recourses and means to look after dependent people in Spain.
SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION IN ISRAEL: TRENDS AND ISSUES
Shimon E. Spiro6
Social work education in Israel has been strongly influenced by North American models and by an early decision to integrate it into the university system. The result is a constant tension between the objectives of academic excellence and social relevance. The schools of social work have still to find the right balance between the theoretical and practical aspects of social work education, and to cope adequately with the multi-cultural nature of Israeli society. New challenges are posed by rapid developments in legislation, service technology and the economics of the welfare system.
Historical background. A 1-year long course for social workers was opened in Jerusalem in 1934. The significance of this act has to be seen in the context of the political developments of the time. Between the two world wars the area known to the world as Palestine, and to its Jewish inhabitants as the Land of Israel, was administered by the British colonial office under mandate by the League of Nations. In the 1920s, the British government decided to grant the Arab and the Jewish communities a measure of self-rule in civilian affairs. In 1928, the Jewish community established a National Committee to administer as many services as the colonial office would permit. One of the first acts of the committee was to establish, in 1931, a Social Work Department, headed by Ms. Henrietta Szold, president of Hadassa the leading American Jewish womens organisation. Ms. Szold was committed to the modernisation and systematisation of social assistance. To that end she established local welfare offices throughout the country, and insisted that each of them employ at least one professionally trained and salaried social worker, to work alongside the volunteers.
The rst professional social workers who were available for employment were refugees from Germany, who received their training in Frauen Hochschulen. However, in order to respond to the needs of the
6 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02615470020028391
46
growing Jewish communities it was necessary to train social workers from among the indigenous population. To that end, Ms. Szold recruited Dr. Sidi Vronsky, a leading German-Jewish social work administrator and educator and a close associate of Alice Solomon. The course she devised was modelled after the programs of the German Hochschulen, and the curriculum conformed to the standards set at the first international conference on social work education, which was convened in Paris in 1928.
By 1942 the 1-year program was extended to 2 years, and came under the rather loose academic supervision of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. A second school was established in Tel Aviv. By the time the state of Israel became independent in 1948, the two schools had trained about 150 social workers. This was more than the fledgling welfare services could absorb at that time, and some of the diploma holders were hard put to find paid full-time employment.
All of this changed dramatically with independence. The destruction caused by the war of 1948, along with the mass immigration of holocaust survivors from Europe and of complete Jewish communities transplanted from Middle Eastern countries, required a rapid expansion of social services and caused an acute shortage of professional manpower. Some agencies filled the ranks with persons educated in related fields, or even with those lacking any form of training. In order to remedy this situation the two schools were expanded, and many short courses (some as short as 3 months) were established to prepare instant social workers for the expanding service network. The Israeli welfare establishment was willing to compromise on the quality and length of training, but not on the requirement that persons occupying social work positions should have some kind of social work qualification.
Once the wave of mass immigration subsided, greater attention was devoted to the quality of social work services and the level of training of their personnel. The time was thus ripe for the academisation of social work education. In 1958, after lengthy negotiations between the Ministry of Welfare, AJDC (an American-Jewish charity) and the university, a school of social work was established at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, with a 3-year program of studies leading to the BSW degree. This at first did not lead to the closing of the ministrys courses, since the continuing shortage of social workers, especially in outlying areas, justified the continuation of non-academic training programs. However, during the 1960s, the first undergraduate program was followed by similar programs at three other universities (Haifa, Bar-Ilan and Tel-Aviv). When Ben-Gurion University in the Negev, the southern desert area of Israel, opened its Social Work
47
Department in 1982 the last non-academic training course was closed, and social work education in Israel became fully academic.
Almost from the inception of academic social work education, a process of upgrading was under way. A graduate program, leading to the MSW degree and focusing on supervision, administration and research, was established at the Hebrew University in 1970, soon followed by MSW programs at all other universities. While initially the purpose of these programs was to prepare administrators, supervisors and university staff, after a short while the programs expanded to include preparation for advanced practice. Nowadays almost 40% of those who graduate with a BSW come back to study for their MSW, and some of those go on to pursue a research doctorate in social work.
The rapid expansion and upgrading of social work education contributed to the professions virtual monopoly over its field of practice. The Social Workers Association, acting as a union, has fought successfully for the principle that only academically trained social workers can be considered for any social work position (with a grandfather close for oldtimers). This principle was further reinforced with the enactment of the 1996 Social Workers Law. This development would not have been possible had the schools of social work not been able to answer all the staffing/personnel needs of the field.
The international roots of Israeli social work education. We mentioned already that the first social work training program was modelled after the German Fachochschule, and the first social work educators were refugees from Germany. The German roots of social work education were, in some respects, American roots in disguise. Much of social work education in Germany at that time followed American models, and made extensive use of American literature.
There were some British influences too. The colonial government, concerned mostly with law and order, developed juvenile and adult probation services along the lines of the British probation services. The 1942 Beveridge Report had a great influence on the thinking of the leaders of the Israeli labour movement, and served as a blueprint for the planning of the post-independence welfare state. Furthermore, in the 1940s and 1950s the British government offered a small number of scholarships to residents of colonies and former colonies to study social administration and community development at the LSE, Swansea and other universities. A few of Israel's social work educators spent their formative years at UK universities.
48
Although German and British influences cannot be ignored, the main influences on social work education in Israel were North American. This was partly a result of the extensive assistance which the new state received from American Jewish organisations who invested resources, seconded experts and set standards of practice. One of the most active and influential organisations, AJDC (the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee), became increasingly concerned with the lack of local professional leadership, and decided to invest in the expansion and upgrading of social work education in Israel. AJDC played a major role in the establishment of undergraduate and graduate social work programs at a number of Israeli universities, contributing resources, participating in planning, and seconding staff and consultants. They and other organisations provided scholarships to junior faculty members of Israeli universities for advanced studies in the US or Canada.
The majority of Israeli social work educators received their doctorates at North American universities. Only in the last two decades have a growing number of home grown PhDs been appointed to academic positions, but they too have a strong North American orientation. They spend their study leaves at North American universities, and aspire to publish in American journals. Furthermore, to date much of the professional literature used in Israeli schools of social work consists of American books and journals. Although the last 40 years have seen a consistent growth in indigenous literature (in Hebrew), many of the basic textbooks are still American, and Israeli faculty follow closely the latest developments in the literature, meaning the American literature.
The American training has some clear advantages. It allows Israeli scholars to keep up-to-date on developments in theory and practice in North America. It also enhanced the international status of Israeli social work educators, as reflected in publications, participation in conferences and international exchange. On the other hand, it results in a certain parochialism, i.e. in inadequate attentions to developments in social work and social work education in other parts of the world, especially Europe. It may also have hampered the development of indigenous approaches to theory and practice. The tension between the universal (i.e. American) and local may not be unique to Israeli social work education, but it may be stronger here due to the history of dependence on North American institutions, as described above.
Social work and the university. One of the most critical decisions made in the 1950s was the integration of social work education into the university system. At that time this was a revolutionary step, since only the
49
well-established professions, i.e. medicine, law and engineering, were included in universities. Other professions, such as teaching, nursing, surveying etc. were taught in special institutes.
Later these professions followed social work into the university system. It may well be that social work opened the door for them.
The entry of social work into the universities undoubtedly enhanced the status of the profession and increased the pool of candidates among recent secondary school graduates, thus making it possible to select candidates with better academic qualifications. Furthermore, the academic environment offers social work faculty and students opportunities for enriching interactions with members of other disciplines. Finally, every university endeavours to set high standards of academic achievement for both faculty and students.
This last point is reflected most strongly in procedures and criteria of academic appointments and promotions. The university rewards those who meet certain criteria, especially those pertaining to the quality, quantity and location of publications. The university does not always reward other qualities, which are of significance to professional education, such as excellence in teaching (especially clinical teaching) or contribution to the community. Thus the location of schools of social work within universities helps maintain standards of excellence, but not necessarily the most relevant standards. Israeli universities have tried to cope with this dilemma by introducing parallel tenure tracts for appointment and promotion of faculty who are outstanding practice models and good teachers, but are not necessarily strong on research and publications. The problem with these tracts is that their occupants are seen as second-rate citizens in academia, and all professional schools do their best to have as few of them as possible. Thus, schools of social work pay for their university affiliation with the loss of potential staff who could contribute most to the teaching of professional knowledge and skills. There exists, in Israeli schools of social work, a constant tension between the aspiration for academic status and acceptance by the university community, and the desire to excel in the training of professionals and to contribute directly to the improvement of social policies and practices.
During the last two decades a great number of local colleges were established in different parts of the country. These colleges focus on undergraduate degrees, including degrees in practice fields. It is conceivable that in the future much of undergraduate education will take place in these colleges, while the universities will focus more and more on
50
graduate studies and research. Such a division between a focus on knowledge building and a focus on professional training may help resolve the problem discussed above.
On the other hand there are some signs, albeit weak, of a change in the ideology of academic leadership. In recent years presidents of Israeli universities have announced repeatedly their commitment to a direct involvement of the university in Israel's social problems. If this is more than lip service, it may provide schools of social work with an opportunity to use their relative advantage in this area, and to serve as guides to their colleagues from other departments. A successful fulfilment of this role may, at one and the same time, enhance the status of the social work faculty on campus and in the profession.
Practice orientations. Not only did most Israeli social work educators receive their advanced academic training in the US and Canada, but the first ones, those who had the greatest influence on the content and format of local curricula, did so in the 1950s and early 1960s. That was the time at which the influence of psychodynamic theories was at its highest. Israeli social work educators who spent their formative years in the North America of the 1950s acquired an orientation that put at the centre of social work intervention the individual and her or his problems. Social work was identi ed with casework, and casework with a deep understanding of emotional needs and interpersonal relationships. Social group work, community organisation, social reform and social administration were seen as peripheral to social casework, which was very close to individual therapy.
For the last four decades social work educators in Israel (as in a number of other countries) have been struggling to assume a more balanced, holistic approach to social work practice. Beginning in the 1960s, there have been repeated calls to bring the social back into social work by placing a stronger emphasis on issues of social policy, service administration and community action (Gal & Weiss, 2000). The declared ideology of all schools is generic, multi-method and problem focused. This ideology is often not practised. Some schools have developed community work tracts, and most teach problem-focused courses. However, under this cover we find a continued emphasis on the ever more sophisticated teaching of clinical practice. This may reflect an unspoken collusion between the practice teachers, with their clinical orientation, field instruction agencies, who are most comfortable working with individuals, and the students, many of whom are motivated to study social work as a path towards psychotherapy. This trend is further reinforced by an
51
emphasis on psychology among the courses that form the scientific underpinning for the teaching of social work practice.
The location of social work teaching: classroom vs. field. The division of responsibilities for the teaching of socal work practice between the university and social work agencies has been a central issue in social work education from the beginning. At the early stages of social work education there was a clear division between theory and practice. Theory was taught at institutions of higher education, and practice skills were acquired in the field, through apprenticeship. Later, with a clearer conception of the relationship between theory and practice, the schools did their best to control the practical experiences of their students. This was done either by sending students to field units with university employed field teachers, or by delineating detailed programs of learning experiences to be implemented by social workers employed by the agencies and appointed by the universities as field instructors. The rapid upgrading of academic qualifications of social workers in the field makes possible a yet different model, that of equal partnership between the university and the field in the teaching of social work theory and practice in the two different settings.
The rapid increase in graduate programs, as described above, created a dramatic change in the professional status of the social workers in the field. In the 1950s and 1960s there were, in the whole of Israel, only a handful of social workers with advanced degrees from North American universities. Almost all of them found their ways to teaching positions at the universities. Even the most senior and experienced social workers in the field had no more than an undergraduate degree or a diploma. This situation changed dramatically when one university after the other offered MSW and PhD programs. Nowadays, almost all of the senior personnel in social agencies, and many of the direct service workers, have an advanced degree. There are a few who boast a doctorate, and others have gained official recognition as experts in their fields of practice. Thus it would have been feasible to remove much of the practice teaching from the university to the field. The great advantage of field teachers when compared to university teachers is that they teach practice from current experience. There is an opportunity here to move from a conception that sees knowledge as created and accumulated in academia, and applied in the field, to a conception which sees knowledge on social work practice as emerging in the field, through reflection in action. According to the second conception, academia and the field are equal partners in social work education. This possibility
52
has been discussed in various circles, but it has not been implemented by any of the existing schools.
Social work education in a multi-cultural society. Israeli society is a mosaic of ethnic and religious groups, each with its distinct culture. The Arab minority includes Moslems and Christians of various denominations. The Moslems are divided between westernised town dwellers, traditional villagers and nomadic Bedouins. The Jewish majority includes native born and long-term residents of European or Asian-African background, as well as recent immigrants from the former Soviet Union and Ethiopia. The Jewish majority is further divided, by the adherence to religious beliefs and observances, into ultra-orthodox, traditional and secular groups.
Can all of these groups benefit from the kind of social work which is routinely taught at the existing schools, i.e. a social work based on western, middle class modes of thinking and problem solving? The answer is probably not. One possible response to this reality would be to emphasise throughout the curriculum, and especially in the practice courses and field training, the enhancement of cultural sensitivity. Although some efforts have been made to introduce courses and learning experiences which enhance cultural sensitivity, these were too feeble to overcome cultural barriers.
Another approach, which has been tried, is to make sure that as many of the different cultural groups are represented among the students of schools of social work. For many decades the proportion of Arab students among all social work students has been about equal to their proportion in the population. In recent years, special efforts have been made to recruit and educate students from among recent immigrants from the culturally diverse republics of the former Soviet Union and from Ethiopia. The idea was to educate social workers who speak the languages of these groups, and are aware and responsive to ways of thinking and cultural codes. To this end some measure of positive discrimination was employed, and measures were taken to provide special support to students who might have failed because of language difficulties or because of their inadequate preparation for higher education.
Not all of the cultural groups could benefit from this approach. For example, the ultra-orthodox would not allow their young women or men to enter universities, and be exposed to heretic ideas and unacceptable modes of conduct (dress, relationships between the sexes, etc). On the other hand, universities were reluctant to allow special groups of students to complete the requirements for a degree in any field without exposure to the choices
53
available on campus, to the libraries and to other students. Only recently have ways been found to institute special courses for Jewish ultra-orthodox students (one for women, one for men), which follow the full social work curriculum and only partially expose their students to other aspects of campus life.
The recruitment and training of social workers from among the diverse groups in Israeli society is only part of the answer. The greater challenge, which so far has not been addressed, is the development of concepts and approaches that are congruent with social work values and ethics and with the unique mores of different groups. It is not clear that these can always be reconciled. For example, how does one follow values of individual autonomy in a culture were every human act has to be directed by the will of God, as interpreted by a local Rabbi? Can women be treated equally in cultures which have a strict code of sexual conduct, the breach of which calls for death punishment (to be implemented by fathers or brothers). Nobody has so far addressed the basic issue as to whether there is one social work, which can be adapted to all cultures, or whether there should be a development of unique principles for different cultures. It is an issue faced by social work educators in many countries. Israel, with its mosaic of cultures, may be a most appropriate setting to address these issues head on.
Two recent developments have added to the complexity of this issue. Over the last decade a growing number of foreign labourers, many of them illegal, found work in the Israeli labour market, many of them settling with their families in dilapidated inner-city areas. They are not yet recognized as part of Israeli society, and the welfare service largely ignores them. However, Israel is bound by international conventions, especially those addressing the rights of children, which force the authorities to address at least some of the needs of this group. Over the next few decades social workers will have to deal more and more with the unique needs of groups which are neither Jewish nor Arab.
Secondly, there is a growing recognition of the development of an underclass, families and individuals that were left behind, unable to benefit from bureaucratic services and from professional help. Recent experience has shown that even the most marginalised and excluded clients may respond to innovative, creative modes of helping, which respect their integrity and meets them on their own terms. These alternative ways of helping have yet to find their way into the curricula of schools of social work.
54
The issue goes beyond the adaptation of practice modes and professional principles to different cultures. Quite a few of the groups mentioned above are different not only in their culture but in their political power and access to communal resources. Concepts of social justice, social inclusion, anti-oppressive or liberating practice, which have become central to the discourse on social work practice and education in western countries, are hardly at all reflected in the curricula of Israeli schools. A greater attention to issues of justice is a prerequisite for greater relevance to groups which are not part of the cultural and political mainstream.
Trends of change in Israel's welfare state and the response of social work education. Israel's social and political system and its welfare services have been undergoing significant change that ought to be reflected in social work curricula. This does not always happen, or does not happen fast enough. While academic institutions often lay claim to innovation and leadership in their fields, they may actually have some built-in conservative mechanisms that help maintain the status quo. Faculty members often pass on to their students the knowledge which they acquired as students, and may develop a vested interest in an existing curriculum. Three areas of change, which are not yet reflected in the social work curricula, will be reviewed in this article.
The legalization of social work practice
Over the last four decades at least 40 laws, regulations and orders, which direct and limit the roles and functions of social workers, have been enacted. Among them are the 1991 Family Violence Prevention Law, the 1989 amendment to the Penal Code (article 6a: the protection of minors and helpless persons), the 1995 Family Courts Law and a number of others which jointly define a long list of matters in which the intervention of social workers is mandated (Shnit, 1998). These laws not only require social workers to investigate, report and initiate legal proceedings, they also require that this be done within specified time frames. Consequently social workers, especially those employed in local welfare bureaus, are less and less free to set their own priorities, and more and more judged by their competence in dealing with matters of protection and social control, matters in which legal aspects are quite dominant.
These developments are not strongly enough reflected in social work education. Although all schools of social work have in their curriculum one or more courses on the legal basis of social work practice, these courses are seen more as part of the students liberal education than as a component of their preparation for practice. There have been some
55
attempts to enhance the clinical aspects of the teaching of law. One school experimented with a joint law clinic for students from the faculties of law and social work. However, until laws and legal procedures become part and parcel of the practice courses and of field instruction students can hardly be expected to acquire the knowledge and skills needed to carry out their functions as protectors of the helpless and the guardians of social rights.
Information technologies. Welfare services have been lagging after business and other public services in the utilization of computerized information systems. However, in recent years more and more social work agencies have introduced management information systems, clinical information systems, decision support systems and their like. This is one area in which schools of social work could have played a leadership role. From year to year a growing proportion of students entering schools of social work are computer literate. More and more of them surf the net, and are able to use the computer for word processing and statistical analysis. Although a handful of faculty members have played important roles in the development and study of information systems, this is hardly at all reflected in the classroom and the field instruction settings. So far the schools have failed to turn out cohorts of graduates who are cognizant of the potentials and limitations of information systems which may soon change the nature of work in social agencies, enhancing accountability, quality of service, and direct access of clients to information.
The privatisation and commodification of social work services.
Over the last few decades the Israeli welfare state has been undergoing an accelerated process of privatisation. At this point in time the national or local governments hardly at all own any group homes for children, institutions for the disabled, old age homes, etc. Almost all of these services are now operated by voluntary associations or by private owners, although the government continues to refer clients to these services and to cover most of the costs through fee for service. Other services, for example hospitals, are still owned and operated by ministries of the national government or by local authorities, but have been turned into public corporations, and are expected to adhere to sound business principles. Social workers in these agencies are expected to develop programs which can be marketed, and which will add to the economic viability of the agency.
These developments call for social workers that are endowed with entrepreneurial attitudes and skills. Furthermore, the commodification of many services confronts social workers with new challenges and
56
opportunities, but also with new ethical dilemmas. Protecting the best interests of the clients takes on new dimensions when confronted with the economic survival of the agency. So far social work curricula hardly at all reflect these changes.
Social work education and the social work establishment. Over the last 67 years there have been many changes in the relationship between the social work establishment and social work education. Initially, the Ministry of Social Welfare (and its predecessor, the Social Work Department of the National Committee) had a strong influence on the policies of schools of social work and their curricula. The social workers association, which was founded in 1937, also aspired to have a say in these matters. All of this ended once the schools became entrenched in the universities, and took measures to protect their academic freedom. In Israel, unlike the UK and North America, there is no external body empowered to accredit programs of social work education. In spite of this academic freedom, social work curricula in the different universities turned out to be quite similar. All of them offer basic courses in the social and behavioural sciences, all of them offer some courses in areas of social policy, and in all of them the heart of the curriculum are the practice courses which are accompanied by extensive field instruction. The differences between the schools are matters of emphasis.
Furthermore, according to the 1996 Social Workers Law (and actual practice that preceded it) schools of social work control entry to the profession since any person who gained a BSW degree in an Israeli university, or an equivalent degree from abroad, will be automatically qualified as a social worker. Recently a move has been under way to reassert the influence of the profession over professional education by requiring candidates to prove their ability to function as social workers during a year of internship, and to sit for an exam, the content to be determined by the Social Workers Council. In this manner the council, representing mostly the professional association and the big employers, would gain some indirect influence on the content of social work education. Although some social work educators support this scheme, the chances of realisation are slim due to the expected costs and the objections of most schools.
The other side of this coin is the status of the schools of social work in the profession, and their contribution to the development of social policy. Here the picture is mixed. From the 1930s onward social work educators have been expected to provide leadership to the profession. For example, when the Social Workers Council was established in 1989 the
57
first three chairpersons appointed by the minister after consultation with the Social Workers Association were university faculty. Furthermore, during the 1960s and 1970s social work educators were the ones to speak out on issues of poverty and social justice. They could speak out more freely than the employees of social welfare agencies, even those high up in the hierarchy, and for many years made good use of this freedom. Paradoxically, in the last two decades the voice of social work faculty has been heard less and less, at a time when the establishment was willing to listen more and more. One possible reason is a growing inclination to invest time and energy in the kinds of activities rewarded by the university system.
There are, however, other ways for schools of social work to influence their professional environment. Some schools have ventured down from the ivory tower to develop innovative programs in the field, in cooperation with social agencies. Examples include a communityoriented family counselling clinic, developed by a school of social work jointly with the local municipality, or a research unit on social work in the health field, operated jointly by a school of social work and one of the big teaching hospitals. All schools operate extensive continuing education programs, in which practitioners can acquire new knowledge on many different subjects. The courses range from 2-year long diploma courses in some method (e.g. group work or family therapy) to 1-day seminars on some issue of interest.
Social work graduates and the labour market. In many respects the development of social work education in Israel over the last 67 years can be described as spectacular. From very modest beginnings of nine students participating in a 1-year long diploma course, the system grew to include social work education in five universities and one college. Jointly these institutions graduate each year about 600 BSWs, 200 MSWs and at least a dozen PhDs. Once again there is no shortage of social workers, and the number trained is more than the social service system can employ.
As a result of various inducements the schools of social work grew to an extent that they now produce more graduates than the labour market can absorb. This has its good side, since almost no social work position remains unoccupied, even if it is located in an outlying area and is offered by an agency that is considered unattractive. On the other hand, the oversupply of professional workers has an adverse effect on opportunities for mobility (both horizontal and vertical). In the long run it may lead to situations where social workers compromise professional ethics and principles in order to hold on to jobs.
58
The pressures on the social work labour market are not only internal. In recent years there have been some border skirmishes with other professions that invaded parts of the domain of social work, and vice versa. Psychology has been developing sub-disciplines, such as medical psychology and community psychology, which cut into the traditional domain of social work. Nurses are less and less satisfied with their traditional roles, and see themselves as handling emotional distress, family relations and other aspects of what used to be the social workers prerogative. At times of rapid growth the social service sector could accommodate these developments without a real loss of social work jobs. This may not be so in the future. Social work educators will need to reexamine assumptions about the domain and boundaries of the profession, and to devise new modes of interdisciplinary cooperation and teamwork.
Concluding remarks. It is impossible to cover, in a short paper, all the developments, issues, dilemmas and problems in social work education in any one country, and Israel is no exception. For example, we did not review the developments which took place in the area of social work research, and which are mostly located in the schools of social work and in the institutes and research centres associated with them. Consequently, we also did not discuss issues related to research, such as the selection of subjects and paradigms. These and a number of other developments and issues were discussed in another recent paper.
Furthermore, while we discussed the quantitative growth of social work education, and the upgrading of degrees, we did not discuss a constant process of change in the quality of social work education, reflected in improved processes of course preparation and teaching methodology. This would require a much more thorough investigation of content and method, something beyond the scope of this paper.
What we tried to do in this paper was to point to issues and dilemmas which will continue to confront social work education during the coming decades. We believe that most of these are universal, affecting social work education in many different countries.
For Israel, the next decade can be expected to be yet another period of rapid social change. Thus, for example, a successful conclusion of the peace process (i.e. the negotiations with the Palestinian leadership and with Syria and Lebanon) will undoubtedly affect the relationships between Arabs and Jews within Israel. A reduced threat of war will probably bring with it enhanced prosperity, as resources are re-allocated from military to civilian uses, but possibly also enhanced internal rivalries and tensions.
59