Download Social Work Theory: Key Concepts and Theories and more Study notes Social Work in PDF only on Docsity!
ix
CONTENTS
List of figures xii
Preface xiii
Acknowledgements xvii
5
CHAPTER 1
EQUALITY, DIVERSITY AND SOCIAL
JUSTICE
Introduction
People are different, in the sense that the population in general and social work’s clientele in particular are characterized by immense diver sity. Where there is difference, there is the potential for unfair discrimin ation, in so far as it creates the potential for particular individuals or groups to be identified as ‘different’ and therefore treated less favour ably (I will return to this point below). Anti discriminatory practice is, or should be, more than simply tackling those well publicized areas of dis crimination and oppression that attract considerable attention – it should encompass all forms of discrimination that can be seen to lead to disadvantage, disempowerment and oppression. That is, we need to adopt a holistic approach to discrimination and related matters, rather than a narrow or partial one. The managing diversity approach (as highlighted in the early days in the work of Kandola and Fullerton, 1998) is one of the models we will explore in more detail below. However, for now, we can note that it can be criticized for being too individualistic and paying inadequate atten tion to cultural and structural levels of discrimination and is therefore
CHAPTER OVERVIEW
In this chapter you will:
- Learn more about the key concept of discrimination and why it is so important in social work and related professional disciplines
- Start to understand how anti-discriminatory practice is underpinned by a commitment to equality, diversity and social justice
- Appreciate the importance of moving away from medicalized approaches to personal and social problems which oversimplify complex issues
6 ANTI-DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICE
not sufficiently holistic. However, one of its strong points is that it acknowledges:
z the significance of diversity (that is, variety across individuals and groups of people) and the need to affirm and value it;
z that differences between people can and should be seen as assets to be appreciated, rather than problems to be solved; and
z that difference can so easily lead to unfair discrimination.
Diversity is therefore an important concept that we need to take seriously but, as we shall see, we need to make sure that it is not oversimplified or seen as an easy answer (Malik, 2008; 2014). As von Mende and Houlihan (2007) comment:
The persistence of discrimination, inequalities and power differences suggests that the rhetoric of diversity can be criticized as sanitizing difference, and simply masking or attenuating underlying conflicts (Netmetz and Christensen, 1996). (von Mende and Houlihan, 2007, p. 217)
Race, ethnicity, gender, class, sexual identity, age, language, disability, religion and so on are just some of the dimensions of diversity and there fore just some of the ways in which difference can so easily be translated into discrimination and oppression as a result of the various power related processes to be discussed in later chapters. However, these are not only dimensions of diversity in a sociological sense, they are also dimensions of experience in a psychological sense. That is, each sociologically defined area of discrimination can be analysed and explored as a discrete aspect of the social world. However, to each individual person, these are not discrete areas, they are very real intertwined dimensions of experience, part and parcel of our lived experience (what is often referred to by the French technical term, ‘le vécu’) and have to be understood as such. That is, the reality for each person is having to deal with a complex set of inter actions across perhaps several of these different areas, rather than simply encountering discrete, unconnected areas to be considered in isolation. This means, in effect, that we must consider each situation in its own right, rather than apply general principles in an oversimplified and dog matic way. We must not make assumptions about ‘men’ or ‘black people’ or ‘disabled people’ or ‘Welsh speakers’, but rather consider each unique individual in the context of what we know of the influences and implica tions of these broad categories and their sociological significance – to link the social level of context to the personal level of unique individual
8 ANTI-DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICE
thing. However, when the term is used in a legal, moral or political sense (as in this book), it is generally used to refer to unfair discrimination. That is, it refers to the process (or set of processes) through which (i) a differ ence is identified; and (ii) that difference is used as the basis of unfair treatment. To use the technical term, a person or group ‘suffers a detri ment’ (that is, experiences a disadvantage) because they are identified as ‘different’ (in terms of gender, race/ethnicity, sexual identity and so on) in ways that are deemed to be socially and/or politically significant. Instead of differences between people being seen as positive (as per the diversity approach mentioned above and to be discussed more fully below), they become the basis of unfair discrimination, a basis for disad vantaging certain groups of people. This discrimination then becomes a source of oppression. It is through the process of identifying some people as ‘different’ that they receive inhuman or degrading treatment (a key part of the definition of oppression we will explore more fully in Chapter
- and are thus oppressed. While this is a satisfactory basic definition of discrimination, what it does not do is indicate the important role of power that is involved. Anyone can discriminate against anyone else. However, where the impact will be of major proportions is in those cases where relatively powerful groups will be in a position to discriminate systematically (whether directly or indirectly) against those in relatively powerless groups. Such power can arise because of personal circumstances or characteristics, cultural norms or structural position (in Chapter 2 we will look at these dimensions of power in more detail). This is where established patterns of discrimination have become ingrained in social practices – racism, sexism, ageism and so on, and are not simply examples of individual preference or prejudice. Discrimination is therefore a sociological and political phenomenon as well as a psychological one, hence the need for a holistic approach, as mentioned earlier.
Practice focus 1.
Lynne was a psychology graduate who had recently begun her social work training on a postgraduate course. From the sociology component of the course, she began to appreciate how narrow her perspective had previously been. She began to realize that, although her psychological perspective was very important and valuable, she also needed to understand the wider sociological issues that were so relevant to the life experiences of social work clients, relationships between social workers and cli- ents and so on. She had begun to develop the ‘sociological imagination’.
EQUALITY, DIVERSITY AND SOCIAL JUSTICE 9
Note that, in referring to power, I was very careful to use the term ‘relatively’. This is because, as we shall see below, there has been a ten dency to oversimplify issues of power and reduce them to a simple dichot omy of two groups in society: the powerful and the powerless. Power is a much more complex phenomenon than this, and so it is important, at this early stage in our discussions, not to fall into the trap of presenting it too simply (see Thompson, 2007, for a fuller explanation of the significance of power and the complexities associated with it). A key point to note is that the model of anti discriminatory practice presented here is not a narrow one that ignores important wider sociopolit ical concerns. In the early days of putting discrimination and oppression on the social work agenda some people conceptualized anti discriminatory practice in narrow, legalistic terms – a very different approach from the one that I am adopting, and advocating, here. An authentic anti discriminatory practice is far more than a commitment to legal compliance.
Good practice is anti-discriminatory practice
Social workers can be seen as mediators between their clients and the wider state apparatus and social order. This position of ‘mediator’ is a crucial one, as it means that social workers are in a pivotal position in terms of the relationship between the state and its citizens. The relationship is a double edged one, consisting of elements of care and control. It is also double edged in the sense that it can lead to either potential empowerment or potential oppression – social work interven tions can help or hinder, empower or oppress. Which aspect is to the fore, which element or tendency is reinforced depends largely on the actions of the social workers concerned. As long ago as 1975, in the era of radical social work, Peter Leonard captured this point in relation to class and cap italism, although much the same can be said of gender and patriarchy, race and imperialism and so on:
In capitalist society, social work operates as part of a social welfare system which is located at the centre of the contradictions arising from the dehuman izing consequences of capitalist economic production. Social workers, although situated in a largely oppressive organizational and professional context, have the potential for recognizing these contradictions and, through working at the point of interaction between people and their social environment, of helping to increase the control by people over economic and political structures. (Leonard, 1975, p. 55)
EQUALITY, DIVERSITY AND SOCIAL JUSTICE 11
discrimination became reduced to ‘political correctness’ – a reliance on a list of taboo or ‘non PC’ words (see Thompson, 2018c). This was also accompanied in many quarters by a very crude approach to education and training in relation to discrimination and oppression, a point to which we shall return in Chapter 2. This crude reductionism, while a significant problem in its own right, also led to another major concern – the develop ment of a culture of fear and blame in which defensiveness became a very common response. It is understandable that if students and in service course participants were being told in effect that they were ‘oppressive’, they were likely to perceive this as an attack and thus respond in a defen sive manner. Key features of this defensiveness have been:
z A tokenistic ‘lip service’ approach caused by people’s understandable reluctance to engage firmly and closely with what they perceived as such dangerous, threatening issues.
z A tendency to avoid the subject where possible – a ‘Let’s not go there’ mentality.
z A tense and anxious approach which in itself could lead to oversimpli fication (when we feel tense, anxious and threatened, we are not likely to be eager to engage with very complex and intricate concepts and issues).
z In some cases, a long standing lack of confidence in dealing with these issues as a result of the painful experiences of being exposed to some very crude and ill thought through approaches to teaching and learn ing (Thompson, 2019a).
In running courses on the subject of anti discriminatory practice I have come across large numbers of people who have given me very worrying examples of earlier experiences that were extremely unhelpful in contrib uting to their understanding of the complexities or in equipping them to deal with such issues effectively in practice. This is a sad legacy of a rapid change from an education and training system that largely neglected dis crimination and oppression to one in which such concerns very quickly became central. It is to be hoped that we have managed to learn the les sons from that period and are now adopting much more sophisticated approaches not only to anti discriminatory practice itself, but also to how such matters are addressed through education and training. It is therefore to be hoped that we can develop a sophisticated level of understanding of discrimination and related matters that goes beyond
12 ANTI-DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICE
the dogmatic and oversimplified levels of understanding that have stood in the way of progress at various times in the past (and still manifest themselves occasionally to this day). Malik, for example, is critical of what Penketh (2000) calls ‘the excesses of anti racism’: ‘The concept of race is irrational. The practice of antiracism has become so. We need to challenge both, in the name of humanism and of reason’ (Malik, 2008, p. 288). I would prefer to challenge such excesses in the name of humanity, rather than humanism, but the argument remains an important one. The point is not that challenging discrimination (whether racism or any other form) is in itself irrational, but rather that we have to guard against over zealous, poorly thought through approaches that run the risk of making the situation worse and giving anti discriminatory practice a bad name (‘political correctness gone mad’) (Thompson, 2019a).
Equality
Much of the confusion and oversimplification relating to discrimination over the years can be traced back to a tendency to interpret the term ‘equality’ too literally. In a mathematical sense, equality means sameness. For example, to say that 2 + 2 = 4 is to say that 2 plus 2 is the same as (or amounts to) 4. However, we need to remember that, in a social work (and, indeed, a broader social policy) context, we are using the term in a moral or political sense and not a mathematical or literal sense. As Witcher aptly puts it: ‘The vision is not for a stagnant pool of sameness. Equality does not have to mean “the same”. It can also mean equivalent: different but of equal worth’ (2015, p. 11). It is therefore essential to be clear that to promote equality does not mean to promote sameness or to discour age people from being different in any way. Indeed, as we will see later in this chapter, it is quite the opposite of that. In Promoting Equality I make the point that it is more helpful to under stand equality to mean equal fairness. What it amounts to is that to recog nize that the fact that certain people are ‘different from …’ other groups or the mainstream should not be confused with the idea that they are ‘less than …’ others. Difference and inferiority (or ‘deficit’ as it is often referred to) are not the same thing and we do a considerable disservice to members of minority groups if we fail to recognize this or allow our actions and atti tudes to be based on confusing the two terms. As Baker et al. (2009) put it, all human beings have equal worth and importance and should therefore be regarded as equally worthy of concern and respect (2009, p. 23).
14 ANTI-DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICE
z Disabled people being excluded from certain opportunities because it is assumed that they are incapable.
z Black individuals and families not receiving services because it is assumed that ‘they look after their own’.
z A gay teenager not having their sexuality accepted and validated.
z Work with families being based on sexist stereotypes.
This, of course, is not an exhaustive list, but it should be sufficient to estab lish that discrimination is something that needs to be taken seriously in social work, and indeed the helping professions more broadly. So, at both macro and micro levels, equality is a fundamental concept for social work.
Diversity
One development in recent years that has given us a foundation from which to counter the defensiveness I discussed above is the emergence of the ‘diversity approach’. This way of addressing inequality has become a mainstream approach in many areas, both within and outside social work. It is characterized by two main themes:
1 It adopts a positive approach by emphasizing that diversity (that is, variety and difference) is not only a very real characteristic of contem porary social and organizational life, it is also a valuable characteristic. Diversity is seen as an asset, a positive feature of society that enriches our experience – it is something that should be valued, affirmed and even celebrated (Parekh, 2006). The fact that there are differences across ethnic groups, identities, approaches and perspectives should be seen as a good thing, a source of learning, variety, stimulation and interest, rather than a source of unfair discrimination based on ‘punish ing’ some people for being different from the perceived mainstream (for being ‘deviant’ in some way).
2 It adopts a broad approach by arguing that any form of unfair discrimin ation is a problem to be tackled (this is a point to which we shall return below), regardless of whether the discrimination in question is illegal or not. In this respect, the diversity approach goes far beyond the traditional equal opportunities approach which tends to limit itself largely to ensuring legal compliance with anti discrimination legislation (Barry, 2005).
EQUALITY, DIVERSITY AND SOCIAL JUSTICE 15
By adopting a positive focus and not limiting itself to legal compliance, the diversity approach has the potential to offer, in part at least, an ‘anti dote’ to the negative and defensive approach which has been allowed to develop in many organizational settings. In this respect, it can be seen as a positive step forward. However, we should not be too enthusiastic in our embracing of this approach, as it has its down sides too. First, it has the potential to become a return to simplistic approaches to multiculturalism which emphasize the positives of cultural diversity, but without acknowledging the realities of how oppressive discrimination can be – that is, it rightly values diversity , but without paying adequate attention to the realities of adversity for those people subjected to unfair discrimination. Second, the diversity approach has so far tended to have a very indi vidualistic focus. There is a danger that the gains made in moving away from a psychological approach based on notions of prejudice to a more sophisticated sociological one, based on personal, cultural and structural factors (see Chapter 2) will be lost by an overemphasis on individual factors. To be fair to the diversity approach, there is nothing inherent within it that makes these problems inevitable – they are dangers, rather than neces sary flaws. It has to be recognized that the diversity approach remains in a fairly underdeveloped state. How or whether it develops in the coming years will be very significant. Another development in the history of anti discriminatory practice in the United Kingdom is a new wave of anti discrimination legislation, cul minating in the Equality Act 2010. While this is a positive and very wel come step, we have to bear in mind that the role the law can play is always going to be quite limited (consider, for example, the fact that theft is illegal does not prevent it from being widespread as a phenomenon). As we shall see in the chapters that follow, a genuine commitment to anti discriminatory practice must go far beyond the confines of a narrow, legalistic approach that fails to take account of the wider picture. Moss helps us to understand that a commitment to promoting equality, diver sity and social justice is a values commitment, rather than a simple matter of applying the law:
It is not enough to provide a legal framework: society has to own and celebrate the value base which it seeks to live by. And, as we have seen in our discussions of anti discriminatory practice, there are fundamental challenges to this value base running through society. It is going to take more than some legal adjust ments, however crucial these may be, to reach the situation where everyone in
EQUALITY, DIVERSITY AND SOCIAL JUSTICE 17
When it comes to social justice, then, social work is in a pivotal position, in so far as the individual and collective actions of members of the profes sion can either challenge and undermine the processes that produce unfair outcomes (by promoting equality) or can reinforce them (for exam ple, by basing our practice on discriminatory assumptions). It is therefore important that social work is committed to promoting social justice.
Oppression
If we recall that discrimination is the process by which differences are identified and people are treated unfairly (‘less favourably’ to use the tech nical term) because of those differences, then we can take our analysis a step further by understanding that oppression is the outcome of that unfair treatment. That is, the unfair treatment associated with discrimin ation has oppressive consequences for the people so affected. To develop our understanding of discrimination further we therefore need to have a reasonable grasp of the oppression it gives rise to. It is important to note at this point that differences between this book and the work of authors who distinguish between anti discriminatory and anti oppressive practice are primarily semantic, rather than theoretical or ideological. In order to promote forms of practice that are genuinely emancipatory, it is necessary to address the processes of discrimination that give rise to oppression. So, whether we refer to such endeavours as anti discriminatory or anti oppressive practice is in my view not a signifi cant issue. What is significant is that we seek to reduce oppression by tackling the processes of discrimination that give rise to it.
Equality
Social Diversity justice
Figure 1.1 Equality, diversity and social justice
18 ANTI-DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICE
In Chapter 2, I offer a definition of oppression that includes the idea that it involves: ‘the negative and demeaning exercise of power’. Similarly, Webster’s Third New International Dictionary uses the phrase ‘unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power’ in its definition of oppres sion. Power and oppression are therefore closely linked (Mullaly and West, 2017). In order to understand oppression as a dimension of the lives of social work clients (and potential clients), it is therefore necessary to be clear about the part played by power and how it operates. This is particularly important, as power is a unifying theme across the various subsections of this chapter – it is a concept that can be seen to apply in each of the topics covered. It links together what may otherwise appear a relatively unre lated series of issues. Dobratz, Waldner and Buzzell (2019, p. 1) make the point that: ‘Power is everywhere, in every social interaction between individuals, groups and global actors’. Consequently, where social workers, and indeed other human services professionals, come into contact with clients, power is always on the agenda; it is a basic part of how people interact in general, and especially how professionals relate to their clientele. This is very much the case in terms of the power of men in relation to women, white people in relation to black, young in relation to old, and non disabled in relation to disabled, and so on. In addition, we must recognize the power of social workers in terms of:
z knowledge and expertise;
z access to resources;
z statutory powers; and
z influence over individuals, agencies and so on.
Power is an aspect of the relationship between social workers and their clients – in addition to the social divisions which go to make up the social structure (Payne and Harrison, 2020). This raises two sets of potential problems:
1 The social worker’s power can be used in an oppressive way – that is, it can be abused (Thompson, 2018a).
2 The social worker may not be sufficiently sensitive to issues of power/ powerlessness and oppression as they relate to clients in terms of their social location – gender, race, age and so on.
20 ANTI-DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICE
social patterns (Mills, 1970). Social workers who seek to develop anti discriminatory practice need not only to move beyond the micro level of the individual level to understand the macro level of the sociopolitical, but also to appreciate how the sociopolitical domain has a major impact on the personal and subjective. Who I am is not just a matter of my unique and personal lifeworld, it is also a matter of my social location and to what extent and in what ways I may experience oppression. As Lawler (2014) puts it, identity needs to be understood not as something ‘within’ an individual, but as the product of persons operating within social relations. The various forms of oppression – be it sexism, racism, disablism, het erosexism, sectarianism or internal colonialism and so on – can be seen to have a potential impact on identity in terms of:
z alienation, isolation, marginalization;
z economic position and life chances;
z confidence and self esteem; and
z social expectations, career opportunities and so on.
The links between identity and oppression are significant, although an analysis which does justice to these issues is far beyond the scope of a more generalized, introductory text such as this. The basic linkages should none the less be borne in mind when considering the various sources of oppression discussed below.
Practice focus 1.
Tim had many years’ experience as an unqualified worker before commencing his professional training. That experience, though, was entirely in a fieldwork team where he dealt exclusively with individuals and families on a casework basis. On the first placement of his course, however, he worked on a community development project where, for the first time, he was able to see the shared prob- lems, the commonalities of poverty, deprivation, racism and so on. With the help of his practice teacher he was able to understand the structural dimension of social problems and to appreciate the need to go beyond individual or family problems.
EQUALITY, DIVERSITY AND SOCIAL JUSTICE 21
One further aspect of oppression I wish to consider is that of its com plex, multifaceted nature. There can be no simple or crude model of oppression, and especially no spurious ‘hierarchy of oppressions’ (that is, no ranking of one form of discrimination as being somehow more significant or more important than the others). As we have noted, oppression is a dimension, or outcome, of a power relationship, spe cifically a relationship premised on discrimination. Such relationships are, of course, diverse and many sided, forming an intricate web of social patterns and interactions. To reduce this to a simplistic, one dimensional model of oppression as the evil or unenlightened behav iour and attitudes of certain social groups (men, white people and so on) is a form of crude ‘reductionism’, in the sense that it reduces a complex, highly variable situation to the status of a monolithic, undif ferentiated concept (Sibeon, 2004). It is to the significance of this that we now turn.
Multiple oppressions
There are many texts available which concentrate on a particular aspect of anti discriminatory practice, whether this be anti racism (Jivraj and Simpson, 2015) anti ageism (S. Thompson, 2019) and so on. This book, however, is not intended simply as an introduction to each of the discrete areas. There is an underlying thread of ‘multiple oppression’, the inter weaving of various sources and forms of oppression. Discrimination and the oppression it gives rise to are presented as aspects of the divisive nature of social structure – reflections of such social divisions as class, race, gender, age, disability, sexuality, language group, religion and sexual identity. These are dimensions of our social location (where and how we fit into society), and so we need to understand them as a whole – facets of an overall edifice of power and dominance, rather than separate or discrete entities. To use an existentialist term, they are ‘dimensions of our lived experience’. Race, class, gender and so on tend to be separated out for analytical purposes, but they are, of course, not entirely separate processes; they occur simultaneously and affect people in combination. They are related dimensions of our complex existence, rather than discrete enti ties. This is what is meant by ‘intersectionality’, the various ways in which different forms of discrimination intersect and reinforce each
