being “provocative and controversial,” the majority of its content is quite dry. It’s not a long book by most standards, and it felt like most of it was spent recounting a history of social work and its major players. Despite so many words dedicated to historical context, it seems like the book was mostly written with a social worker audience in mind, as the authors seem to assume some level a priori content knowledge (e.g. Carl Rogers is first referred to as “Rogers” with no accompanying biography).
Reading Unfaithful Angels is frustrating at times due simply to shoddy writing, an unfortunate aspect that plagues the field as a whole by my estimation. The paragraphs at times lack cohesion, with the writers sometimes connecting unrelated concepts together or even flat out contradicting the beginning of a paragraph with the ending. For example, in the discussion of social workers’ proclivity toward psychiatry on pages 94-95, it’s difficult for me to understand if they are saying that social workers were more or less likely to support psychiatry than physicians of the time. Specht & Courtney also have a tendency to go off on tangents regarding information that is related but not all that important to the central theses (i.e. notions of self-esteem in the context of the efficacy of psychotherapy). Maybe they just needed a better editor. Maybe they just needed to be more comfortable with an even shorter book.
The latter part of the book was that which I enjoyed the most. Specht & Courtney strike a much more headstrong and critical note in opposition to the trend toward psychotherapy as the primary social work practice modality. They argue that the field should focus more on helping people to build more supportive social networks and environments. They rail at psychotherapy’s and psychoanalysis’s sense of unearned entitlement, as well as it’s judgmental, outdated, and often incorrect assumption that the individual ought to be the level of intervention in the majority of cases. We too seldom ask ourselves in the profession who psychotherapy is really for and who really benefits from its perpetuation as the primary “cure” to social ails. We do not interrogate it as a means of making people dependent upon ourselves, the ordained and privileged few with access to the divine knowledge of the human psyche. Even our client-centered, collaborative approaches lose legitimacy when such services become mandated due to involvement with the welfare state or justice system.
Some other readers have commented that they were encouraged or elected to read this book as part of their college education in social work. I could not agree more. Though difficult to follow at times, Specht & Courtney’s perspective is just as welcome and relevant today (if not more so) as it was when they first penned Unfaithful Angels.
November 3, 2007
This would've been a much stronger book if the authors had sublimated the urge to hysteria and name-calling, and controlled their vitriolic loathing of psychotherapy. They must have sensed this because they kept announcing that they were not there to crap all over psychotherapy.... and then repeatedly crapped all over psychotherapy, while often mischaracterizing it. Reading this book reminds me of when I was vegan, and how spending time around other vegans usually made me want to run out and eat raw steak, to distance myself from such embarrassingly self-righteous, histrionic attitudes. In fact, that's part (not all) of the reason I no longer am vegan, so if I ever wind up with a private practice, you know who to blame.
This book is full of uncited declarations which may well be true but which without any evidence belong more in a barroom rant than a serious book (e.g., "We [in the US] are the most individualistic nation in the world" [p. 15]; "Most clinical social workers who seek Ph.D.s in order to hang out a shingle and call themselves 'Doctor' obtain them at institutes and universities where one can attend part time and where the research requirements are not heavy" [p. 100]). Also, I think they exaggerate many points and seem to underestimate the harmful effects of oppression, poverty, trauma, etc. on individuals' psyches and functioning. Poor people deserve helpful interventions, and sometimes these might be based in therapeutic techniques. Just because middle-class people happen to find something enjoyable or beneficial doesn't mean poor people must be deprived of that thing. I do get their point about psychotherapy's individualism, which, like much in this book, is certainly valid but wildly overstated.
That said, this book's subtitle could be "Why Jessica Has Been Not Only Frustrated But Infuriated By Much of her Social Work School Experience (And Why You Should Be Too)." I didn't know anything about the issue of social work and private practice when I first showed up for class, and the situation I discovered (described in this book) is astonishing. Social workers have a mandate to serve the most vulnerable and oppressed members of society; people who primarily want to do psychotherapy should do like my very best friend since Berkeley High School (c/o '97!) Lesley and go to school for that. Yes, it takes longer. It does take longer. But if Lesley can do it, why can't you?
What ultimately won me over to this very flawed book was that it wasn't just about how social workers shouldn't be in private practice; it was about how social workers shouldn't be doing psychotherapy in the first place, because it's inherently incompatible with social work's mission. The problems with this book were all the more tragic, because this is a very important point, and I agree with most of the authors' arguments. I really wish I'd read this before I enrolled in social work school three years ago, because I would have chosen a different area of concentration (probably "community organizing" or "group work"), and likely had a better experience. As it was I chose "casework," knowing little about the field and not realizing that I was entering training to become, quite literally, the poor man's psychotherapist. I'm not interested in psychotherapy (though unlike these authors, I feel it has a valid function and place in society), and having to study it for the past two-and-a-half years has been a source of great dismay. Sprecht and Courtney helped me to understand the unfortunate historical context for why I should really get off Bookface right now and go write this paper on CBT, even though I really don't want to.
This book is a bit dated, being published in 1994 on the cusp of changes (e.g., in psychopharmacology) that had a giant impact on the mental health industry. I'd be interested in an updated edition by someone else (Sprecht has since died) revisiting these hugely important issues in a more responsible tone.
This book is full of uncited declarations which may well be true but which without any evidence belong more in a barroom rant than a serious book (e.g., "We [in the US] are the most individualistic nation in the world" [p. 15]; "Most clinical social workers who seek Ph.D.s in order to hang out a shingle and call themselves 'Doctor' obtain them at institutes and universities where one can attend part time and where the research requirements are not heavy" [p. 100]). Also, I think they exaggerate many points and seem to underestimate the harmful effects of oppression, poverty, trauma, etc. on individuals' psyches and functioning. Poor people deserve helpful interventions, and sometimes these might be based in therapeutic techniques. Just because middle-class people happen to find something enjoyable or beneficial doesn't mean poor people must be deprived of that thing. I do get their point about psychotherapy's individualism, which, like much in this book, is certainly valid but wildly overstated.
That said, this book's subtitle could be "Why Jessica Has Been Not Only Frustrated But Infuriated By Much of her Social Work School Experience (And Why You Should Be Too)." I didn't know anything about the issue of social work and private practice when I first showed up for class, and the situation I discovered (described in this book) is astonishing. Social workers have a mandate to serve the most vulnerable and oppressed members of society; people who primarily want to do psychotherapy should do like my very best friend since Berkeley High School (c/o '97!) Lesley and go to school for that. Yes, it takes longer. It does take longer. But if Lesley can do it, why can't you?
What ultimately won me over to this very flawed book was that it wasn't just about how social workers shouldn't be in private practice; it was about how social workers shouldn't be doing psychotherapy in the first place, because it's inherently incompatible with social work's mission. The problems with this book were all the more tragic, because this is a very important point, and I agree with most of the authors' arguments. I really wish I'd read this before I enrolled in social work school three years ago, because I would have chosen a different area of concentration (probably "community organizing" or "group work"), and likely had a better experience. As it was I chose "casework," knowing little about the field and not realizing that I was entering training to become, quite literally, the poor man's psychotherapist. I'm not interested in psychotherapy (though unlike these authors, I feel it has a valid function and place in society), and having to study it for the past two-and-a-half years has been a source of great dismay. Sprecht and Courtney helped me to understand the unfortunate historical context for why I should really get off Bookface right now and go write this paper on CBT, even though I really don't want to.
This book is a bit dated, being published in 1994 on the cusp of changes (e.g., in psychopharmacology) that had a giant impact on the mental health industry. I'd be interested in an updated edition by someone else (Sprecht has since died) revisiting these hugely important issues in a more responsible tone.
February 25, 2016
This book offers an interesting critique of the profession of social work in America, but spends too much time delving into the history of social work without adding any new insights.
The authors believe social workers are wrongly entering into private clinical practice in order to make more money and to be their own bosses. Social workers now offer individualized treatment which closely resembles the therapy of psychologists. The authors think this is a mistake for two reasons. First, they believe that society's ills are caused by the social isolation of modern life; therefore individual therapy is not going to be effective in treating people who are already isolated. Second, they argue that it is the job of psychotherapists to help people with problems "intimately related to their selves," while social workers should be working to connect people to resources and support in their communities.
Though the authors attempt to solve these problems by proposing the creation of community service centers in every neighborhood, the guidelines they give to create these centers are vague and impractical (read: not funded) at best.
The book did not rock my world, but the idea that Americans are isolated and that social workers have an obligation to connect people to each other and to their communities makes sense.
The authors believe social workers are wrongly entering into private clinical practice in order to make more money and to be their own bosses. Social workers now offer individualized treatment which closely resembles the therapy of psychologists. The authors think this is a mistake for two reasons. First, they believe that society's ills are caused by the social isolation of modern life; therefore individual therapy is not going to be effective in treating people who are already isolated. Second, they argue that it is the job of psychotherapists to help people with problems "intimately related to their selves," while social workers should be working to connect people to resources and support in their communities.
Though the authors attempt to solve these problems by proposing the creation of community service centers in every neighborhood, the guidelines they give to create these centers are vague and impractical (read: not funded) at best.
The book did not rock my world, but the idea that Americans are isolated and that social workers have an obligation to connect people to each other and to their communities makes sense.
December 5, 2018
I absolutely hated this book. There was potential for it to be educational and thought-provoking, but the continuous bashing of private practice and psychotherapy completely ruined that possibility. It even made me wonder if the reason that the authors hate these social workers is because they couldn’t pass their licensing exam. Oops, there I go using psychoanalysis... apparently I’m going to hell now...
March 19, 2019
I hate this book
This book is binary in it's approach to individual vs community interventions and only sees the latter as valuable. It's rife with factual errors, bias, and ultimately just very belittling. It's diametrically opposed to the idea that people in school for this profession should be able to pay back their student loans or make time for their own families by finding stable employment. The authors bash the hell out of psychotherapy and deem it to be useless or pseudoscientific and espouse ideals of their own as widely accepted societal standards for morality and relationships. They continuously state that things like therapy are good for middle class and wealthy people so they cant be for anyone else and completely ignore the idea that social workers are in a unique position to individually support clients in accessing the larger community and community based services.
This book is binary in it's approach to individual vs community interventions and only sees the latter as valuable. It's rife with factual errors, bias, and ultimately just very belittling. It's diametrically opposed to the idea that people in school for this profession should be able to pay back their student loans or make time for their own families by finding stable employment. The authors bash the hell out of psychotherapy and deem it to be useless or pseudoscientific and espouse ideals of their own as widely accepted societal standards for morality and relationships. They continuously state that things like therapy are good for middle class and wealthy people so they cant be for anyone else and completely ignore the idea that social workers are in a unique position to individually support clients in accessing the larger community and community based services.
May 20, 2012
This is an excellent exploration of how the social work profession, in its drive to be seen as legitimate and move towards therapeutic approaches, have located social problems within individuals and families (rather than in social systems) and largely diverted itself from its radical and community change roots. Highly recommend this to folks!
June 5, 2011
I'm glad I read this book before I started the MSW program. Though dated, there is valuable history and information about social work's stray from community based practice to individualistic psychotherapy. It'll be interesting how my education as a MSW will treat this dichotomy.
May 20, 2021
3/5. Mixed feelings on this one. This book is at its best when Specht and Courtney focus on discussions of history and when outlining their vision for a "community- based system of social care". On this latter note, I found myself agreeing. Americans are deeply attached to obstinately applying individual solutions to deeply systemic, collective problems, and social work certainly reflects that.
However, Specht and Courtney are at their worst every time they launch into one of the many exhausting rants against psychotherapy that they sprinkle all throughout. Not only are these rants at times unintelligibly vicious, they're also quite deeply ill-founded and based on little more than animus for the "secular priests of the church of individualism", as Specht and Courtney are fond of calling therapists. These rants are nothing short of polemical, which is unfortunate, as the points that provoke said rants are often quite useful and a more thorough exploration of these points would have added infinitely more than multi-page screeds.
So yes, all told this is a deeply flawed book, albeit one that makes some very cogent and well-reasoned points when the authors run out of energy and for a time stop ranting and start conversing. I would be interested in seeing a revised edition of this work, as it was written in such a transitory period for both social work and therapy in general.
However, Specht and Courtney are at their worst every time they launch into one of the many exhausting rants against psychotherapy that they sprinkle all throughout. Not only are these rants at times unintelligibly vicious, they're also quite deeply ill-founded and based on little more than animus for the "secular priests of the church of individualism", as Specht and Courtney are fond of calling therapists. These rants are nothing short of polemical, which is unfortunate, as the points that provoke said rants are often quite useful and a more thorough exploration of these points would have added infinitely more than multi-page screeds.
So yes, all told this is a deeply flawed book, albeit one that makes some very cogent and well-reasoned points when the authors run out of energy and for a time stop ranting and start conversing. I would be interested in seeing a revised edition of this work, as it was written in such a transitory period for both social work and therapy in general.
February 5, 2018
More and more clinical social workers are moving away from social service roles into private therapy practices, where they counsel middle-class clients. In the view of the authors of this book, this is a betrayal of the entire driving force behind social work as a profession. Social work is supposed to be about empowering communities and helping people access supports around them, while individual psychotherapy is focused on making one person at a time feel better.
The book delves into the historical tensions between social workers and psychiatrists, and the middle-class snobbery that has been with the profession from its earliest years. Since I'm about to enter a social work program, and am planning to specialize in mental health counseling, this was an essential read--though it left me with more questions than answers.
The book delves into the historical tensions between social workers and psychiatrists, and the middle-class snobbery that has been with the profession from its earliest years. Since I'm about to enter a social work program, and am planning to specialize in mental health counseling, this was an essential read--though it left me with more questions than answers.
February 3, 2024
If you told me this book was written today, I would believe you. Of course, I do not mean in the sense of current public policy and president (although an update would be interesting). I mean that there is such a hyperfocus in the social work field in pursuing licensure to the detriment of social welfare. Today, it is difficult now to have an administrative role or be taken seriously in the public policy space without those letters next to your name. I was turned off for years from pursuing licensure because it was pushed to me since undergrad that licensure = private practice (which I have zero interest in doing). As a history nerd, I loved how the authors detailed the history of social work, and the increasing "siren call" of psychotherapy. I also appreciated that the authors provided possible solutions to this issue, rather than only lamenting.
dnf
December 20, 2022I read a little over half of this book for a policy class in my Masters of Social Work program. And it was… rough 😅 it honestly felt a little bit like a tantrum for two very judgmental authors (😩 but this is how we’ve always done it! Your ideas are stupid and you’re a bunch of greedy traitors)
There were some good points- we do need social workers to remember how many huge and significant improvements were made on a large scale because of social workers involvement. But what they seem to forget or just not care about is that we need social workers who focus on both big and small picture problems. It doesn’t do us much good to make sweeping improvements that no one knows about or can access 🤷♀️
This book should just be a TedTalk with less resentment and emotional language :p
There were some good points- we do need social workers to remember how many huge and significant improvements were made on a large scale because of social workers involvement. But what they seem to forget or just not care about is that we need social workers who focus on both big and small picture problems. It doesn’t do us much good to make sweeping improvements that no one knows about or can access 🤷♀️
This book should just be a TedTalk with less resentment and emotional language :p
July 24, 2017
As an undergrad social work student, I found the ideas at times thought-provoking and painful to consider. I applaud the authors for trying to shock us into seeing that the current direction of the profession has ironically caused us to neglect the disadvantaged and vulnerable, the exact population so many of us started out on this journey to help.
May 27, 2022
So it's not that it is a good intention that lead to a cretin experiment that failed.
So it's not that here it is proof that it can't work.
No. YOU have to work hard, to pay the taxes, so people like Harry could weave the fine cloth, a cloth so fine you can't see, only fit for a king.
So it's not that here it is proof that it can't work.
No. YOU have to work hard, to pay the taxes, so people like Harry could weave the fine cloth, a cloth so fine you can't see, only fit for a king.
February 11, 2023
Good but DEFINITELY emotionally driven. I agree with some points the authors made, but the writing was so biased it almost turned petty? I had to read this for a policy class I’m in for my MSW but I can understand why my professor required this
May 20, 2024
Good explanation of systemic issues
Not so good argument to avoid working privately
Not so good argument to avoid working privately
March 27, 2025
Nothing special or groundbreaking here
June 4, 2018
No doubt this is an important book for social workers. However, to say that the author’s analysis is “heavy-handed” is too generous. As other reviews have pointed out, there is a lot of ham-fisted anti-therapy analysis in there that just doesn’t hold up. It is true of course that individual therapy cannot address the social problems that social workers are meant to, but it is also true that individual therapy is sometimes a great help to our vulnerable populations. Also, I couldn’t help but roll my eyes a little at the implications that (1) the problems of social work are mostly due to social workers wanting higher pay and more professional autonomy (as though we should just agree to being poor and taking our orders from management that doesn’t care or understand what we are dealing with), and (2) somehow the solution to this is also to provide case management to well-off working class and wealthy people. Like, c’mon, that last part does not jive with the spirit of this text. However, the author is a social worker, not a philosopher, so I won’t hold him too accountable for his argument. Overall I agreed with the premise of this book and feel sad that as a young social worker, I did not hear this sort of argument in graduate school, or anywhere really. I had to look for it myself and it is an important argument. I guess what I would say is this: taken as a primary source on the history and philosophy of social work, this is an important book, and well worth the read.
April 20, 2016
This book raised some important ideas- namely what is social work? Is social work missing out on it's mission when so many social workers are becoming therapists?
However, I think the book was far too binary for me. It took a fairly skeptical view on therapy- as if individual problems will be solved if we address social problems. Will it help? Absolutely. Will it mean people won't still benefit from private therapy? NO.
I think many therapists who are social workers still do macro work- often on their own time because of the flexibility that private practice provides them.
However, I think the book was far too binary for me. It took a fairly skeptical view on therapy- as if individual problems will be solved if we address social problems. Will it help? Absolutely. Will it mean people won't still benefit from private therapy? NO.
I think many therapists who are social workers still do macro work- often on their own time because of the flexibility that private practice provides them.
February 11, 2017
Great analysis of how the field of social work has slowly transitioned from providing social services to psychotherapy. Though Author makes a strong case i also would have liked him to comment on the low-pay of working in social services and why the transition. Its noble work, yet majority of practitioners come and adhere to a middle class background and with that desire and yearn for a middle class living wage. I understand the need for social security where a demanding job doesn't always guarantee.
July 17, 2014
This book gave me a lot to think about in terms of macro vs. micro social work. I was not aware of this dichotomy in social work practice, so I was glad to learn about it as I am starting my MSW in the fall. The book definitely gave me a lot to think about and I do have to agree with most of what they say about how social work is becoming too clinical and we need to focus on macro, community based initiatives, but I also would like to read more before forming a hard opinion for or against.
July 23, 2012
An amazing introduction to Social Work for future MSW students. A must read for anyone looking into macro placement or a macro career.
The authors do spend a fair amount of wasted time arguing against the direction Social Work has gone, but it is needed in order to provide historical context.
The authors do spend a fair amount of wasted time arguing against the direction Social Work has gone, but it is needed in order to provide historical context.
September 5, 2008
This book thoughtfully critiques social work and calls for a re-visioning and re-dedication to social justice within the profession
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews