Labor and the Social Being: Reflections regarding the Lukacsian ontology and its occurrence in the Professional Ethical-Political Project

This article, originating from the reflections of the "Labor and Social Issues in Latin America" Studies and Research Nucleus at the Social Services Graduate program at Federal University of Santa Catarina (UFSC), intends to point out elements for understanding the profession as it is today, in addition to conducting an analysis of the labor category in Marx and Lukács and its relation to Social Services as salaried profession inserted in the social and technical division of labor, which contributes to the process of (re)producing the logic of capital. Determined by the capitalist sociability, it is important to note that Social Services are in a collision path with the interests of capital because, due to the nature and determinations of capital, the "contradiction" element is self-determining. The profession, which is complementary to the collective interests of the working class, seeks to use a professional project, connected to a class project, to adhere to collective values that meet the concrete needs which emanate from the working class towards a radical construction of a new sociability.


Introduction: labor
The definition of the labor category has been analyzed by various theoretical strains of contemporary social thought, both from conservative strains with a profound bourgeois orientation, and the more emancipatory strains, which we highlight and use as a reference -Marx's social theory, and then the debate of György Lukács.The reflections regarding this category need to be analyzed carefully and sustained by a theoretical framework that considers the capitalist society as the starting point and the concreteness of life as a cornerstone, because the plurality of currents of thought traditionally skews the analyses and understanding of this category which is so central to humans, leading to vulgarisms that can distort their particularities in the contemporary world.
In this direction, we approach labor in this debate from the Marxist tradition, which is understood as the appropriate category due to the determinability of the typically bourgeois social production relations, since capital is an "[...] economic power of the bourgeois society that dominates everything."(MARX, 2011, p. 60).Coopted as an essential element for the (re)production of the logic of capital, we decided, within a particularity which is also universal, to consider the social worker as a salaried employee, understood as a specialization of collective labor, which has a professional project aligned with the collective interest of the workers.

Labor and its ontological definition
Using the elements as a starting point, we may return to Lukács (2012, p. 286) and affirm that: "Labor allows a double transformation.On one hand, the very human being who works is transformed by his labor; he acts upon external nature and modifies it, and at the same time, his nature develops the potential which was latent within."As a process that coexists in the relationship between man and nature, labor is potential put in motion in the direction of searching for the satisfaction of the collective needs, a process of interaction with its base-material that is invariably found in nature.This nature does not consist in a dreamlike condition of understanding, deified or subjective; it is in nature as a concrete ground, which when mediated by labor and the skills of man, that it becomes the foundational core to meet the needs of the generic-human.
Lukács, supported in Marx, places labor on this "two way street," since labor only becomes consolidated in this interaction with brute nature and is made more dynamic by the search for collective satisfaction, man self-transforms.
For Marx, Labor is a process between man and nature, a process where man, by his own action, regulates and controls his metabolism with nature.[...] We are not dealing with the first instinctive forms of labor; of animals [...] We are presupposing a labor that belongs exclusively to man.A spider executes tasks that are similar to the weaver and the bee puts more than one human architect to shame with the construction of the honeycombs of their hives.But what distinguishes in advance the worst architect from the best bee is that he built the honeycomb in his head before building it out of wax.At the end of the labor process, a result is obtained that has been in the worker's head since the beginning, thus ideally.He not only transforms the natural material; he also, simultaneously, achieves his objective with the natural material (MARX, 2006, p. 211).
Labor and the Social Being: reflections regarding the Lukacsian ontology and its occurrence in the Professional Ethical-Political Project 11 Textos & Contextos (Porto Alegre), v. 14, n. 1, p. 09 -19, jan./jun.2015 | Thus, not only is labor a foundational activity for the social being, granting him a certain status, differentiating him from the other animals that exist in nature, it also allows the transformation of nature, and therefore, his transformation as a human being.Thus, for Lukács (1981, p. 11) "it is only appropriate to speak of the social being when you understand his origin, what distinguishes him from his own base, the process of becoming autonomous, is based in labor that is the continual achievement of teleological positions."Marx states that, beyond his social function, man has the capacity to project finalities (teleology), in other words, the capacity to build, in the realm of consciousness, a certain form that will be achieved in the concrete (objective) as a result of his previous ideation (abstraction), anticipated mental construction with the same conscience that materializes it through the interchange between man and nature.Thus, for Lukács (1981, p. 8), teleology "should be understood as a category that is placed and guided by conscience to achieve and end."We highlight that this function is determined by the search for satisfaction of the separate needs of humanities, since it is constituted for the moment in which man searches for it while a proto-form facilitator of the collective social needs of daily life.This is because it is from teleology that man projects his conscience to the forms of what will soon be his objective labor.
In regard to the aforementioned ideation, Marx's subtle but important comparison between man's conscious ideation and the subconscious materialization of the bee and the spider is emblematic, because both have inherent qualities of magnificent builders in the execution of their "labor", but they don't have awareness of the purpose of their action.For men, according to Marx (1983, p. 149): [...] the simple elements of the work process are the activity oriented towards an end or work itself, its object and its means.[...] the work process [...] is the activity oriented towards an end to produce use values, the appropriation of the natural to satisfy human needs, the universal condition of the metabolism between man and nature, the eternal natural condition of human life, and therefore, [...] common to all social forms.
The relationship between man and nature is a sine qua non condition because there is a relationship of coexistence between the spheres, wherein it is not possible to think of the generic-human as an atomized "being", disconnected from the materiality of life, and it is in nature, as an eminently ontological base, mediated by labor, that man develops his "latent potential."(LUKÁCS, 2012).In the context of the man-nature relationship, Lukács provides clarity by stating that it is not possible to conceive of the social being with an element dislocated from the materiality of inorganic life, given its ontological primacy, concrete, which in turn is the basis of the constitution of sociability.Obviously, the spheres that make up this social being are not only based on the inorganic bases, they are constituted as a complex post in constant movement, mediated by the organic and social spheres.
Thus, labor as an ontological category cannot be reduced down to the issue of transformation of nature, because it contains socially determined characteristics.Therefore, labor needs to be learned starting from is social function of a collective nature, because the needs of other individuals force labor to present is social end, with collective traits.In capitalism, what the worker produces in the private sphere becomes social according to the collective needs, forming the social ties between individuals, which are mediated by the goods they produce, acquiring a monetary and financial value, i.e., a socially determined value.
This monetization of goods must be understood in the context of the development of the social division of labor, because it is in this scenario that individuals produce objects through labor, which in turn, are owners of the exchange value.Thus, we must situate the social division of labor and labor itself as a condition based on the exchange value, where the later, in the capitalist society, is the cornerstone of its reproduction.
If the division is based on the existence of the exchange value occurring within in the bourgeois society, we still have an essential category for the perfect socio-metabolic functionality of capital: labor as merchandise.Understood in the profound process of the appropriation of the labor force, capitalism disfigured the relationship between man and labor, causing a typical estrangement process between the product of his labor and that which was previously formed in his conscience.In the capitalist society, where there is a capture of the labor force, situated in its subjective dimensions (teleological, for example) and concrete dimensions (objectified labor), the labor and its product continues to be determined by a marcantilized value, with the attribution of and exchange value.
Centered on the contradiction of the capitalist society, labor, while an indispensable activity for the generic-human, finds itself in the peculiar condition imposed by the social relations of production and places it in a contradictory dilemma.As long as it is a capacity that puts its potential in motion, seeking to satisfy its collective needs, labor in the capitalist society antagonizes itself by the inversion of the process, in such a way so that man becomes an object for the (re)production of capitalism and the merchandise he produces is given a ghastly value, which surpasses its immediate object value, transforming it into the subject that sustains the social relations of production.
Let us look at the position of Teixeira (2008, p. 125), who situates capitalism under the auspices of "A form of social integration mediated by things that transform men into objects and things, which are objects, into the subjects of social relations."In this inversion, the determinations of the estrangement (Entfremdung) become a symbiotic relationship with capital and its forms of (re)reproduction, since in addition to the subsumption of the merchandise in relation to the generic-human, the estrangement tears any and all of the worker's ability to recognize his objectified labor.
Man's objectified labor is a process that reveals at one pole the "poverty and the emptying of the worker" and at the other end the wealth and power of the bourgeois.When thought of as "fruits of labor", according to Frederico (2005, p. 131) it becomes "[...] a social power, strange and hostile, that escapes the worker and returns against him to subjugate him." The subjugation of man by the object he himself created is associated with elements of the objective order, such as exploitation for example, but is intensified by the path of the ideological mechanism of the bourgeois order and the intensification of the contradictions given by the growing rates of capital's superexploitation of labor, revealing the alienating character of the ideological mechanisms of the society that designs it.Thus, historically speaking, self-built labor allows man to achieve the essential mediations and activities: "sociability, awareness, universality, and liberty" (BARROCA, 2005, p.116), in other words, labor is an auto-creative activity of a universal nature that directs the development of potential for the generic-human.
Labor requires distance between the immediacy of instincts because it seeks the desired transformation through nature, which is mediated by the satisfaction of human needs and direction of its humanization.This distancing sends the generic-human toward the ontological content that labor carries, even profoundly altered and determined by the production forces of capitalism and its constant (re)production.For (Lukács, 2012), various immediate forms have determinations regarding daily life, and these determinations obscure what is "truly essential in the ontological plan."For the Hungarian thinker, the obscuring in the ontological plane forms roots through analogical deductions that remind the human being of a solipsistic 1 understanding of reality, i.e., one that is based on alienated deductions.Lukács also insists in pointing out his reflections in the direction of overcoming the immediate daily life, with the possibility of learning the authentic be-in-self, that requires that "[...]the means of intellectual mastery be submitted to a permanent critical consideration (LUKÁCS, 2012, p. 37).
The overcoming, in the direction of the generic-human, is situated as an activity necessarily built collectively, in cooperation with other men, as well as its ontological data submitted to critical rationality, in the context of a dialectical mechanism, which denies its constitution basis, giving origin to a new type of being.Therefore, this cooperation is: [...] an inevitable ontological-social condition of labor in the (re)production of the social being, giving it a universal and socio-historical characteristic.Labor is not the work of an individual, but of the cooperation between men; it only is objectified socially in a determined fashion; it responds to the socio-historical needs, producing forms of human interaction such as language, and the representations and the customs that make up the culture (BARROCO, 2005, p. 26-27).
Therefore, the reflection points out that labor, in its socio-historical characteristic, underwent substantial modification, but it did not lose the ontological character of its essence, through which it allows the recognition of man as a human being, its relationship with other social beings, and the construction opportunities of types of languages, sociability, cultural forms, etc.In this context, from the process of cooperation among men in the objectification of labor, a category emerges that needs to be explained, referring to secondary teleological consciousness, which is then mediated by the awareness of other subjects.
When a man establishes a conscious and historical relation with other men in order to carry out a certain task -already ideally constituted (teleologically) -makes this secondary teleological position surpass the most simple labor characteristic (its relationship with nature) towards the constitution of a category that applies directly to human conduct, seeking to project human consciousness and drive actions (LARA, 2008).This, beyond its centrality, the secondary teleological position made possible by labor moves toward social praxis, understood as a field of transformation possibilities.Regarding social praxis, Lukács (1978, p. 05) is enlightening when stating that [...] man becomes a being who gives us answers precisely in the measure in which -parallel to the social development and in a growing proportion -he generalizes, transforming his own shortcomings and his opportunities to satisfy them into questions; and when, in answering the shortcomings that provoke them, he fuses and enriches his own activity with these mediations, frequently well-articulated.
Based on the most perfected mental projections of man, his social praxis continues to be more social.This way, the complexifications emanating from the social praxis, categorized by Antunes (2001) as interactive actions, end up developing a supremacy in relation to the inferior levels, but they still continue permanently as the basis of the existence of those that are more complex (LARA, 2008).
Through work, the generic-human being transforms himself into another type of being, different for other beings in nature: the social being.For Lukács (1979), the ontological leap is made up of moments, where the first manifests itself from language, the forms of consciousness and labor, where man is moving toward the be-in-self of humankind, mediating the individual to the genre, understood in a dimension that transits between the private and universal being.This process is situated by Frederico (2005, p.126) as the formation of the "[...] social being and the two ends that interact: the individual and the society."A second moment is understood by the reconciliation process between the individual and the humankind, which Lukács (1979), supported by Marx, situates this reconciliation throughout history as the pre-history of human society, i.e., humankind.
Let us see the reflections of Lukács (1979, p.406): Textos & Contextos (Porto Alegre), v. 14, n. 1, p. 09 -19, jan./jun.2015 | This pre-history, the history of becoming man, of making the appropriate expression of humankind by society, can only end when the two ends of the social being, the human individual and society, cease to act spontaneously in an adversarial manner towards each other: when the reproduction of society promotes the being-of-man, when the individual in his individuality conscientiously becomes a member of humankind.This will be the second major leap in the unfolding of the social being, the generic leap in-itself to the generic for-self, the beginning of the true history of humanity, where the -irrepressibleinternal contradiction of the generic, the one between the individual and the social totality, ceases to remain adversarial in nature.
By referring to the individual and society as "poles", Lukács situates them in a particular development, noted for its contradictions, its imbalances, and marked by deep tensions, which give them a specific movement.In this ensemble, the thinker seeks to reflect about the constant process of reproduction of social life, as elements that "conduct the individuation of the subject and the growing socialization of society."(FREDERICO, 2005, p. 126).When the antagonisms inherent in these poles cease, it will enable the man-in-himself to break from the being determined by the reproducing society, in the direction of man to himself, ascended to the generic man, suspended from reifying everyday life, that is, an ontological leap.This way, the ontological leap [...] implies a qualitative and structural change of the being, where the initial phase certainly contains certain premises and possibilities of the successive and superior phases, but they can't develop from those based on a simple and straight continuity.The essence of the leap is made up of the break from normal continuity of development and not by the sudden or gradual birth, over time, of the new way of being (LUKÁCS, 1979, p. 95).
The ontological leap as a process of altering the pre-human elements to the current stage of the generic-human cannot be considered a straight process, considering only the objective will of the social being; it resides in the core of the concreteness of social life, determined by the social relations of capitalist production, with its bases conceived in rupture (contradictory and unequal) of the prior condition that allowed the emergence of this new organic being (LARA, 2008).Thus, the "forms of social objectivity of the social being develop, as the social praxis arises and becomes explicit, from the natural being, becoming more and more clearly social."(LUKÁCS, 1979, p.17)For the Hungarian thinker, the ontological leap can't be conceived as a mechanical or natural process.It is situated as a dialectical processuality where, mediated by labor and its projections (teleology), it is affirmed as a possibility of generating a new being.For the author, the leap is not annulled by the slowness of the process and by its "innumerous intermediary forms," because from the teleological placement given for labor, its transformation is operated to be a being for-self, "and therefore, implies the overcoming trends of the forms and social content that is the most pure and most specific."(LUKÁCS, 1979, p.17)This overcoming, in the direction of these more pure contents, are located in a processuality permeated by contradictions, given by the constitution of the sociability of capital and its determinability in the sphere of individual/society relations, which invariably leads to complex of complexes, originating from ulterior processes that design and give movement, with clear determination in the sphere of the social totality which the social being (re)produces.

The social division of labor and the participation of Social Service as collective labor
With the need for organization of the work process in the political, social, economic and ideological realms, capital creates a split between the workers and the work itself.With the strategic position of labor as an essential activity to the reproduction of capital, there is the need for structuring its process in order to enable the labor and capital to obtain the optimal conditions for the tasks and thus a sharp increase in surplus value extraction (absolute and relative).
It is worth noting that the labor proto-forms were rudimentary and were based on meeting the most pressing needs of social groups.Remember that work was based in manual activities, guided by traditional skills passed down from parents to children as a means of subsistence.
With the emergence of capitalism, the activities that were guided by exchange and the satisfaction of needs became determined by values that were different than their customs, such as the valuation (as use value and exchange value) of the product of human labor in addition to the appropriation, as a commodity, of the labor force.The economic and ideological principles of capital are based on the fragmentation of actions in order to achieve greater accumulation of capital through larger-scale production and the appropriation of unpaid labor, i.e., the exploitation of the workforce.
For Marx (1975), the first strategy was the appropriation of the means of production, i.e., what was previously just to meet basic needs of a particular social group begins to be appropriated by big business, which will place it in the property sphere and, thus begin to exercise domination of those subjects who only have labor force available as merchandise.Along with the profound process of appropriation of the means of production, by assigning values to the goods, all that was produced in small workshops and houses is given a new specific space: the factory.Thus, with the addition of all tasks performed in a single environment, capital now controls all stages of the production process as well as the form of the determinations over the body and the "capture of worker subjectivity" (LORENZO, 2009 p.69) .Under such determinations, the goods produced now have different meanings for those who produce them (the alienation and estrangement from what was objectified by their actions) and those who sell (assigning material and symbolic value -fetish -and the appropriation of the labor force's surplus, converted into profit appropriation).So when "human activity is alienated, its social and conscious character is denied; freedom and universality aim are expressed in as limited and insignificant manner " (BARROCO, 2008, p. 35).
In addition to producing in significant scale, the factory, governed by capitalist organization, will determine over time, new forms of life in society, determining social relations.In other words, the insertion of the capitalist world will impose on society the social relations of production, determining the ways of life, forms and consumption patterns, culture, etc. -.Another feature of the social division of labor is the organization of workers at the factory, which becomes collective, dependent and fragmented, causing that, at the end of the task, workers do not recognize what has been produced through their physical and intellectual strength.Regarding the results of his labor, Marx (2002, p. 212)

states:
At the end of the labor process, a result is obtained that has been in the worker's head since the beginning, thus ideally.He not only effects a transformation of the form of natural material; he simultaneously achieves is objective in the natural material, which he knows that determines like the law, the type and the mode of his activity to which he has to subordinate his will.This process described by Marx is embodied within the orbit of capital, forcing the worker to the give over of all his capacity (physical and intellectual) to the social, economic, and ideological determinations of major capital, which provokes an accentuated process of estrangement of the content and meaning of labor, in favor of the merchandise that originates from his work process.
It is within the context of sectioning the labor promoted for the socio-metabolic reproduction of capital, an institutionalized form of appropriating oneself of the labor surplus (added-value), that the estrangement is manifested, with a key-element the non-recognition of the objective and subjective results of his labor at the end of the labor process.In other words, the merchandise he produces no longer has meaning to the producer.This way, the alienation "...derives the appropriation of the surplus (produced by the workers) by those who hold the means of production, by the social division of labor, and the separation of the product from the producers, but most of all, of the social, political-institutional, and cultural relations established by the capitalist system."(LOURENÇO, 2009, p. 52).
The estrangement is the result of objective and concrete determinations of the labor process, but also reside in the ideological responses of capital, the obvious manipulation of social life, of customs, of culture, and of course, the sentiments of labor.Alienated labor must be considered an activity outside of man, that does not belong to him, and that, according to Marx (2004, p. 84) is an activity that "mortifies his physis and ruins his spirit," ; however, antagonistically, labor is the activity that grants his the possibility to employ the potential necessary for the development of his capacities.
As a worker, the social assistant is a salaried profession, participates in the social and technical division of labor, based on the understanding that it is a specialization of the collective labor and that meets antagonistic needs.Its participation in this scenario "is not self-determining.This means that this profession, like any other, cannot a societal analysis to achieve self-understanding.Its history is the result of the history of the capitalist society at a certain degree of it development: the age of monopolies (GRANEMANN, 1999, p. 161).
It is the very constitution of the worker, mediated by the (re)significance of the ideopolitical content of the profession, which choses values and a social direction aligned with the general battle of the workers, which will place a social assistant in a particularly antagonistic zone of the working world.However, the reflection of its understanding as a worker, also ensured by the social direction of the profession, grants fundamentals to the professional work of facing the capitalist scenario, characterized by a continual process of appropriating the means of production, by exploiting the labor force, and the determination of the socio-metabolic functionality, which indicates the antagonistic paths of the labor/capital relationship, expressed as class warfare.
In this scenario marked by deep tensions, the centrality of labor becomes the cornerstone of Social Service, starting from is condition as a worker and especially due to the social direction of which the profession and its workers are heirs, which grants the profession a determinability placed in the social relations of production, and their work has, as does any other worker, the platforms to build a social being.
Debating the issue of labor is essential for the profession, since when we chose an ethical-political project using a critical basis, it is necessary to understand the dynamics of this profession, which for the reproduction of capital in all of its spheres is a basic element, since it is through labor that the production process is erected and sustained.To sustain oneself under the aegis of labor value, it is necessary to understand the capitalist dynamic that takes the goods produced by the workers hand from him, appropriating his human power (objective and subjective), extracting from him what Marx will call surplus value.
In this direction, the social assistant, as a worker, faces a daily grind marked and stressed by the barbarous forms of labor exploitation, which places both classes in the battle for separate projects.From this antagonism, the emergence of the "social issue" becomes both the raw-material of the professional work, as well as an expression that bounces insistently in their living conditions.Therefore, in the theoretical apprehension and the professional exercise, the "social issue" cannot be grasped only as a epiphenomenal expression.It requires an understanding that considers the antagonism between the classes, determined in the capital-labor relationship, expressing the perversity of the logic of capital that tears up the objective and subjective life of the workers.It is moving towards the transcendence of this society of classes that the professional project accentuates its potential, as a political project viscerally aligned with the interests of the working class, moving towards a society where man can be the measure of all things.

Considerations
The barbarism of social life, under the auspices of major capital, impels our reflection toward overcoming a purely legalistic reading of the elements of a Professional Project, evidenced by the need that we workers have a major challenge placed in the order of the day when considering the capitalist social relations: It is about understanding that this project with political-legal roots continues to be mediated by the need for materialization of a collective construction of all of the workers toward a new societal order, free from domination, the exploitation of man by man, and the condition of the dominant and dominated class, where "man is the measure of all things."(IAMAMOTO, 2008, p. 226).
The project defended by the working class can be considered progressive in nature, with a background of the conflicted relationship between capital and labor, considering the process of deepening this relationship that takes the worker to profound rates of impoverishment, as well as his degradation, battered by the exclusion process in all of the contexts (political, economic, social, etc.)In the opposite direction, the projects originating from the demands of the working class are founded in private values and principles.
[...] liberty, substantive democracy, and citizenship, human, civil, political, and social rights, social justice, universal social policies, non-contributory, with quality and part of the citizenship rights, the expansion of the public sphere, the elimination of every type of exploitation, domination, and submission, as a system of social interaction and the development of a substantive citizenship (MONTAÑO, 2003, p. 29).
This way, it is clear that the ideopolitical platform upon which the interests of the working class is based on collides directly with the reformist 2 neoliberal project, (worsened since the second term of Lula da Silva, when the concepts of neo-developmentism increased significantly) by the fact that it is an antagonistic field where the class warfare emerges, moves, and is restored, in search of the maintenance and the expansion of their projects and class.To strengthen the battle in this adverse scenario, it is essential for there to be coordinated professional organizations, legitimized by the collective and the representatives thereof, that are active and engaged: in organizing events, publicly intervening in defense of civil rights and quality universal social policies, [...] representing their members in the defense of their interests (MONTAÑO, 2003, p. 51).
As a result, the workers, as a class organized by the struggle for their interests, has the organizational institutions (trade unions, councils, etc.) as a legal apparatus to allow them to intervene in the legal regulations, giving them institutionalized and organized conditions to struggle against capital.In this scenario, social assistants, acting as workers, and the professional project, participate as vector agents of the battle and the resistance to the countermovement operated in the contemporary world by capital in its monopolistic era, which has caused many losses in the realm of social rights of the working class, which have fought as a counter-hegemony in the relentless pursuit to keep the set of hard-won rights.
Thus, the working class, as well as the positioning of Social Services, directs this very difficult environment with a view to build professionals and societal projects that place them as the "effective guide for professional practice, and consolidate it through its effective implementation, even though they act against the neoliberal tide" (IAMAMOTO, 2008, p. 233).
The determinations of social relations on the socio-professional elements indicate an ideopolitical direction of a professional collective committed with the key struggles and needs of the working class, which makes us observe, from a critical view of the world, the presence of a bellicose offensive of the neoliberal program towards the continuous daily deconstruction of the main demands of the working class, with strong repercussion for the social direction of Social Services.This has an effect through the extension of ideological currents that are foreign to those embraced by the professional collective that invariably leads to dangerous detours and a process that is difficult to reverse.
We cannot reduce this framework to mere "atomized" schemes of the significant changes taking place in society, whether ideological, political, economic, social or cultural, due to the fact that all these elements are mediated and stressed by the social relations of production and are also under the aegis of big business.Understanding this complex game lies in the critical appropriation of theoretical and practical reflection and the alignment of professional principles in the ethical-political project and the 1993 Code, associated with the pursuit of its materialization in our daily profession.
The ethical-political project expresses values and achievements that can only be understood when considering the entire economic, political, cultural and social context that pervades and is inherent in the capitalist sociability, from a critical viewpoint regarding the current production model and the inclusion and recognition of the social assistant as a worker.Thus, Social Services are legitimized through the attachment of its project: This [...] happens through the demand that the political dimension of the professional intervention imposes.When we act in contradictory movement of classes, we end up printing a social direction to our professional actions that favor one or another social project " (BRAZ, 2004, p. 7-8).This search for a new society shows the social assistant the development of a professional work in its entire constitutive dimension, designed from diverse and varied actions that we perform, such as on-call duty, waiting rooms, oversight processes, and/or planning of social services, from the simplest actions to the most complex interventions of daily work in which we embed a certain social direction entwined with a specific ethics valuation (BRAZ, 2004, p. 7-8).
Allied to this complex context, Social Services have, in the working class, one of their most expressive forms of social recognition and also a class adherence when considering all of the content and social direction of the profession that constantly seeks to distance itself from the hard corporatism of regulated professions, the elitist conception as being a profession for college graduates, and the rejection of false illusions.It is also necessary to be clear about the central position of the value concepts that converge in all of its institutional, practical, legal, and ideological, theoretical-methodological, and ethicalpolitical channels for a class that is socially determined in the scenario of a contradictory capitalist world where the social assistants emerge and have a fertile field for their professional, and most of all, political labor: the working class.