1894年5月美國芝加哥爆發了影響往後全球勞工運動甚深的普爾曼罷工事件。社會工作先驅珍．亞當斯曾參與這次罷工事件的仲裁工作，事後她於1896年引用莎士比亞的著名悲劇《李爾王》中的情節來比喻該事件，寫了一篇評論名之為〈現代李爾王〉。她這篇文章內容與表達形式具有爭議性，直到1912年年底才正式出版。該篇文章最主要的目的是從社會倫理的角度討論工業化社會中的勞資關係。亞當斯所批評的李爾王和罷工事件中的資本家普爾曼，都帶有濃厚個人主義與家長式作風，著重追求自己的權力與商業利益，而不尊重女兒與員工的想法。而亞當斯所強調的社會倫理是以同情的理解與社會民主促成社會全面性的進步。本文從亞當斯的社會倫理哲學出發，檢視當今社會工作受到新自由主義與新管理主義的影響，以市場導向與預算導向為原則，而使得社會工作逐漸忘卻其追求社會改革的使命。雖然社會工作者也曾發動有組織性的抗拒，但平時仍舊是採取低咖啡因的抗拒居多。以低咖啡因的抗拒來面對新自由主義，顯然它的社會轉型效果不彰。固然採用阿Q精神與什維克主義是有些無奈，但畢竟還是比較安全的方式。雖然社會工作所處的環境是一個市場化與商品化的社會，它的價值與社會工作的使命有明顯的對立衝突。當前社會工作的工作條件仍是工時長、負荷高、薪資不合理，但是社會工作者所要爭取的不只是社工員的權益，更重要的是弱勢族群的福祉與社會工作使命的實踐。我們也願意相信，以現況而言能阻止進一步的新自由主義化都是值得慶賀的發展。社會工作面對新自由主義的戰鬥是一場理念、道德與政治的戰爭，明知這是難以致勝的戰爭，但社會工作仍值得我們再奮戰。雖然新自由主義一再灌輸我們，市場「是一條別無選擇的道路」。由於社會工作保有古典的悲劇情愫，我們堅信除了新自由主義之外的「另一個世界是可能的，也是必須的」。

The Pullman Strike of 1894, possibly the most famous strike in American labour history, influenced the global labour movement afterward. Jane Addams was involved in negotiation between the employer and employees of Pullman Company but failed. Addams wrote a critique on the Pullman Strike titled ‘A Modern Lear’ in 1886. The controversial message of ‘A Modern Lear’ finally published until 1912. The most developed part of her analysis compared George Pullman with Shakespeare’s King Lear. At the heart of that comparison laid her belief that both Lear and Pullman held individualistic and patriarchal mentality. They both used power on their own but could not acknowledge that his daughters and his workers were capable of assessing their needs and making right decisions. Addams makes a clear statement about the connections between sympathetic understanding and social democracy. Under the influence of Neoliberalism and New Public Management, social work practice was driven by the free market and strict budget control. Social work has lost its mission on social reform. Even though social workers have initiated organized resistance in every part most social workers usually adopt routine resistance in their workplaces. Routine and covert resistance is kind of decaf resistance. Decaf, because it threatens nobody and changes very little. Such forms of resistance serve a therapeutic rather than transformative function. Švejkism is not open protest, its style ironical and cynical. It is a weapon of the oppressed, but does not necessarily to change the status quo. The radical changes in social work were marked by the encapsulation of marketisation and commodification which contradict the very essence of social work value. Under hegemonic Neoliberalism, social workers still fight not for their benefits only, but for the well-being of the disadvantages and for mission of social justice. In the current context, even just checking further neoliberalisation would be a welcome development. Fighting Neoliberalism is a holy war for ideals, morality and democracy. The defenders of Neoliberalism always remind us that ‘there in no alternatives’. However, with the pathos of classical tragedy in social work, we assuredly believe that ‘another world is possible and necessary.’