PurposeNation states’ neoliberal policies do not regard asylum seekers and undocumented migrants as deserving of a good life. Social work in welfare states is highly connected to the policies of nation states. There is a need to address theories in social work that have a transnational focus at the local level. Axel Honneth’s recognition theory enables an approach to forced migration from the direction of personal relations and personhood itself. The core idea is that if people cannot gain recognition, this causes harm to their self-realisation. The purpose of this paper is discuss how the recognition theory overcomes a national focus in social work.Design/methodology/approachThis paper is theoretical. The relations of recognition are discussed in the context of transnational social work in welfare states with forced migrants.FindingsThe theory of recognition in social work practice with people who do not have a residence permit is best articulated by an understanding of rights concerning all the attributes of the person, i.e. as a needy being, autonomous and particular in a community.Originality/valueForced migrants’ backgrounds provide a specific backdrop for misrecognition, which may harm self-relations. The relations of recognition contribute to social work by providing the sensitivity required to evaluate the complexity of views and attitudes that affect the way we encounter service users. The relations of recognition (care, respect and esteem) give normative criteria for communication in order to take another person as a person, which, in turn, contributes to healthy self-relations of forced migrants.

Nykyisessä poliittisessa keskustelussa aktiivinen kansalaisuus ymmärretään usein kapeasti työkansalaisuutena. Artikkelissa analysoidaan, miten aktiivinen kansalaisuus rakentuu kotouttamistyön rakenteellisten ehtojen ja maahanmuuttajien tarpeiden huomioimisen ristiriidassa. Teoreettisesti nojaudutaan Amartya Senin toimintamahdollisuuksien teoriaan, joka painottaa erilaisten kyvykkyyksien sekä autonomisten toimintamahdollisuuksien merkitystä aktiivisessa kansalaisuudessa. Tuloksena havaitaan, että ammattilaisten näkemyksissä painottuu ristiriita järjestelmän tarpeille rakentuvan työkansalaisuuden ja kotoutujien autonomiaa tukevien toimintamahdollisuuksia vahvistavan työn välille.  Myös kotiäitien perheasemaan perustuva kansalaisuus on erityisen vaikeasti saavutettavissa. Lopputuloksena on, että järjestelmän tarpeille rakennettu maahanmuuttajien sopeuttaminen kääntyy itseään vastaan, sillä yksilöiden tarpeet eivät rakennu ulkoisten määrittelyjen varaan. Lopulta yksilöllisten tarpeiden tunnistamattomuus ja huomiotta jättäminen passivoi maahanmuuttajaa.

Social work in Finland, like in many other countries, has faced various challenges after the large scale of forced migration in 2015. Although working with migrants is not a new area in social work, the exceptionally large amount of asylum seekers in the Finnish society caused a need for improved social work expertise. Our article deals with Finnish social work practitioners’ reflections on multicultural, multilingual and transnational issues with a client group, which is in a vulnerable situation after forced or other forms of migration. The practitioners participating in our study have either attended a specializing education of child, youth and family social work or taken part in peer group discussions in order to develop multicultural expertise. All attendants worked in child and family social work during the study periods in the years 2018–2020. Applying a qualitative methodology by using thematic analysis, we analyze the social workers’ texts and discussions in order to find out the challenges and possibilities as well as needs and tools towards anti-oppressive practice in social work. The identified challenges are connected to differentiated local services, social workers’ uncertainty of their expertise in working with forced migrants, nationally defined welfare services and communication skills in client encounters. Some ways ahead were recognized in structural social work and further education to improve knowledge and skills. Social workers emphasize the need for self-reflection on their prejudices and in developing anti-oppressive practices, which contain human rights aspects and client-oriented practices. Specializing education and reflective group discussion gave a platform to social workers for reflective professional discussions and writings, which seem to have broadened their expertise in multicultural social work.

This chapter ties together discussions of citizenship and social work practice in the context of growing populist and neoliberal political trends in Finland. These political trends are manifested in populistic right-wing movements on the one hand, and the neoliberal dismantling of the welfare state on the other. Both political trends -populism and neoliberalism -tend to separate people into those who are 'deserving' and 'undeserving'. However, the dynamics of globalisation has radically changed nation states, creating a need to redefine the understanding of an emancipatory idea of citizenship connected to human rights, because social rights on their own are no longer able to protect the human condition. These emancipatory approaches face resistance from contemporary populist political movements. This situation is paradoxical, as populist political movements also base their political mandate on an underprivileged group of people, namely those citizens living in fragile life situations within the nation state. Additionally, social work practice has conventionally been restricted by national contexts due to differences in social work traditions, social systems, social problems and cultures. These effects manifest in social work practices, intentionally or unintentionally, through the application of different approaches. Therefore, social work practice must redefine its position in the current political climate, and social policy must pay more attention to social work ethics as a human rights profession.

Though geographically distant from each other, Portugal and Finland present an interesting comparison concerning the policies and devices of asylum. Both provide an informed and critical appraisal of the current international response to the refugee issue, especially considering the European Union. The Finnish situation evidences a long-standing integrated resettlement frame, associated with the inclusive and pluralistic character of Nordic immigration policies, in spite of the growing threat of regression under the emergent xenophobic pressure. Unlike Portugal, where a finely-tuned response system is still lacking in spite of the existence of an assumed political will and commitment to receive increasing numbers of refugees.