Street Social Work, Neoliberal Urbanism, and the Production of Space: Methodological Challenges, Ethical Contradictions, and Potentials
Yüksel Bekaroğlu DoğanNeoliberal urban trends such as commercialization, privatization, securitization, and restricted access in the organization of public spaces have profoundly shaped the practice of street social work. Two main issues arise in this context. First, neoliberal strategies that transform urban public spaces negatively impact both the everyday experiences of the street population and the methodologies employed in street social work. Second, ethical contradictions emerge when street social work is instrumentalized within discourses of security and public order. Street social work is a low-threshold, outreach-based practice where professionals actively engage with clients in public spaces, aiming to establish contact, foster connections, and reduce harm. While this approach has the potential to address social inequalities by reaching vulnerable individuals and groups, it can also involve interventions that lead to control and normative pressures. As a result, street social work occupies a contradictory position, balancing between the state’s public order policies and its core mission to defend the rights of marginalized populations. This study examines the contradictions and potentials of street social work within urban public spaces, particularly in the context of neoliberal urbanism. The analysis draws on Lefebvre’s concepts of the “production of space” and the “right to the city.” Within this framework, the study explores the role of street social work in public spaces, its potential impacts, and the ethical and methodological challenges that arise during its implementation. The study is grounded in a critical analysis of the social function of public space, neoliberal strategies for urban transformation, security policies, and social service practices. Adopting a critical and reflexive perspective on methodology and professional ethics, this article highlights the role street social work can play in advocating for a more equitable urban environment.
Mekânın Neoliberal Dönüşümü ve Sokak Sosyal Hizmet
Yüksel Bekaroğlu DoğanKentsel kamusal alanların düzenlenmesinde ticarileştirme, özelleştirme, güvenlikleştirme ve erişimle ilgili neoliberal şehircilik eğilimleri, sokak sosyal hizmetinin doğasını derinden etkilemiştir. Bu bağlamda karşılaşılan iki temel sorunsaldan birincisi, kamusal kentsel mekânın neoliberal dönüşüm stratejilerinin, sokak popülasyonunun gündelik yaşam deneyimleri ve sokak sosyal hizmetinin yöntemiyle ilgili olumsuz etkileridir. İkinci sorunsal ise, güvenlik ve düzen söylemi çerçevesinde sokak sosyal hizmetinin araçsallaştırılmasıyla ortaya çıkan mesleki etik çelişkilerdir. Sokak sosyal hizmeti temas kurma, bağlantılandırma, zararı azaltma hedefleriyle uzmanın kamusal kentsel mekânlarda inisiyatif alarak aktif olarak müracaatçı aradığı, düşük eşikli ve savunucu bir uygulamadır. Sokak sosyal hizmeti savunmasız kişi ve gruplara ulaşmayı amaçlayan bir müdahale biçimi olarak toplumsal eşitsizlikleri hafifletme potansiyeline sahipken, aynı zamanda denetim ve normatif baskılara yol açabilecek müdahaleler de içerebilmektedir. Bu nedenle uygulama devletin kamu düzeni politikaları ile savunmasız grupların haklarını savunma misyonu arasında çelişkili bir pozisyonda yer almaktadır. Bu çalışma, kentsel kamusal mekânlarda gerçekleştirilen sokak sosyal hizmeti pratiklerinin özellikle neoliberal şehircilik eğilimi ile ortaya çıkan çelişkilerini ve potansiyellerini Lefebvre’in “mekânın üretimi” ve “kent hakkı” kavramlarına referansla incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Bu çerçevede çalışma, sokak sosyal hizmetinin kentsel kamusal alandaki rolünü, bu hizmetin potansiyel etkilerini ve uygulama sürecinde karşılaşılan etik ve metodolojik zorlukları tartışmaktadır. Çalışmanın çerçevesi kamusal mekânın sosyal işlevi, kamusal kentsel mekânın neoliberal dönüşüm stratejileri, güvenlik politikaları ve sosyal hizmet uygulamalarının eleştirel analizi üzerinden oluşturulmuştur. Makale metodolojik ve meslek etiği açısından eleştirel ve düşünümsel bir yaklaşımla, sokak sosyal hizmetinin daha adil bir kent mekânı yaratma mücadelesinde oynayabileceği rolü ortaya koymaktadır.
This study aims to examine the contradictions and potentials of street social work practices carried out in urban public spaces, particularly those arising from neoliberal urbanization trends, through the lens of Lefebvre’s concepts of “the production of space” (2014) and “the right to the city” (2016).
Street social work, characterized by low-threshold and advocacy-based practices, seeks to engage clients in public urban spaces with the goals of harm reduction, connection, and outreach. The social worker takes the initiative, actively seeking out clients (Diebeacker, 2020; Andersson, 2013; Gibson, 2011; Dynamo International, 2009). By emphasizing low-threshold, harm-reduction objectives, and flexibility, this practice moves away from the power and authority traditionally associated with social work. Instead, it centers the autonomy (self-determination) and dignity of the client. Moreover, the client-centered nature of street social work, combined with its demand-driven methodological requirements, acknowledges the struggles faced by marginalized groups—such as the homeless, migrants, sex workers, and drug users—not as individual misfortunes or personal choices, but as outcomes of social inequalities rooted in structural barriers. From this perspective, street social work can be seen as more than a method of outreach; it is a radical approach that upholds the ethical principles of social work in the field, positioning it as a crucial tool for achieving social justice and protecting the rights of disadvantaged populations.
A distinctive feature of street social work is its use of space. The “space of intervention is the environment in which the client lives” (Galuske, 1998, p. 245), often in urban public spaces. In street social work, the various life worlds encountered in public urban spaces are experienced continuously, making it impossible to understand street social work without comprehending the dynamics of these spaces. Urban public spaces, as material and emotional environments where social boundaries and relations are negotiated, are often sites of conflict over the behaviors, ideologies, and values of different social groups (Gibson, 2011). In this regard, public urban spaces are spaces of power, domination, and struggle. Over the past three decades, neoliberalism’s hegemonic influence has been a defining factor in shaping the character and use of these spaces. Commercialization, privatization, securitization, and policies limiting access to urban public spaces have emerged as central regulatory strategies within neoliberal urban policies.
All these strategies target individuals’ behaviors in urban public spaces, allowing some social activities while restricting others. This directly affects how the street population and other marginalized groups experience urban public spaces and, consequently, shapes the methodologies and everyday experiences of street social workers (Gibson, 2011, pp. 142-143). However, referring to Lefebvre, the transformation of urban public spaces under neoliberal conditions can be viewed as a political conflict zone. Urban public spaces are not static constructs but spaces where access, violation, resistance, and struggle continuously play out (Lefebvre, 2008; 2014; 2016). The “others” and the street population, rather than passively accepting what neoliberal urban transformation strategies impose on them, can manipulate urban public space and fight for the right to the city through new “tactics” developed in daily life (de Certeau, 2008) or by creating “social infrastructures” (Simone, 2004; 2015).
Neoliberal urban trends related to commercialization, privatization, securitization, and access restrictions have profoundly impacted the nature of street social work. Two main challenges arise in this context. The first involves the adverse effects of neoliberal urban transformation strategies on the everyday life experiences of the street population and their right to the city. The second challenge relates to the professional ethical dilemmas arising from the instrumentalization of street social work within the discourse of security and order.
Methodologically, the primary contradiction of street social work, designed as a strategy for outreach and connection, emerges from regulations either aimed at designing urban public space or directly governing the behaviors of street populations. The most evident consequence of these regulations for the street population is mobility and invisibility. While mobility renders the goals of street social work—access, relationshipbuilding, and availability—nearly impossible, invisibility distances the street population from the social conscience.
The second ethical challenge in street social work relates to its dual role as a public practice. Social workers are often caught between the obligation to implement state policies and the mission to advocate for the rights of vulnerable groups. While social work seeks to promote social justice, it must also operate within state mechanisms constrained by neoliberal policies. Like law enforcement, street social workers can be positioned to align with policies governing the regulation of urban public spaces. This creates a tension within street social work, placing it between the duty to maintain public order and the responsibility to advocate for individuals and groups victimized by this order. Thus, as a public practice, social work is caught between serving as an instrument of social control and acting as a champion of social justice, leading to various challenges in practice.
Ethical issues in street social work are tied to space, knowledge production, the goals of practice, and the professional roles of street social workers. To adhere to professional ethical principles, street social workers must continuously critically examine these contradictory positions and assess them through reflexive practices. In this way, it becomes possible to develop a social work practice that does not reproduce social inequalities and asymmetric power relations in public urban spaces.
Lefebvre’s spatial triad, the production of space, and the right to the city provide street social workers with significant theoretical and conceptual frameworks in this critical and reflexive process. These frameworks offer the opportunity to evaluate the practice from different perspectives, its potentials, and contradictions, guiding the realization of the emancipatory potential of street social work. Lefebvre’s ideas on space and the right to the city create opportunities for street social workers to develop supportive and emancipatory practices. With such an approach, street social work can influence not only physical spaces but also social discourse and political processes, thereby contributing to broader and more sustainable social changes.
By working directly in public spaces where disadvantaged groups live, street social work can create an independent space of intervention despite restrictive state policies. On the one hand, street social workers support individuals by meeting their immediate needs, helping them survive. On the other hand, they defend the rights of these individuals, giving voice to those excluded from or marginalized by the system. From the perspective of Lefebvre’s concept of the “right to the city,” street social work advocates for these groups’ rights to exist and transform urban space, creating a site of resistance against the spatial injustices produced by the neoliberal order. In this sense, street social work has the potential to both erode mechanisms of social control and to recreate urban space in a more equal and just manner (Finn & Jacobson, 2003). However, activating this potential is only possible through a critical, reflexive, and self-reflective approach.
