Key Concepts in Anti-Discriminatory Social Work

Toyin Okitikpi, Cathy Aymer

• Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd
• Year: 2009
• Print ISBN: 9781412930826, 9781412930819
• eBook ISBN: 9781446243374
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Ethnic Studies
• Index: Social Sciences

"This is a key text that provides a well-rounded introduction to anti-discriminatory social work, placing this underpinning concept within the context of theory, methods, policy, legislation and skills. It will be of immense value to students, practitioners and service users. An excellent book!"

John MacDonough, London South Bank University

"Addressing both the ideas underpinning anti-discriminatory practice and more practice oriented approaches, this is an accessible book which will be of benefit to social work students and practitioners." Amanda Thorpe, University of Bedfordshire

This Key Concepts clearly and concisely explains the basic ideas in the field of anti-discriminatory social work. It:

- Explores the range of discriminations that people experience and discusses a number of theories that inform Anti-discriminatory practice

- Considers the legal frameworks within which anti-discriminatory practice operates

- Analyses the skills and knowledge required to practice effectively

- Highlights the dynamic nature of anti-discriminatory practice and points the way towards a new practice dimension

- Provides an essential reference guide for all social work students and practitioners, as well as those taking courses in teacher training, youth and community, nursing, mid-wifery and mental health studies for whom anti-discriminatory practice is an important element in their study.

Part One

Underpinning Ideas and Concepts

1

The Nature of Discrimination

---

Introduction

Key concepts

Overt discrimination

Covert discrimination

Individual level discrimination

Organisation discrimination

Colour blind approach

Reasoning

Conclusion

---

INTRODUCTION

It may be unsurprising, and indeed an obvious starting point, but it is important to begin a publication about key concepts in anti-discriminatory practice by acknowledging from the outset that discrimination does exist. Accepting the existence of discrimination in society is important because it sends a clear signal of openness and the ability to look beyond one’s own experiences. The point is to assert and reinforce the fact that individual(s) and/or groups who claim that they are victims of discriminatory practices are not necessarily imagining things. Equally, it is important to recognise that simply because individual(s) and/or groups have not felt the full force of discrimination, or are not able to point to instances when they have been subjected to discrimination, it should not be assumed that they have somehow been spared the ignominy of discriminatory practices. As Pitts (2008) said (during a private conversation), ‘because you are in a shelter does not mean you are not being bombed’. Of course, what makes the situation even more complicated is that there are people who, either genuinely or as a means of gaining the upper hand against their opponents, misinterpret all actions and reactions towards them as discriminatory. Leaving aside this latter group, the point being made is that it is important to acknowledge from the outset that discrimination is not an abstract concept that only exists in the minds of those who are experiencing it, but its impact is tangible and its affect on individual(s) and groups is profound. Just as importantly, discrimination has a major effect on social relationships between individuals and groups in society.

According to Payne, ‘Discrimination means identifying individuals and groups with certain characteristics and treating them less well than people or groups with conventionally valued characteristics’ (2005: 272). Thompson also picked up the attributive aspect of discrimination and defines it as:

At its most basic level, discrimination is simply a matter of identifying differences and can be positive and negative. … However, negative discrimination involves not only identifying differences but also making a negative attribution – attaching a negative or detrimental label or connotation to the person, group or entity concerned. That is, a question of certain individuals or groups being discriminated against. (2003a: 10)

Although both Payne and Thompson provide a very neat definition of what discrimination means, there is however little hint of the psychological, physical and emotional impact of discrimination on both those who are subjected to discrimination and those who are perpetrators. It is generally the case that when looking at discrimination the focus tends to be on who said what, when, in what manner and under what circumstance. Alternatively, there is great interest in knowing who exactly did what to whom, when and where. The incident itself and the language used before, during and after becomes the main line of enquiry rather than the impact of the incident on the individual(s) or groups concerned. Focusing attention on the incident itself and trying to discover the culprits does at least provide a tangible area of enquiry to address. But in our view it is just as important to take account of and consider the impact of discrimination on those affected by it.

As already implied, discrimination has a profound effect on one’s physical, psychological and emotional state. It encourages mistrust, causes anxiety and unsettles one’s sense of well-being. It can destroy confidence and affects one’s sense of identity and relationship with others in society. Discrimination has the ability, for a period, to induce a sense of power-lessness that forces the individual or groups to re-evaluate their place in the world. At its worst, discrimination numbs the senses and can cause physical, psychological and emotional impotence. It exposes the fragility of the human spirit and highlights the important role that social interaction plays in shaping people’s lives. What discrimination also lays bare is that other people’s attitudes, views and behaviour do matter and that how people act towards each other creates feelings that make people question their sense of being in society. Giddens made the point that ‘In daily social life, we normally give a good deal of attention to protecting or “saving” each other’s “face”’ (1989: 93). As made clear elsewhere (Okitikpi and Aymer 2008: 31), ‘this is, to some extent, a reworking of Goffman’s (1971) civil inattention analysis, which holds that people are connected to society by cordiality and a (unspoken) code of expectations. The cordiality and the code enable people to link to particular groups and at the same time live alongside others in society’. One of the outcomes of discrimination is that it breeds suspicion and distrust between individuals and groups. It strips individual(s) and groups of mutual respect and prevents them from developing a better understanding of each other. The breakdown of trust and connections between people is not conducive to the protective face-saving interactions that Giddens mentioned in his analysis. This social interaction device is not afforded to those that are discriminated against. Discrimination acts as a sieve and a way of differentiating and reinforcing the prevailing and dominant socio-cultural values. As Thompson (2006) acknowledged, there are of course two different kinds of discrimination, positive and negative. We are primarily concerned with negative discrimination because it is this that produces negative effects on people’s lives.

One of the social effects of discrimination is that it excludes people from taking part in or enjoying that which is readily available to others in society. Because, as a matter of course, people are treated unfairly, they are not given or provided with the same opportunities as that enjoyed by everyone else. For example, the contention is that discrimination still exists and can be found within all aspects of the education system, the legal system, in housing, in business, in manufacturing, in the police and armed forces, in politics, in social welfare services provisions and in health care provisions (Kai 2003; Moonie et al. 2004). In essence, we would argue that despite the incredible social changes that have occurred in society, discrimination is still very much evident in all areas of society.

It is uncontroversial to assert that despite various legislation (see Chapter 5), and the social advancements that have been made in society towards equal opportunity, an individual’s race/ethnicity, social class, gender, sexual orientation, impairment, age and religious affiliation still affects both their life chances and the level and kinds of opportunities available to them in society. In other words, despite advancement in the development of equal opportunity policies and the better protection afforded to people who are subjected to discriminatory and unfair practices, inequalities and discriminations have not been eradicated nor have they diminished. The fact is that, in general, working-class people, women, minority ethnic groups, particularly black people and people from South Asia (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh), lesbian and gay people, and people with impairments still face formidable obstacles in society. As a group, they continue to experience many disadvantages and discriminations in many areas of their lives. For example, at a basic level, women still experience the glass ceiling in employment, their salaries are less than their male colleagues in comparable occupations, they are more likely to undertake a greater share of child care responsibilities, and they continue to experience a higher level of domestic violence and sexual harassment. Black and South Asian people (particularly those from Pakistan and Bangladesh) have a higher level of unemployment in comparison to other groups, and black children, particularly African-Caribbean young men, are likely to leave school with little or no qualifications and are over-represented in the psychiatric and penal system. People with impairments often face segregation from an early age by either being placed in institutions or schooled separately from their peers. Working-class people, particular white boys, generally have poor educational prospects, are concentrated in high-density social environments, and are likely to be in low-skill employment.

KEY CONCEPTS

Although discrimination is used as an all-encompassing term to cover different kinds of discriminatory practices, it is important to de-construct (in the loose and lay sense of the word) the term in order to understand how they are manifested in day-to-day practices. The key concepts are overt and covert discrimination, individual discrimination and organisation discrimination.

OVERT DISCRIMINATION

Overt discrimination is easily identifiable because it is openly displayed and it operates at a basic and, some may say, crude level. The ‘no blacks, no dogs and no Irish’ signs displayed in windows by some landlords in parts of Britain during the 1950s are perhaps a good illustration of this. A further example is women being told their promotional prospects will be damaged because they are likely to take a career break to start a family. More generally, other examples includes wheelchair users being refused admission on to aeroplanes, or into cinemas and theatres because they are viewed as safety hazards; an older man whose wife had to go into hospital and who was offered the service of homehelp, meals-on-wheels and a volunteer visitor while a woman whose husband went into hospital was not offered the same services; and there are examples of local authorities not considering lesbian and gay couples/individuals as suitable foster parents because of their sexual orientation. Somerville and Steele (2002) highlighted the history of discrimination experienced by black people and other minority ethnic groups within the social housing market, particularly their clustering in dilapidated inner-city housing stocks. In relation to age, although there is legislation (The Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006) to prevent age discrimination, there is still a widespread assumption that age 65 years is the cut-off point by which people should be expected to stay in work. However, there are some exceptions to the idea of an age until which people should expect to work. For example, in the legal profession and board of directors of companies, 70 is regarded as the cut-off age and once an individual reaches such an age, they are expected to retire. In this respect, very little consideration is given to the capabilities and capacity of the individual concerned; rather it is their chronological age that is the over-riding determinant of how they are perceived. At the other end of the age range, young people wearing hoodies, including young white men, young black men and young southern Asian men (particularly Bangladeshi and Pakistani Muslims) face a greater level of scrutiny by the police and the security forces than others in society. There is an assumption, rightly or wrongly, that these groups are more likely to commit certain crimes (for example, car theft, street robberies, burglaries, violent offences and terrorist-related offences) compared to the rest of the population.

Of course, there are many examples of service users displaying overt discrimination towards practitioners. For example, service users refusing to have a black or Asian worker as their carer or key worker. There are other examples, including service users abusing, threatening or refusing to engage with workers because of their religion, accent, ethnicity, age and gender or because of their particular impairment. There is anecdotal evidence from black barristers and solicitors who relate that they are often confronted by white (and in some cases black) appellants who say openly and directly that they do not want to be represented by a black advocate.

COVERT DISCRIMINATION

Unlike overt discrimination, covert discrimination is a far more subtle kind of discrimination. It operates beneath the surface and involves deliberate acts of deception. Because of the form it takes, those who experience it find it far more difficult. However, despite its subtle nature, the emotional and psychological damage that is caused to the people concerned is not any different to the cruder overt version. Covert discrimination sometimes requires more guile and deception by the perpetrators. For example, workers who have not been employed in a post to which they are qualified are of course not told that they have been unsuccessful because of their age, sexual orientation, religious affiliation, nationality and gender. Instead they are given a more palatable and non-discriminating reason for not employing them. The open explanation is often that they were just unfortunate not to have got the post but that they were very close indeed. They are further told that they missed out to a very good candidate who was more successful at the interview. Covert discrimination is also manifested by not acknowledging any positive contributions people make or are making in the organisation in which they are employed. Brockes (2001) cites the experiences of Helena Dennison, chair of City Women’s Network, who commented that people’s (women) contributions in organisation are often undermined, and snide and derogative remarks are made about their appearances or their abilities. By its sheer nature, covert discrimination is a lot more difficult to prove by those experiencing it. It is generally the case that victims of covert discrimination find it difficult to provide the necessary concrete evidence that support the fact that they have been subjected to discriminatory practices. Many people who experience discriminatory practices often say they prefer to deal with overt discrimination because, in many ways, it is a lot more honest and transparent and the dividing lines are much clearer. In particular, they have a clearer sense about who to trust and who to be wary of within their organisation. Sometimes covert discrimination is so embedded within organisations and institutional structures, systems and processes that it has become institutionalised.

INDIVIDUAL LEVEL DISCRIMINATION

Clearly, as it is individuals who perpetrate discrimination and it is individuals who implement policies and carry out the aims and objectives of organisations, it is of no surprise that it is at the individual level that the nature of discrimination is brought into sharp focus. Individual-level discrimination can be both verbal and non-verbal and it can be intentional or unintentional – the important point is how it is experienced by the people at the receiving end. Non-verbal communications take on an added significance when looking at individual-level discrimination. In this domain, body posture, eye contact, aura (vibes) and gestures all convey meanings and, rightly or wrongly, they are elevated to mean far more than ordinarily would be the case. Those who experience this form of discrimination report that they become extremely skilled in its detection. Similarly, language and language use come under closer scrutiny. It is through actions and language that discriminations are perpetuated and reinforced. As a result, what is said, how it is said and the general impressions that are conveyed are all very important. It is always difficult to be prescriptive about which words to use at any one time, because part of the difficulty is that words change, as do their meaning. A word that may be deemed acceptable today may quickly fall out of fashion for whatever reason. But language and words do matter and they have a negative impact on those who feel discriminated against. As Roberts, Davies and Jupp asserted:

Language not only reflects and transmits the values and relationships of a society; it actively cr...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• About the authors
• Acknowledegments
• Introduction
• Part One Underpinning Ideas and Concepts
• Part Two Implementation and Practice Considerations
• Bibliography
• Index