We will argue that by default, all social workers should be social justice allies. However, this could be viewed as somewhat simplistic because it is not always easy to take a social justice ally position when organisational and structural barriers exist in practice. It may be that, as social workers, you need to develop tools and strategies to disrupt oppressive policies, guidelines and working practices to ensure that they are adhering to Anderson and Middleton’s (2011) recommendation of being a critical thinker and provocative. Becoming an ally begins with a motivation to protect friends, family members and colleagues from harm. The altruistic ally, according to Edwards (2006), is one who is motivated by guilt to act, whereas the ally for social justice is one who is pushed to act to address the root causes of systemic oppression, regardless of whether they personally know any ‘victims’ of oppression. Thus, whether you are an altruistic or social justice ally, the process of self-development by using one’s privilege to support and advocate on behalf of others is welcome in social work practice.
Language and oppression
We will argue throughout this book that language perpetuates power and influences power relations which are used to maintain oppression. When women are shamed, mothers are blamed consciously or unconsciously through social worker reports; such language serves to perpetuate the oppression of women. Language can be gendered and can perpetuate different types of oppression. For example, there is growing concern about some of the ‘professional’ language used by social workers and arguments being made about the need to change this. ‘Mother and baby groups’ has been changed to ‘parenting groups’ to reflect the diversity of parents and to acknowledge the role of others in the parenting role. ‘Looked after children’ or ‘children looked after’ is being replaced by ‘care experienced’, and phrases such as ‘contact time’ are being ditched for a preferred and less oppressive ‘family time’. This evidences the dynamic nature of language and the importance of regularly checking with service users how they wish to be addressed.
Continuing the theme of language and oppression, the COVID-19 pandemic is showing little sign of abating (June 2020), and in the UK and USA it has been found to be impacting disproportionately on Black minority ethnic people. The language used in some of the reporting is noteworthy and promotes the view that the reasons for disproportionality are down to individual biological and genetic make-up rather than structural inequalities. The scientific explanation for this is still to be verified; however, there are also concerns that nurses and health professionals from Black and/or other minority ethnic backgrounds are being pushed and made to take shifts on COVID-19 wards in hospitals (Nursing Times, 18 April 2020). In addition, in the UK and the USA, Black people are more likely to live in overcrowded neighbourhoods and have jobs which make it difficult to practise social distancing or self-isolation. Such structural and institutional oppression needs to be exposed for what it is and replaced with fairer, more equitable processes of work allocation among health professionals. This also reminds us of the fact that having good health is a privilege, which is often invisible to its bearers. Burke and Parker (2007) argue that the failure to recognise difference of all kinds enables a culture of exclusion and exclusionary behaviours, something that social workers must avoid if they are to work anti-oppressively.
Wilson and Beresford (2000) remind us of the importance of understanding oppression and anti-oppressive practice from the perspective of service users. To this end, Haworth (2019), writing about social work with single fathers in the UK, concluded that single fathers continue to be invisible in social work research and that gendered stereotypes accounted for them experiencing alienation in social work practice encounters. He argues that a more inclusive approach would be in line with social work values, ethics and anti-oppressive practice.
Teaching and learning anti-oppressive practice
In this section, we will examine the way in which anti-oppression is taught on social work programmes and highlight the tensions that can be present in the classroom during such important teaching. There is a shared responsibility between you, the learner, and the educator to consciously and meticulously engage in learning that will enhance your practice in the future. Such learning is expected to be painful, uncomfortable and unsettling; however, it should not be used as a reason not to engage in these discussions (Boler and Zembylas, 2003).
Anti-oppressive practice seeks to negate or minimise the influence of oppression and recognises that oppression does not operate in a vacuum. Social work programmes are, and rightly so, one of the main sites where knowledge and understanding of anti-oppressive practice is valued and taught. There is no clearly defined approach to teaching anti-oppressive practice content in social work programmes around the world; however, there are some principles that can and should permeate all social work programmes. Smith (2010) warns against tokenistic attempts to include marginalised voices in teaching. There is an abundance of literature about the experiences of faculty teaching curriculum on anti-oppression within social work programmes (Chand et al., 2002; Coxshall, 2020) and the research summary below explores this further.
Research Summary
Twenty-one years ago, Coleman et al. (1999), writing about their experiences of teaching anti-oppressive practice to students enrolled on the Diploma in Social Work (DipSW), concluded that there is a need to address not only the cognitive elements of learning, but also the emotional elements involved in teaching about oppression. They also challenged the intentional and unintentional hierarchical approach to teaching oppression in the classrooms and bemoaned the fact that some students were prone to dissociation. Importantly, the research highlighted the traumatic experiences for students and educators in relation to the content of anti-oppressive practice classes, as well as the discussions and debates these generated in the classroom. For example, a student who identified as lesbian attended a mental health class, only to be given a handout in which homosexuality was identified as a personality disorder. This experience is an example of oppression which is damaging and traumatic. This reminds us of Barker’s (2003) reference to being devalued as an element of oppression, so, as social work students, you are encouraged to challenge such overt oppression in constructive ways.
Gibson (2014, p204) has argued that social work students’ emotional-affective feelings about groups that are different to their own is a significant barrier to their learning about social justice and oppression. The teaching content, she argues, is almost always so personal that educators need to be aware of and prepared to address emotional needs, as well as conflicting values and beliefs. In so doing, the model requires social work educators themselves to create an atmosphere of safety by explaining thoroughly the rationale for the discrete areas of teaching. This will go some way to minimise anxiety and discomfort within the classroom, and should result in them being able to transfer this knowledge and behaviour to their various practice settings.
Coxshall (2020) outlines her use of critical race theory as a pedagogic tool and suggests that there are case studies in the recent British history (such as the Grenfell Tower disaster) that students can read about to raise their awareness of oppression, inequality and discrimination.
Activity 1.3
Think about