Critical Social Work

Theories and practices for a socially just world

Bob Pease, June Allan, Linda Briskman

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2020
• ISBN:
  9781000256697
• Edition: 2
• Topic: Medicine
• Subtopic: General Health

'Another important contribution to the growing literature on critical social work. It is on the cutting edge of thinking about social work and its goal of social change.' - Kate van Heugten, Social Work Review Critical Social Work starts from the premise that a central goal of social work practice is social change to redress social inequality. Taking a critical theoretical approach, the authors explore the links between personal and social change. They confront the challenges for critical social work in the context of pressures to separate the personal from the political and in responding to the impact of changes in the socio-political, statutory and global contexts of practice. Critical Social Work has been thoroughly revised to take into account recent social, economic and political developments. Coverage of theoretical frameworks has been substantially expanded and reflects current concerns such as evidence based practice and human rights. The causes of people's marginalisation and oppression are examined in relation to class, race, ethnicity, gender and other forms of social inequality.Case study chapters in the earlier edition on working with immigrants, Indigenous people, women, men, families, people with psychiatric disabilities and those experiencing loss and grief have been updated and revised. The second edition includes new case study chapters on disability, older people, children, rurality, and violence and abuse. Critical Social Work is an essential resource to inform progressive social work practice.

PART I introduction

1 introducing critical theories for social work in a neo-liberal context

Linda Briskman, Bob Pease and June Allan

When we were in the process of writing the first edition of this book and discussing the project with academic colleagues and practitioners, we were sometimes asked: Is there still a need to articulate a ‘critical’ social work? Is not all social work ‘critical’ in the sense of being committed to social as well as individual transformation? Some contemporary social work writers at the time believed that to be so. Ife (1997), for example, argued that ‘social work is, by its very nature radical’ (1997: 178) and he stressed the importance of bringing radical social work in from the margins of the profession. He argued that the task was to ‘conceptualise social work in such a way that its inherent radicalism is recognised and incorporated into “mainstream” understandings of social work practice’ (1997: 178). Alston and McKinnon (2001) have argued similarly that professional social work is concerned with human rights, social justice and support for marginalised people. We still believe, however, that the notion of a social work as a ‘radical profession’ is as elusive now as it was when Rein (1970) wrote about this possibility almost 40 years ago. This issue is even more crucial six years on from the first edition, as critical social work has, regrettably, not made a significant impact on mainstream social work and there is still reticence by many organisations in which social workers are employed to engage with critical and emancipatory frameworks.

Given the context in which social work is practised, this elusiveness is not surprising, for Australia is aligned with global trends—particularly in Western nations, which focus on valuing the individual over the collective and pursuing economic gain at the expense of community and social development. Alongside this prevails a fear of ‘difference’ that contributes to the failure of reform in areas of fundamental importance to social work—fields as diverse as immigration, disability and criminal justice. Such factors, which may contravene social work’s core values, should ideally point to a social work of resistance and challenge. However, the contextual and political trends can serve to limit social work’s critical engagement and in this book we hope to encourage social workers to contemplate that their own practice might be strengthened by critical social work frameworks.

For these reasons, and for others that will become apparent throughout this book, we continue to stress that it is still important to name and promote critical perspectives in social work. Most of these perspectives are informed by some form of critical theory, including Ife’s (1997) ‘critical practice’, Pease and Fook’s (1999b) ‘postmodern critical perspectives’, Thompson’s (2006) ‘anti-discriminatory practice’, Baines’ (2007a) ‘anti-oppressive practice’, Mullaly’s (2007) ‘structural social work’ and Ferguson’s (2008) radical social work. Feminist, anti-racist, postcolonial and human rights perspectives in social work are also informed by revised versions of critical theory. Thus, it is important to set the scene by examining some of the key debates within critical theory and by exploring some of the criticisms that have been levelled at it.

Critical theory as a foundation for critical social work practice

It should be stated at the outset that the term ‘critical theory’ does not designate a unified theoretical perspective. It is a term that embraces a variety of different theoretical positions (Alway 1995; Cheek et al. 1996). On a narrow level, it is a school of Western Marxism known as the ‘Frankfurt School’, encompassing the writings of Herbert Marcuse, Jürgen Habermas, Theodor Adorno, Erich Fromm and Max Horkheimer. These writers attempted to integrate elements of Marxism with an understanding of subjectivity. At a broader level, critical theory has involved a variety of analyses which have endeavoured to link the concern with subjectivity, with the structural focus on the social and political context of people’s lives (Thompson 2000). From the point of view of critical theorists, contemporary Marxists neglected the impact of dominant ideologies upon people’s consciousness. Unlike structuralist Marxists, who spoke about the inevitability of the structural contradictions of capitalism in bringing about transformation, critical theorists stressed the importance of people’s agency—that is, their capacity to be actively involved in the process of social change (Alway 1995).

Most critical theorists are concerned with emancipatory education that enables people to see the links between their experiences and the material conditions and dominant ideologies in society. In this regard, over twenty years ago Fay (1987) emphasised the capacity of critical theories to explain the sources of oppression in society in such a way as to encourage those affected by oppression to take action to transform it. In the words of Alvesson and Willmott (1996: 13): ‘The intent of critical theory is to challenge the legitimacy and counter the development of oppressive institutions and practices.’ Critical theory thus places a significant emphasis on reflecting upon how dominant ideologies or ways of thinking, as well as societal institutions, impact on people’s lives. Critical theory also questions the place of existing institutions, such as the family, educational establishments and governance, with a view to constructing a more just society.

Critical theory has not been without its critics. Some have argued that critical theory in general, and the Frankfurt School in particular, failed in its attempt to link individual and social consciousness with institutional analysis and political economy (Held 1980). Others suggest that critical theory ‘exaggerates the importance of consciousness in the processes of radical social change’ (Alvesson & Willmott 1996: 86). Feminist writers also note that critical theory has not adequately engaged with feminist theory and subsequently has been unable to appreciate the significance of gender analysis (Cheek et al. 1996; Alvesson & Willmott 1996).1 Further, Alway (1995: 73) argues that, rather than imposing a particular claim or interpretation, emancipatory politics should be ‘expanding the opportunity for groups to determine and live according to their own claims and interpretations’. This development is consistent with some forms of postmodern thinking.

Influences of postmodernism on critical theory

A number of writers have commented that postmodernism shares many of the concerns of critical theory (Cheek et al. 1996). Just as the origins of critical theory came out of a project to reappraise and reconstruct Marxist theory in light of changed historical conditions, so critical theory itself may now need to be reappraised for the same reasons. The vision of emancipatory politics in critical theory has thus been rethought by many critical theorists in light of postmodernism (Yeatman 1994; Nicholson & Seidman 1995). A more detailed analysis of the rise of postmodernity is provided in our 2003 edition, but for the purposes of the current text we provide a brief overview of the contest that postmodernism poses to enlightenment thinking and some of the key tenets of postmodernism, as these ideas are implicitly and explicitly woven into the chapters that follow.

Just as modernity implies a departure from earlier ways of thinking about the world that incorporated superstition, paganism and traditional forms of authority associated with religion and feudalism, postmodernity has emerged as a break from modernity. The notion of modernity is usually associated with the Enlightenment project, which has sought to replace fear and superstition with consent and truth, and the establishment of a social order based on reason and natural law (Macey 2000). Distinguishing features of the age of modernity are the understanding of history as having a definite and progressive direction; the idea that reason can provide a basis for all activities; the attempt to develop universal categories of experience; and the creation of order, boundaries, classifications and certainties through formal reason, laws, typologies, uniformity and universality. Importance is placed on the objectivity of knowledge, the universality of values and the progress of science and society, and truth is centred in human reason (Seidman 1994; Parton & O’Byrne 2000a). Modernity’s ‘grand narrative’ (the form of knowledge seen as legitimate) is emancipation of all people and production of a universal knowledge that speaks for all.

This fundamental belief in the value of scientific knowledge in the human sciences as a means of public enlightenment and social progress of modernity has been debated and challenged by thinkers as diverse as Jürgen Habermas and Michel Foucault. Scepticism has emerged about the Enlightenment’s promise that humanity will be or can be emancipated by rational knowledge. Such scepticism is ‘one of the hallmarks of the age of postmodernity’ (Macey 2000: 111).

For the purpose of the current book, we understand postmodernism to refer to a cultural phenomenon in contemporary society characterised by fragmentation brought about by an explosion of information and new technologies, consumer capitalism with its proliferation of products and images, political shifts and upheavals, and new experiences of space and time (Best & Kellner 1991; Bordo 1993). Key elements of this social transformation include the growing significance of difference, plurality and the developing awareness of the social construction of ‘reality’.

Postmodernism emphasises attention to difference rather than sameness, awareness of the importance of language and the part played by discourses in the construction of social reality, as well as recognition that power is operating in many ways, creating opportunities for the individual to resist and to be other than a victim of ‘an oppressive and monolithic social order’ (Leonard 1984: 5).

Along with O’Brien and Penna (1998a: 53), we reject the view that ‘one true theory will overturn the system of false ideas and lead to the elimination of exploitation, oppression, and domination’. If, as Pozzuto (2000) suggests, no singular answer to the question of what is critical social work is necessary or even possible, it may be more appropriate to follow Hekman’s (1999: 22) exhortation to develop ‘an epistemology of truths rather than the Truth. This will enable us to avoid both a new form of universalism and ‘an “anything goes” relativism.’ Leonard (1997) refers to these multiple critical views as ‘radical pluralism’. Such perspectives would draw upon Marxism, critical theory—modernist and postmodern—along with feminism, postcolonialism and anti-racism among others. We encourage linkages between these perspectives without attempting to develop an integrated theoretical framework.

As we are opposed to the idea of a single model of critical social work, we encourage the reading of this book alongside other recent attempts to construct a critical social work practice (Fook 2002; Davies & Leonard 2004; Healy 2005a; Hick et al. 2005; McDonald 2006; Thompson 2006; Baines 2007a; Mullaly 2007; Ferguson 2008; Ife 2008a). We call upon readers to extend their understanding of the contribution that each has to make to the development of critical practices in social work, and in so doing offer this book as a contribution to ongoing dialogue.

The changing socio-political context of social work

The current edition of this book is substantially informed by the social and political context in which social work is practised, and this is raised by many of the contributors. Theory on its own is inadequate unless it guides forms of practice that embrace criticality, are reflective, grapple with questions of universalism and relativism, adopt diverse knowledges and do not see alternatives to Western norms as deviant. This necessitates the critical social worker engaging in some of the wider debates that have an impact on practice and being attentive to policies that may be antithetical in nature to social work values.

To do so may require social workers to move from their comfort zones and to consider how the new world order requires them to engage with the most pressing concerns facing the world today, as well as to understand their interconnectedness with local practice contexts. Social workers need to understand and question the pervasiveness of the ideologies in relation to the market economy and minimalist government intervention when these are among the tenets that fail to redress inequality. There remains a lack of concerted attention to world poverty, even though there is some global agreement through the setting of the United Nations millennium goals which aim to substantially reduce world poverty and achieve other human rights goals such as tackling child mortality and reducing the incidence of HIV in many parts of the world. Closer to home, social workers need to be cognisant of the impact of international conflict on groups within our own society. In taking this stand, we argue that the critical social worker must be vigilant and be aware that the prevailing economics-driven policies can have detrimental impacts on the most vulnerable members of society: those groups and individuals who are the key concerns of the social justice mission of social work. In this way, critical social work and politics converge in adopting an ethic of a responsibility for humankind, and not just those with access to economic and social resources.

The dominance of economic paradigms reveals itself to social workers in a number of ways, including the increased corporatisation of the human services sector, including contractual arrangements which see services delivered less and less by government itself. Social workers are both perpetrators and victims in this process. On the one hand, social work operates within a policy subset that is governed by dominant ideologies; on the other hand, these policies are determined by those with little connection to the world of everyday social work practice. For example, dominant discourses may suggest that economic development is the key answer for Indigenous Australians. Resulting from this is a set of policy constructs that ignores historical, colonial and experiential viewpoints. Hence social workers and their organisations seemingly have little choice other than to engage with the funded programs and the policy directives. Similarly, in child welfare the increasing resourcing of the ‘hard edge’ of policy, child protection, may mean that many social workers are limited in their endeavours towards prevention and family support. In such situations, a critical framework, including structural and feminist analyses, is pushed from prominence. To resist the dominance of the prevailing paradigms means to engage in political practice, something for which social workers are either not equipped in their training or are inhibited from doing by the organisational context.

Social work is a profession laden with contradictions, for despite an increasingly conservative practice environment, there are directives and principles enshrined in social work ethics which call on social workers to affirm human rights and to challenge unjust principles. As we will see in Chapter 5, both the International Statement of Principles on Ethics in Social Work and the Australian Association of Social Workers Codes of Ethics proclaim that the principles of human rights and social justice are fundamental to social work (IFSW & IASSW 2004; AASW 1999). The New Zealand Code (1996) goes further by including such headings as Liberation Through Solidarity; Non-Discrimination; Democracy and Human Rights; and Dismissal of Brutality. To exercise moral courage in order to bring together practice imperatives with political undertakings is an immense but surmountable task for critical social workers.

The rich knowledge base of social workers provides much of the answer. The knowledge base is predominantly derived from practice wisdom, which means that we can position ourselves as critical ethnographers, participant observers in our work where we are witness to the impact of subjugation, oppression, racism and structural disadvantage. Critical theories, including postcolonialist, anti-oppressive and anti-racist ideals, can assist us in working towards emancipation and liberation (Mullaly 2007). Through our connections and observations, there is the prospect to challenge the taken-for-granted ways of doing things, which for practitioners may equate with complacency or unquestioning compliance. This means that social workers need to move to the centre stage of activism in order to position themselves as key actors in the policy realm. At the practice level, this book contains many examples of how social workers can apply a critical approach in diverse practice arenas, and the exemplars contained in the chapters provide leads for how this can occur.

Overview of the book

The remainder of the book is divided into three parts. Part II provides an introduction to the historical and contemporary debates about critical social work theories and practices. Part III surveys the implications of critical theories for developing critical practices in relation to different sites of domination and oppression. Part IV outlines the challenges facing critical social work in shifting contexts of practice.

Part II begins with a chapter by Philip Mendes tracing the history of critical social work in Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom. He draws attention to the historical split between individual and structural approaches in the 1970s, and traces the emergence of feminist social work theory and the later development of postmodern critical theory in the 1990s. The strengths and limitations of these historical developments are critically analysed with reference to their influence on mainstream social work theory and practice.

In Chapter 3, June Allan reviews contemporary approaches to social work theory. She notes that while the transformation of social structures and institutions is at the core of these various approaches, they place different emphases on the various systems of oppression and highlight a range of ways fo...