Rethinking Anti-Discriminatory and Anti-Oppressive Theories for Social Work Practice

Christine Cocker, Trish Hafford-Letchfield

• Publisher: Bloomsbury Academic
• Year: 2014
• Print ISBN: 9781137023971
• eBook ISBN: 9781350312883
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Social Work
• Index: Social Sciences

For years anti-discriminatory and anti-oppressive practice have been embedded in the social work landscape. Thinking beyond the mainstream approaches, this book critically examines some of the core concepts and issues in social work, providing fresh perspectives and opportunities for educators, students and practitioners of social work.

PART I

Power

In our introduction, we explored the work of Michel Foucault and described how the framework underpinning this book mainly draws on his work. Foucault’s ideas provide a particular relevant means and sound resource for reviewing and revisiting the concepts previously associated with anti-discriminatory practice (ADP) and anti-oppressive practice (AOP). As a modern critical social theorist, Foucault explicitly articulated what he termed ‘disciplinary rules’, which can be useful for enabling social work to question and revisit the way in which it practises in the everyday and at different levels. Foucault offers a series of poststructuralist lenses from which social work might situate a critical approach with regards to the analysis and the positioning of professional practice. Central to this positioning is the concept of power and power relations. Foucault was concerned to explore relations of power, in particular the changing relationship between the state and its citizens. Within Part I, each of the four chapters not only capitalises on Foucault’s work but also considers the contribution of other social theorists such as George Herbert Mead and Judith Butler to analysing power in order to make sense of it within social work. The authors help us to discover different means of interrogating power relationships between ourselves as a profession; within and between the institutions of the state; and between ourselves and service users. All of these have become imbued with a growing reliance on consumerist, institutional and managerialist power, and this is where ideas developed from Foucault’s authentic ‘conceptual toolkit’ become useful.

The authors in this Part enable us to delve further within the realms of everyday social work practice. For example, at the micro level, Dunk-West encourages us to engage with our social work self by exploring what she calls ‘theories of selfhood’, core to developing our social work identity. Considered alongside a Foucauldian appreciation of power, Dunk-West refers specifically to ‘doing’ social work in the personal domain and accessing the social-work-self through a process of deliberate reflexivity. She draws on the work of Mead to explain the significance of social interaction in social work. However, these carry risks which we need to confront when achieving a deeper understanding of how we might further use our developing awareness of complexities within social work in order to become an effective instrument of change. Dunk-West argues that it is only when we are able to truly engage with our social self that we can then think outside of the individual and more broadly about society and oneself in all of our professional, personal and everyday contexts. This essential reflexive engagement with the self, she concludes, opens up new possibilities to debate and engage in a more effective analysis of power and with the role of social work in this analysis.

The second chapter in this part finds Green and Featherstone probing much broader mechanisms or diffused processes through which power might be exercised and used to makes a difference in social work. Through the work of Judith Butler, they raise profound questions about the norms that regulate practice and attempt to move us towards what they tentatively call a more ‘humble and humane project’ for social work, which invites the explicit use of compassion and ethical communication. This ‘project’ challenges previous forms of ADP and AOP, which they suggest have become de-contextualised and are sometimes hidden behind forms of political correctness. In the study of diversity and equality, social work has inadvertently constructed hierarchies of discrimination or adopted a universalist approach which is not helpful and can even lead to ambiguity and paradox in the social work role in which power becomes completely instrumentalised. Judith Butler’s themes and ideas, however, can be helpful through the way they intersect Foucault’s notion of power with psychoanalytic theories to understand complex power relationships between children and adults. Further, they explain Butler’s notion of performativity, where one brings an identity to life by enacting or ‘doing’ gender or sexuality until it becomes the norm and unquestionable. Green and Featherstone are inviting us, therefore, to find less certain but divisive and more empathic ways of engaging with difference that permit subversion and contesting of unfair or dehumanising practices or policies by social workers by refocusing their attention on these very important issues.

Further on in this section on power, Laird helps us to tackle the challenge of how the concept of power is operationalised within social work practice and steered by government through its extensive legislative, policy and procedural guidance, which are often insufficient. The nature of ‘power’ or ‘empowerment’ in social work inevitably raises fundamental questions about the very purpose of social work itself and what it aims to achieve. However, guidance is often insufficient in this endeavour and requires the use of more active professional authority. Laird’s chapter explores problematic aspects of mainstream anti-oppressive theory through detailed investigation into real examples of court judgements, public inquiries and serious case reviews and the consequences of these examples. Questions have been raised about whether social workers can be truly anti-oppressive in their practice where they inevitably bring more power to their interactions with service users than vice versa (Sakamoto and Pitner, 2005), and this is nowhere clearer than in the arena of case law. Foucault used the term ‘governmentality’ to conceptualise those such as the social work profession’s role as agents who reproduce dominant state discourses. This displacement of our normal notion of ‘government’ forces us to examine power in a way that emphasises its relational and discursive aspects, and to observe the complexity of the conduct of government (Foucault, 1991). Governmentality involves creating institutions that provide structure and influence to shape society and legal institutions and social work practice in those institutions resonates with these ideas as we become embroiled within it. Governmentality is explicit about the importance of little things in the operation of power and Foucault used this term to encourage us to reflect on the discourses within the layers of policy operationalisation and decisions that emerge. The analysis and commentary offered by Laird highlights the importance of ways in which microcosms of power act to marginalise some groups and exclude others. She suggests that we need to incorporate a more sophisticated analysis of the power dynamics between social workers and service users and to be confident in acting in situations where conditions of oppression are being evoked to use professional authority and persist in challenges. Her messages for practice should engage us in taking greater responsibility for knowing and interrogating the legislative environment and our professional obligations and responsibilities, alongside critical knowledge of assumptions and how these are communicated and acted upon in practice. Laird argues that thinking and learning about the way in which power, negotiation and influence occur in casework is useful. Foucault understood that power is not just negative, coercive or repressive, but is also be a necessary, productive and positive force in society (Foucault, 1991).

The final chapter in this part explicitly illustrates how a discordant relationship of social work with power is played out in direct practice with young asylum seekers. Many commentators on equality and diversity have documented a developing sense of helplessness in the face of increasing managerialism, where professional expertise has been usurped by increasing actuarial activities and a surveillance culture (Bar-On, 2002; Harris, 2003; Humphries, 2004). Despite a plethora of policy directives which seek to promote the rights, citizenship and empowerment of marginalised communities, some of the assumptions underpinning these policies have directly contributed to tensions for social workers in their everyday practice, leading to the direct abuse of power in some situations (Gilroy, 2004). In their chapter, Sinha, Burr and Sutton draw on their own research findings to illustrate the increasing importance of collaboration, training and a human rights ethos which is essential to genuinely seek to achieve improved outcomes for young asylum seekers and refugees. Bifurcated demands about how to effectively share and distribute power necessitate social workers to develop insight and a better understanding of discourses about power in order to engage with it effectively, as well as well-honed practice skills that facilitate trusting relationships combined with advocacy. Accurate assessment of need, the appropriate use of language, maintaining empathy and availability are asserted by Sinha, Burr and Sutton as essential aspects of social work practice which may become lost where social workers do not pay attention to the social interactions promoted by Dunk-West at the beginning of this part.

1

Social Work Identity, Power and Selfhood: A Re-Imagining

Priscilla Dunk-West

Introduction

Power, in social work, has been conceptualised through the application of particular narratives about selfhood. For example, the concept of anti-discriminatory social work practice relates to areas of difference in the individual (Thompson, 1993). In this area of scholarship, differences such as those brought about by gender, sexual identity, culture and race, disability, class, age and other aspects of identity are manifest in the exchange between social workers and their clients (Thompson, 1993). This chapter focuses on power, social work identity and selfhood. It is in understanding selfhood and identity as it relates to power and inequality in social work that new theoretical positions can emerge which help to critically frame and account for structural and individual oppression. As it stands, a critical and robust notion of selfhood is missing from existing social work literature (Dunk-West, 2013b). In this chapter, I propose that the Foucauldian appreciation of power, alongside the generative self offered by George Herbert Mead, have much to offer in developing a social work understanding of selfhood. In combining these theoretical traditions, we can re-imagine the social work role in relation to inequality and oppression. Despite the historical and geographical divide between Foucault and Mead, as we shall see, there are many synergies between what we might term the poststructural self and the Meadian perspective which is often aligned with symbolic interactionism. In understanding the self used in social work, this chapter commences by critically evaluating the current assumptions of self, including what is meant by the term. I then move on to examine power in the context of the inter-actionist depiction of self, highlighting how Foucauldian notions compliment this perspective. The chapter concludes with considering how theories of selfhood are vital to social work theory and practice which seeks to address oppression and inequality in contemporary life. The application of the generative notion of self, alongside a Foucauldian appreciation of power, is argued as central to the future of social work practice.

The Self and Social Work: A Case for Greater Engagement

If we think about the individual as distinct and separate from society then invariably we are thinking about identity. Though there are differences between the theoretical orientations from which each term is derived, the self refers to the concept of what might be thought about as ‘identity’, ‘subjectivity’ or ‘the individual’. There are many different theoretical orientations associated with theorising the self, and these range from philosophy to the arts to sociology. All of these scholarly areas have been absorbed within applied disciplines such as psychology, psychiatry and social work. However, by far, the dominating idea about selfhood in social work is the notion that there is a mind that is ‘inside’ a person and is a complex thing to adequately understand. It is no accident that this idea persists: the historical period we are in has seen a growth in therapeutic culture (Reiff, 1966; Lasch, 1979; Furedi, 2004) and a fascination with self-improvement which gears individuals towards seeing themselves as a ‘project’ (Giddens, 1991, 1993). Seeing the self in this way suggests that individuals have enough agency to bring about change in themselves, however, the reality of limitations external to the self highlights the inequalities manifest in everyday life (Skeggs, 1997). Yet, what brings about such limitations and how can we describe these?

Concepts such as sexual identity, race and culture, gender, disability, age and class are ways of describing aspects of selfhood. Although these are attributable to individuals, they have particular meanings for the ways in which individuals relate and behave in social life. This is explained through thinking about the power differences between particular groups. For example, globally, women continue to have poorer employment opportunities, be at greater risk of violence and suffer a myriad of other inequalities throughout their lifespan (World Health Organisation, 2009). Similarly, particular groups – such as those from higher socio-economic backgrounds, who are white, male and educated, for example, hold powerful positions in particular societies. This means that those who fall into other categories, are less educated, come from cultural minorities and so on, are less likely to have opportunities to hold powerful positions in society. In social work it is important to remember that inequalities can be sociologically explained: this sensibility is helpful in our work with clients (Dunk-West and Verity, 2014).

The focus on addressing inequalities in social work has, to date, taken two forms. More broadly, a structural practice approach is underpinned by a radical tradition in which the social worker actively works to reduce oppression in organisational and institutional settings (Mullaly, 1997). Secondly, interpersonally, social workers have been encouraged to reflect upon and actively engage in understanding oppression for individuals, families and groups and to account for this through their practice with people and engagement with one’s own self (Thompson, 1993). Notwithstanding the utility of such theoretical positions, there is room for further understanding of power inequalities in social work. Just as with research which is ‘childled’, in social work we often work with such tenets, which may quickly fall down if tested: imagine a child rejecting the power of the social worker and undermining her or his role, process or intervention (Ansell, 2001, cited in Gallagher, 2008, p. 143).

The other issue stems from the concept of power itself. In traditional social work contexts, power relates to the disparity between particular groups based on identity markers or ways of describing the self. Research into everyday selfhood reveals a less than clear picture of the categories which we use to describe selves (Dunk-West, 2011). Contemporary life is characterised by rapid change: we have, in recent decades, experienced unprecedented technological change which has transformed the way we communicate, experience time (Lash, 2001), relate within globalised space (Urry, 2005), as well as relate to one another (Giddens, 1992; Bauman, 2003). A thesis of complexity has attempted to explain such shifts: this warrants further theory-building about identity and identity categories within social work. Finding new ways to understand the shifts and emerging inequalities in everyday life is crucial to addressing the changing ways in which we relate to one another in a professional context. The dogged determination with which we implement tools to understand individuals – such as through the utilisation of forms which categorise selfhood, for example, assessment formats – are out of step with the late-modern self (Dunk-West, 2011).

Since social work is interested in the ‘social’ aspect of identity, it is somewhat curious that there is reliance upon individualised models of selfhood rather than social models, as we shall see in this chapter. We now move on to consider in greater detail how the self has been theorised in social work and what this means in understanding power and inequality in contemporary life.

In understanding the self, we are interested in everyday life, interactions and perceptions of both ourselves and others. This ‘micro’ world is where the self moves and operates. In social work we have thought about ourselves in relation to what we bring to our professional role and how much of our private lives come into our work with others in a professional setting. Though there is a great deal of literature which considers this dilemma – how much of myself should I ‘show’ in my work with clients/should I disclose personal information to clients/is my giggling appropriate in my interactions with clients? – such deliberations relating to the self are grounded in clinical or therapeutic discourses (Reupert, 2007).

At the minimum, there is an expectation that in ‘doing’ the work, social workers will be required to use a part of the self which sits within a personal domain (Cournoyer, 2010). Students are encouraged to learn how to do this through their study in university and placement settings, though there is a psychoanalytic ‘self’ upon which this idea is modelled. Consider the following, for example:

Engaging in activities that increase self-awareness also entails risks … Discovering aspects of oneself that were previously unknown is usually both exciting and disquieting. Students risk self-understanding that may not be as they wish to be known … [however] the benefits of becoming an instrument of change with increased self-understanding and a solid ability to consciously use oneself for the betterment of others becomes apparent. (Heydt and Sherman, 2005, p. 38)

It is clear from this excerpt that there is a self that is ‘unknown’ and potentially dangerous if ‘discovered’. Clearly, such ideas draw from the notion that there are aspects of identity which are hidden from actors and only accessed through a deliberate, reflexive process of engagement. The impact this model of thinking about selfhood has in social work has been neglected in the literature. Firstly, it is important to note that there is implied doubt in this self. There is a reluctance to trust in selfhood: for the unknown terrain of the mind is powerful. Secondly, the conceptualisation of selfhood in this way has a broader impact on the profession itself. Namely, social work itself has carried somewhat of an identity crisis about what constitutes social work and whether social work ought to have professional status (Hugman, 2009). This struggle continues today. Though it is beyond the focus of this chapter to examine in greater detail social work’s struggles with its own identity, it is important to note that understanding of the self occurs not only in an individual and personal context, but that it is also present...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Foreword
• Acknowledgements
• Abbreviations
• Editors
• Contributing authors
• Introduction: Rethinking Anti-Discriminatory and Anti-Oppressive Practice in Social Work; Time for New Paradigms?
• Part I Power
• Part II Discourse
• Part III Subjectivity
• Part IV Deconstruction
• Glossary of Terms
• References
• Index