What is Anti-oppressive Social Work?

(reprinted from AOSW website)

Within Canadian social work, the term “anti-oppressive practice” is generally understood as an umbrella term that encompasses a variety of practice approaches including, but not limited to, radical, structural, feminist, anti-racist, critical, and liberatory frameworks (Bailey & Brake, 1975; Dominelli, 1988; Dominelli & McLeod, 1989; Fook,2002; Leonard, 2001; Moreau, 1993; Roche, Dewees, Trailweaver, Alexander, Cuddy & Handy, 1999). Therefore, rather than being seen as one “practice approach”, anti-oppressive social work can be more accurately understood as a stance or perspective toward practice. The term ‘anti-oppressive social work’ represents the current nomenclature for a range of theories and practices that embrace a social justice perspective.

For Dominelli (1998) anti-oppressive social work is a form of social work practice which addresses social divisions and structural inequalities in the work that is done with ‘clients’ (users) or workers. Anti-oppressive practice aims to provide more appropriate and sensitive services by responding to people’s needs regardless of their social status. Anti-oppressive practice embodies a person-centered philosophy, an egalitarian value system concerned with reducing the deleterious effects of structural inequalities upon people’s lives; a methodology focusing on both process and outcome; and a way of structuring relationships between individuals that aims to empower users by reducing the negative effects of hierarchy in their immediate interaction and the work they do together. (p.24)

Carniol (2000) also articulates a key element of anti-oppressive practice, the linking of personal matters and public issues:
For social workers who engage in anti-oppression practice, there is a strong connection between, on the one hand, providing individual assistance to people belonging to disempowered groups, and, on the other hand, working with social movements connected to these disempowered groups. By linking these two ways of working, social service providers are challenging social services from the ground up. We are reframing ‘private’ problems as public issues. (p. 115)
Thompson (1993) contends that anti-discriminatory practice is good practice and defines it as
An approach to social work practice which seeks to reduce, undermine or eliminate discrimination and oppression, specifically in terms of challenging sexism, racism, ageism, and disablism... and other forms of discrimination encountered in social work. Social workers occupy positions of power and influence, and so there is considerable scope for discrimination and oppression, whether this is intentional of by default. Anti-discriminatory practice is an attempt to eradicate discrimination from our own practice and challenge it in the practice of others and institutional strictures in which we operate.

Dalrymple and Burke (1995) describe a framework based on:

personal self knowledge
knowledge and an understanding of the majority social systems;
knowledge and understanding of different groups and cultures;
knowledge fo how do challenge and confront issues on a personal and structural level;
awareness of the need to be ‘research minded’ (Everitt et. al., 1992)
commitment to action and change. (p. 18)
and contend that
These six points, together with an understanding of power and oppression, contribute to the development of anti-oppressive practice. The framework enables links to be made between individual action and social structures. It informs practice by enabling the worker to evaluate differences that exist at an individual level and within society and how these impact on each other. It provides the means of making accurate assessments by taking account the inequalities that texture the lives of those denied access to society’s resources because of their defined social status and the exclusionary practices of the dominant system. It demands that we constantly engage in the process of critical self examination, which in turn enable us to engage in the process of change. (p. 18)

The Context of Radical Practice

(reprinted from A Paradigm for Radical Practice by Peter Leonard)

1. Contradiction - 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 dehumanizing consequences of capitalist economic production. Social workers, although situated ina largely oppressive organizational and professional context, have the potential for recognizing these contradictions and, though working at the point of interation between peopleand thier social environment, of helping to increase the control by people over economic and political structures.

2. Dialectic of people and systems - The relationship between people and the various systems which compromise thier social environment is a dialectical one. "It is as transforming and creative beings that men, in their permanent relations with realityproduce not only material goods - tangible objects - but also social institutions, ideas and concepts. Through thier continuing praxis, ment simultaneously create history and become historical-social beings" (Friere, 1972.) Although it is true to say that men both create and are created by thier social world, the concept of social work provides an opportunity for enhancing the creative, determining, potential of people.

3. Systems: oppressive and supportive - The social environment with which people interact and which is the focus of social-work intervention, can be seen as consisiting of a number of systems whichare the source of both oppression and support. In capitalist society these systems - the family, the neighborhood, the trade union, the school, the factory, the hospital, the social-welfare agency and others - all carry to a greater or lesser degree the marks of economic exploitation and the cultural hegemony of the ruling class. The oppression of women in the family, the fatalism of people in a neighborhood when faced with planned cultural elimination, the socialization of children in school to the demands of the labor market, the alienation of factory workers, the elitism and exclusiveness of trade unions, and the bureaucratic, controlling and dehumanizing features of hospitals and social-welfare organizations, are all examples of this oppression. Social work has the potential of enhancing the supportive features of some of the systems in the interests of people.

4. Individual consciousness - The understanding of the interation between people and systems in the social environment musct include a recognition of the individual's own consciousness, of what social institutions mean to them, and of thier pain and suffering, hape and despair. In social work an understanding of the effects of past and current experiences on the consciousness, intentions and behavior of individuals is crucial. Appreciation of these effects on the social worker themselves, as well as on other people, is of vital importance to the development of radical practice. "Discovering himself to be an oppressor may cause considerable anguish, but it does necessarily lead to socildarity with the oppressed. Rationalizing his guilt through paternalistic treatment of the oppressed, all the while holding them fast in a position of dependence, will not do. Solidarity requires that one enter into the situation of those with shome one is identifying:it is a radical posture" (Friere, 1972b, 26.)

Direct Practice - Direct Action

On the level of direct practice in the clinical setting the radical perspective is also applicable. One former professor and social worker Jeffry Galper, who wrote probably the most comprehensive book on radical social work titled Social Work Practice: A Radical Perspective, states “Workers may also find a variety of ways to encourage people to engage in collective political activity through existing political organizations.” Many such organizations exist, for instance, DARE (Direct Action for Rights and Equality) whose mission statement says “DARE's mission is to organize low income families in communities of color to win economic, social and political justice. A key to DARE's success is the understanding these campaigns built of the ways racism and sexism are a fundamental part of oppression in low income communities.” (DARE website, 2005). Much like the Black Panthers in the 1970’s, DARE has set up grassroots organizing campaigns, public day care facilities, youth programs, environmental empowerment projects and police accountability actions. The work of this organization is often seen by those in social work as being a fringe element and often not embraced as a viable referral in regard to solutions for inequality and oppression problems that clients indeed face on a daily basis. I believe the reason is another failure to adhere to the NASW Code of Ethics in good faith, i.e. that “Social workers continually strive to increase their professional knowledge and skills and to apply them in practice. Social workers should aspire to contribute to the knowledge base of the profession.” (NASW Code of Ethics). This does not mean exclusivity to CEU seeking cruises or seminars that are primarily skills based (not knowledge based) that the typical concept of fulfilling this obligation entails. Rather, the outreach to such organizations seems reasonable, consistent if viewed through a radical perspective, to be the appropriate action for a social worker to approach with many clients. It is part of the aforementioned spiritual transformation that must occur, which in my opinion, entails changing one’s reality in a way that sees social justice clearly, honestly, practically and seriously. This includes policy, clinical, management and even research interpretations.

An Example of a Radical Perspective -

One example of research that can be interpreted many ways, least of which by the radical perspective is the current diagnosis of O.D.D. (Oppositional Defiant Disorder). This diagnosis is a subject of debate that stems mostly from the operational definition of the subjective term “defiant”. Clinical psychologist Bruce Levine writes, “In 1980 the American Psychiatric Association (APA), in step with the election of Ronald Reagan and the U.S. right-wing shift, proclaimed a new mental illness: oppositional defiant disorder (ODD). Today ODD has become an increasingly popular diagnosis for a young person who “actively defies or refuses to comply with adult requests or rules” and “argues with adults” – symptoms according to the DSM IV, the APA’s official diagnostic manual (Levine, 2005).” The undertones of what Levine is describing, the mention of Reagan, I believe indicates that he believes that the field of social services, counseling etc. performs a function aligned with status-quo ideals rather than challenges them. Levine goes on to explain that “[y]oung people often ask me why psychiatrists and psychologists don’t understand that it is normal for kids to rebel against being controlled. The answer, I believe, is that many psychiatrists and psychologists are not in touch with how extremely obedient they are. Acceptance into graduate school requires lots of As and jumping through many hoops, all of which require much behavioral and attentional compliance. When compliant PhDs, begin seeing non-compliant patients, many of these doctors get uptight. (Levine, 2005). I would argue that there are significant “use of self” issues to examine if one agrees with Levine’s hypothesis. How could it be otherwise? Admittedly, many people diagnosed with O.D.D. are in fact anti-social far more than Levine claims. However, he cites the first 50 pages of the famous anarchist Emma Goldman’s 993 page Living My Life as homework he assigns his clients (within a psycho-educational framework presumably). “I am happy to report that Living My Life provided instant self-help for one middle-aged, female client of mine, an anti-authoritarian previously diagnosed with substance abuse, depression, and several personality disorders. She has a passion now for reading and forgoes booze when captivated by a good book, Goldman’s epic provided a longer detox treatment that that provided by many insurance companies. She had a cause and a community, and she has become energized by her search (Ibid.). The radical perspective, I would argue, is the skill and knowledge that Bruce Levine possessed and then empowered his client with. The spiritual transformation that Levine had gone through, the education on such matters as radical social work practice, the application, is what he claims empowered his client.
“The radical view leads to an analysis of the class origins and class functions of social work. The conservative or traditional view does not acknowledge or minimizes the role and impact of class struggle and leads to a perspective which sees social work as a manifestation of society’s growing concern for human welfare (Galper, 1980).” This problematic revelation also indicates as Langan and Lee (1989) claim that “In the 1980s, mirroring the fragmentation of the political left, the radical social work movement lost its class focus and embraced other factors such as sexuality, race and gender as areas where oppression occurred, either in association with, or irrespective of social class.” This viewpoint is accurate. The historical record shows that this metamorphosis engulfed all of the movements of the time, new movements arose phoenix-like from the ashes of the Civil Rights Movement and the Anti-war movement to other issues, possibly from the apparent negative prospects for radical change, possibly from the weight of the burden of true radical social change.

Why is the radical social work perspective rarely used at this time?

One reason is that within the field there is, and has been, a compelling force of self-censorship. This self-censorship includes a commitment (by and large) to moderate liberal politics. Safely, most social workers remain committed to a belief in the system we have, not only at the ballot box, in the street and in conversation, but most importantly by working their practice as part of the system and supporting it by doing so. This difference is crucial but not discussed in most social work circles. The difference can be more aptly understood by realizing the dichotomy between social change and social service. The commitment to social justice, social change, is not upheld by enmeshing oneself in moderate liberal political struggles that will never change the situation some clients fall into one iota. Radical social work provides clients a chance to understand social and personal problems in another light; i.e. through realizing that the system we have in place, at times, does cause many problems. Radical social work provides a forum to enable people in social work care to make changes for themselves and others, to attempt to be a part of the decisions made about the things that matter to them in their lives, to take the power back from those who often covertly are seeking to exploit a client.

Here is a brief literature review of radical social work articles and organizations. There are plenty of great books out there on the topic of radical social work, many with practical application suggestions. I encourage everyone to look around, consider the possiblilities and embrace the strengths in the field of social work such as these. Another world is possible.

Barefoot Social Worker: the voice of radical social work in Britain
http://www.radical.org.uk/barefoot/


The Twin Cities Radical Social Work Study Group
http://www.geocities.com/rswsg/


The legacy of 'radical social work'How contemporary social work theory nurtured the new authoritarianism.
by Ken McLaughlin
http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/0000000CAD15.htm


What is radical social work?
http://radicalreference.info/node/1164

What is Anti-oppressive Social Work?
http://aosw.socialwork.dal.ca/whatisaosw.html

Mental Health After Capitalism
http://www.zmag.org/martinezhealth.htm

Building a Foundation

The mainstream social work practice does not often include the main elements of radical social work. To understand how radical social work separates from the mainstream the operational definition given by Barbara Loundes Joseph (1975) which is “that practice which attempts to be of maximum service to people experiencing problems in their daily lives and at the same time are informed a commitment to radical social change.” Joseph goes on to expound on the definition that radical social work is about “defin[ing] those small and simple changes we can make- not as marking time- but a seeding, a building of a foundation by our daily work. Such a practice is based upon an understanding of the nature of capitalism, its racism and imperialism and the pejorative theories of human nature which underlie and perpetuate these (Ibid).” There is a more philosophical definition provided by social worker John F. Longres in regard to social work casework which he states that “radical casework is consonant with Marxist social vision. The starting point is historical materialism or the transcendence of the economic order over social behavior… The development of class consciousness or the desire to work collectively toward altering alienating conditions is the socio-psychological process to be encouraged. The ideals of socialism are offered as an alternative to the ideals of capitalism.” (Longres, 1977). These two parallel definitions sum up, in my estimation, the basics of radical social work practice. The perspective is analogous to reading the daily news in, on the handling of Hurricane Katrina for instance, the New York Times, juxtaposed with the reading of the weekly Socialist Worker (socialist newspaper) the difference in the perspective is obvious, one is seeking to tow a capitalist party line of blaming hierarchical social agencies, the other is looking through the socialist lens and seeking to report the root causes of the tragedy which include class inequality, racism and oppression.

Random Thoughts on Substance Abuse Services.

As one who has worked in the substance abuse field, I have observed a sort of sub-culture that includes the workers, the staff and the clients. This population or sub-culture is unique in that the entire dynamic is sort of underground. The substance abuse field operates much like the registry, the unemployment office, the courts etc. It is in fact an isolated system with similar characteristics. This said, I feel that this system is also antithetical to any ideals that have to do with equality both between worker and client and in regard to society at large. Overwhelmingly clients who seek substance abuse counseling are deemed unsafe to themselves and others and unfit to work in the field for usually two years of documented sobriety. I have no issue with that concept because often clients are subject to relapse and the issues related to substance abuse pervade client’s lives typically for the rest of their lives. Although, this does not imply that the introduction of radical values should be avoided, on the contrary, the population of "substance abusers" is ripe for such political action because substance abuse is a socio-political issue first and foremost. Many people do not trace how drugs get into their neighborhoods, how drugs have been implemented at times into neighborhoods for social control (e.g. heroin in the 60’s to diffuse the Black Panthers, methamphetamine from the 50s- present that criminalizes neighborhoods developed by the military) .

The discussion and empowerment clients in the substance abuse field need, in my estimation, have very much to do with socialist values. If we take a look, the time tested program almost every "substance abuser" is encouraged to attend are NA (Narcotics Anonymous) meetings which are highly socialist in their structure. Self-help groups are in fact based on the principle of cooperation rather than competition, using Marxist principles of collective power and equal standing within the group to achieve individual goals, and devotion to the group in the way of dues, attendance, maintenance of public space and rejection of Capitalist marketing of the NA name all employ Socialist or Radical principles in their application.

A very important element of being a radical social worker has to do with shining light on the radical elements already in our society with clients rather than ignoring them, rather than creating new forms per se. The radical perspective is equally present in individual therapy if the clinician chooses to use that in his or her repertoire of skills. It is in fact clinicians' themselves who need simple Cognitive Behavioral Therapy to re-frame issues clients present and accept that often these problems stem directly from social injustice that, if we are honest we could see, need, necessarily, revolutionary solutions rather than business as usual liberalism.

It Says “Social Justice”

According to the National Association of Social Worker’s Code of Ethics, social workers have ethical responsibilities to the broader society. For instance, Code 6.01 states, “Social workers should promote the general welfare of society, from local to global levels, and the development of people, their communities, and their environments. Social workers should advocate for living conditions conducive to the fulfillment of basic human needs and should promote social, economic, political, and cultural values and institutions that are compatible with the realization of social justice.” I have observed in my time in the field of social work very little educational opportunities, practical applications, or structural training that is acting in accord with this ethical standard of the Code as a guide. I suppose it is mentioned, but what I feel, what I believe is encouraged, and what I hear many colleagues express as their ethics, is the opposite. Once people reach a Masters level of education (or achieve licensure by other means), it is my belief that we are endowed with a certain privilege in society. What should have been imparted on us is the ability to use such privileges as: access to the facts, the training to make sense and interpret the facts, and the resources to communicate the facts to others. Instead, I observe the majority of my colleagues using their given privilege to concentrate primarily on advancment of their careers, on speaking in elevated language that people cannot understand, on building disciplinary walls so that nobody other than those in our field (and even our chosen focus within the field) are allowed in. We should have no time for that.
In addition to all these internal issues, from a strengths-based perspective, the field has major challenges in matters of social justice. Talk about bourgeoisie! There are very few participants on any level that have even the basic understanding of Marxism, of the legacy of world-wide struggle, the legacy of unionism, class, in the United States. There is subtle mention of identity politics; I credit the field with that. Feminism is mentioned but the radical elements of feminism are lost, in my opinion. Race is mentioned, but we are not using the language of racial equality and the population in the field is skewed heavily, cultural diversity is often last on the list of priorities when it should be the first I believe. This is all caused by a lack on part of the field to take a stand politically and define what it is we stand for, without vision we have what we have now, an apolitical bunch of social workers who have zero class consciousness and little interest in real political action i.e. social justice achieved by social change. It is fraudulent to engage clients' within a bourgeois framework. Liberal social work values dictate that the issues of class, race and gender cannot be anything more than status quo because within that framework it is necessarily impossible to be other than the status quo. A commitment to social justice requires stepping out of that framework and at least learning the theory of struggle that can possibly achieve such social change; by this I mean: Luxemburg, Kropotkin, Marx, Engels, Rocker, Lenin, Trotsky, Proudhon, De Cleyre, Bookchin, Chomsky, Meltzer, King, Albert on and on. I am not saying you have to be a Socialist or a radical or a Leftist or a Progressive or any tag/title, but at least understand the tradition and the lessons inherent in their works. I fear that the field has capitulated to external pressures and is so married to the State that the aforementioned ethical guidelines cannot be upheld. The outcome of such fence-sitting on part of social workers is inconsistent with the actions of those freedom fighters in the past, the Howard Zinns’ of the world, the soldiers for social justice, we should be honest enough to admit we are not anywhere close to that. We need more people who have the bullhorn in hand, more who take to the street to confront social injustices. The influence of such individuals would make it possible to maintain all of our ethical standards and might encourage action in the face of injustice rather than hoping problems will go away quietly.

What is Radical Social Work?

Radical social work is an extension of politics into the field of social work. The theory of radical social work aims directly at the nature of inequality in our society. Radical social work can be used by a social worker at the policy level as well as the clinical level. Radical ideals can also be incorporated into the framework of management in the social work setting. At times radical social work is a critique of status-quo social structures that espouse authoritarian power dynamics; on the other hand, radical social work heavily leans toward what in all honesty can be best described loosely as 'socialism' as far as what has already been done in the field so far. Some prevalent themes that are explored through the radical perspective are: oppression, class, unjustifiable authority, hierarchy, and an equal socio-political representation in the field of all members of a given population. Most often a radical perspective pin-points the strengths of a client (be it an individual, a family, an organization) in accord with the eco-systems approach, and works in addition to typical interventions, breaking only with tradition when topics (or problems) have elements of directly with, or are possible to be seen through the lens of, socio-economic, political, struggle. At the heart of socialist ideals, which have been at the fore of radical social work practice, lies the strong commitment to revolutionary ideals. Some find it difficult to fathom revolution and fail to make the connection with social work as a profession. My belief is that these folks (often practitioners in the field) do not realize the rich history of the radical perspective and furthermore see the application of radical frameworks to be outside of the field of social work, which historically they have not. Although there are contemporary instances where radical questions have been somewhat buried in the last ten or so years, many positive alternatives are re-surfacing again. The radical perspective is rich in theory, adds wonderful skills to a social worker’s cannon of knowledge, and maintains a strong commitment to social justice in real terms. Radical social work addresses the challenges of society from below.

Remembering the Case Con Manifesto

The Case Con Manifesto was written by a group of radical social workers who published Case Con magazine in the early 1970’s. The Manifesto served as a critique of the place of social work in society and also an optimism of a more civilized time where prospects for social justice were possible. The entire text is available at the following website - http://www.radical.org.uk/barefoot/casecon.htm.

It is important to consider the points the Case Con Manifesto raises in our time in regard to social work practice in 2006; how far we have drifted from social justice… Here is an excerpt, “Every day of the week, every week of the year, social workers (including probation officers, educational social workers, hospital social workers, community workers and local authority social workers) see the utter failure of social work to meet the real needs of the people it purports to help. Faced with this failure, some social workers despair and leave to do other jobs, some hide behind the facade of professionalism and scramble up the social work ladder regardless; and some grit their teeth and just get on with the job, remaining helplessly aware of the dismal reality. Of course, some do not see anything wrong in the first place.”

The Manifesto addresses the historical context of the atmosphere necessary for real social change. It explains that “[t]he welfare state was set up partly in response to working-class agitation and mainly to stabilize the upheavals generated by wartime conditions. It was recognized that improvements in the living conditions of workers helped provide capitalism with a more efficient work force and could nip militancy in the bud. Furthermore, the threat of withdrawal of benefits under certain conditions (being on strike or cohabiting, for example) could be a useful technique of social control, During the post-war boom, wage rises came fairly easily: in the euphoria about the supposed end of inequality, means tests were gradually reintroduced and the principle of universal entitlement to social, educational and health services gradually eroded. As the boom subsided, cuts in welfare expenditure were justified in the attempt to control inflation and are now used ideologically to create an impression of scarcity as an explanation for the crisis of capitalism.”

One aspect of social work practice still under debate in 2006 is the issue of “professionalism” especially in light of the persistent capitulation to the conservative ideals destroying social services and their successes in conquering the welfare state i.e the people’s state. The Manifesto speaks to this phenomenon with clarity and strength in the section that states, “One important tool of professional social work has been casework - a pseudo-science - that blames individual inadequacies for poverty and so mystifies and diverts attention from the real causes - slums, homelessness and economic exploitation. The casework ideology forces clients to be seen as needing to be changed to fit society. Social work has now expanded to include new (and not so new) tricks, such as community work, group work, welfare rights work, etc., which, when professionalized, end up by becoming the same sort of mechanism of control as traditional casework, often with the additional merit of being less expensive for the ruling class. Professionalism is a particularly dangerous development specifically because social workers look to it for an answer to many of the problems and contradictions of the job itself - i.e. being unable to solve the basic inadequacy of society through social work. It must be fought at every opportunity.” Unlike many social work texts (Unfaithful Angels by Harry Specht and Mark Courtney comes to mind) that criticize the field but offer no viable alternative. The Case Con Manifesto devotes an entire section to “How We Must Organize” which explores other options to conservative values such as the bigoted meaning of “personal responsibility” when they write “We are supposed to 'help' our 'clients' by making them 'accept responsibility' - in other words, come to terms as individuals with basically unacceptable situations. We must counter-pose this to the possibility of changing their situation by collective action.” This speaks to the power of cooperation rather than competition to meet challenges.

Case Con Manifesto comes to a solution that all social workers should consider; a “Socialist conclusion”. “Case Con believes that the problems of our 'clients' are rooted in the society in which we live, not in supposed individual inadequacies. Until this society, based on private ownership, profit and the needs of the minority ruling class, is replaced by a workers' state, based on the interests of the vast majority of the population, the fundamental causes of social problems will remain.” The value of this document is in its relevance to today’s field of social work, to all: social workers, clinicians, policy, administration, case managers and activists alike.