Oppression, Domination and Privilege Oppression and Domination Gil (1994) points out the importance of understanding oppression, domination, and social injustice when he states ...the conditions that cause people to seek help from social services are usually direct or indirect consequences of social, economic, and political institutions, and... the profession of social work is ethically committed to promote social justice. Insights into oppression and social justice, and into ways of overcoming them, are therefore essential aspects of the foundations of social work knowledge (p. 232) Oppression can be somewhat simply described as “the domination of subordinate groups in society by a powerful (politically, economically, socially, culturally) group” (Mullaly, 2002, p. 27). Domination, also somewhat simply defined, is “the ability for one social group to systematically control, manipulate, and use other people for its own ends” (Goodman, 2001, p. 13). Frye (1983) points out the centrality of group membership in discussing oppression and domination. If an individual is oppressed, it is by virtue of being a member of a group or category of people that is systematically reduced, molded, immobilized. Thus, to recognize a person as oppressed, one has to see that individual as belonging to a group of a certain sort (p. 8). Oppression and domination are best understood, not as static concepts, but as relational ones. This means that oppression and domination are embedded in the relationships that exist between individuals, social groups and classes, or between entire societies (Gil, 1994, Mullaly 2002). Bishop (1994) maintains that these relationships of oppression and domination are rooted in societal values of separation, hierarchy, and competition and contends that we must struggle to actualize competing values of connection, equity and co-operation Privilege In a now classic essay, Peggy McIntosh (1988) provides a metaphorical definition of white privilege as “an invisible weightless knapsack of special provisions, assurances, tools, maps, guides, code books, passports, visas, clothes, compass, emergency gear, and blank checks” (p. 31). Bell (1997) refers to this weightless knapsack as ‘structural privileges’ and contends that those of us in dominant groups learn to look at themselves, others, and society through a distorted lens in which the structural privileges they enjoy and the cultural practices of their group are represented as normal and universal. The privilege of dominant groups is reinforced in both language and material practices (p. 12). Yee and Dumbrill (2003) maintain that an understanding of privilege is essential to anti-oppressive practice. They quote Wildman and Davis (1997). Domination, subordination, and privilege are like three heads of a hydra. Attacking the most visible heads, domination and subordination, trying bravely to chop then up into little pieces, will not kill the third head, privilege. Like a mythic multi-headed hydra, which will inevitable grow another head if all heads are not slain, discrimination cannot be ended by focussing only on subordination and domination (p. 317). While cautioning us against essentializing, Goodman (2001) describes people from privileged groups as sharing a general lack of consciousness of their privilege, of denying and avoiding knowledge of oppression, and of carrying an unrecognized sense of superiority and entitlement. Back to the top

Multiple Expressions Oppression and domination are evident on multiple levels of social interaction: personal, cultural, and institutional (Adams, Bell and Griffin, 1997; Thompson, 1993; Mullay, 2002). Oppressive and dominant relationships are expressed through a variety of social constructs, including, but not limited to, race, age, gender, sexual orientation, religion, class, and ability. While there are commonalities among these various forms of oppression and domination, each expression has a unique form and experience. An anti-oppressive stance resists the idea of a hierarchy of oppressions and understands that all forms of oppression and domination are interconnected. Furthermore, such a stance recognizes that individuals are complex and multi-faceted, and may, at differing times, be the oppressor or the oppressed. Race Thompson (1993) concludes that race is “a socially constructed way of categorizing people on the basis of assumed biological differences” (p. 17). He emphasizes that “the biological aspect of this social division is used as a justification for discrimination and inequality” and that “racial categorisation involves not only difference but also implies relations of superiority/inferiority” (p. 17) which is the basis of racism. Henry, Tator, Mattis and Rees (1995) define race as a “category used to classify humankind according to common ancestry and reliant on differentiation by such physical characteristics as colour of skin, hair texture, stature, and facial characteristics (p. 328). They then define racism as a social system in which one group of people exercises power over another group on the basis of skin color’. It is ‘an implicit set of beliefs, erroneous assumptions, and actions based on an ideology of inherent superiority of one racial group over another, and evident in organizational and institutional structures and programs as well as in individual thought or behavior patterns’ (p. 10). Bishop (1994) describes racism as a social/political/economic system and states “Racism is oppression based on colour. The term can be used to include oppression based on language or religion, but I have used other terms for these – language-based oppression, religious oppression, and anti-Semitism” (p. 135). The resultant advantages of racism for the dominant racial group is referred to as white privilege which Wijeyesinghe, Griffin and Lowe (1997) define as “the concrete beliefs of access to resources and social rewards and the power to shape the norms and values of society which whites receive, unconsciously or consciously by virtue of their skin colour in a racist society” (p. 97). Examples of racism include the expression of ‘humour’ with a racist or ethnic theme, the high level of incarceration of Black and Native persons, or the ability of the Minister of Indian Affairs to nullify the Last Will and Testament of Native Canadians. Alternatively, examples of white privilege include personal care products that label white skin tone as ‘nude’ or ‘flesh’, the certainty that cultural figures such as Santa Clause and Jesus Christ will be represented as being members of the dominant racial group, or the over-representation of white men in politics and business. Gender Bishop (1994) distinguishes between sex and gender. Sex refers to the physical characteristics of a person which makes him or her male or female. Gender makes a person male or female through a whole collection of socially defined traits – appearance, attitudes, roles, preferences, work, and so on. A patriarchal society has rigid definitions and is disrupted when a person of one sex displays the gender traits of the other sex (p. 130). Goodman and Schapiro1997) offer the following definitions. Biological sex refers to the physiological and anatomical characteristics of maleness and femaleness with which a person is born. Gender identity refers to one’s psychological sense of oneself as male or female. Gender role refers to the socially constructed and culturally specific behaviour and expectations for women (femininity) and men (masculinity) (p 115). Dubois and Miley (1996) state that, “sexism is the belief that one sex is superior to the other” (p. 154) and include Robertson’s (1987) view that sexism is “based on the deeply ingrained view that gender characteristics and sexual inequalities are rooted in the natural order” (as cited in Dubois & Miley, 1996, p. 154). Goodman and Schapiro (1997) specify that sexism is “the cultural, institutional, and individual set of beliefs and practices that privilege men, subordinate women, and denigrate values and practices associated with women” (p. 117). Rasberry (1991) provides an examination of male privilege. As a male, I am a full-fledged member of the patriarchy – an automatic representative of the socially constructed, male dominated hierarchy. Membership affords many luxuries, some subtle, some not so subtle. It allows me access to power, wealth and privilege in ways that I am only beginning to recognize (p. 6). Examples of sexism include the sexualized terms used to refer to women, a lack of recognition of women’s unpaid labour, or violence against women. Examples of male privilege include the tendency of male students to speak more than female students, the accepted expectation that a man will not change his name upon getting married, or men’s ability to walk down the street alone with sense of personal safety. Sexual Orientation Bishop (1994) defines sexual orientation as “a person’s emotional, physical, and/or sexual attraction to people of their own or the opposite sex” (p. 135). The Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Youth Project (1996) defines heterosexism as “the assumption that everyone is heterosexual. It is also the assumption that heterosexuality is the only normal and natural way of being”. Similarly, Griffin and Harro (1997) define heterosexism as “the individual, institutional and societal/cultural beliefs and practices based on the belief that heterosexuality is the only normal and acceptable sexual orientation (p. 146). They discuss the distinction between heterosexism and homophobia stating that homophobia is “the fear, hatred, or intolerance of lesbians and gay men or any behavior that falls outside the traditional gender roles” (p. 146). Peggy MacIntosh (1988) conceives of heterosexual privilege as the daily ways in which married persons are made “comfortable or powerful” and provide “supports, assets, approvals, and rewards to those who live or expect to live in heterosexual pairs.” Examples of heterosexist privilege include using exclusive language such as husband or girlfriend, the failure of many companies to extend “spousal” benefits to same-sex partners, and the legislated privileges granted to heterosexual people. The Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Youth Project (n.d.) illustrate such privilege: “I can put a picture of my partner on my desk, bulletin board, locker etc., at work without fear of harassment, exclusion, or firing” and “I do not have to change my words when I talk about my partner so that other people won’t know that she/he is my partner Ability We tend to think of ability or disability as biological or medical states of being. However, Wendell (1996) reminds us that “neither impairment or disability can be defined purely in biomedical terms because social arrangements and expectations make essential contributions to impairment and disability, and to their absence” (p. 35). She extends her position in defining disability as “any lack of ability to perform activities to an extent or in a way that is either necessary for survival in an environment or necessary to participate in some major aspect of life in a given society” (Wendell, 1996, p. 23). Oliver (1996) expands upon the social construction of disability when he defines disability as “all the things that impose restrictions on disabled people ranging from individual prejudice to institutional discrimination” (p. 33). Oliver firmly rejects an individual or personal understanding of disability and states “it is not individual limitations, of whatever kind, which are the cause of the problem but society’s failure to provide appropriate services and adequately ensure the needs of disabled people are fully taken into account” (p. 32). Rauscher and McClintock (1997) define ableism as “a pervasive system of discrimination and exclusion that oppresses people who have mental, emotional, and physical disabilities” (p. 198). They expand Deeply rooted beliefs about health, productivity, beauty, and the value of human life, perpetuated by the public and private media, combine to create an environment that is often hostile to those whose physical, emotional, cognitive, or sensory abilities fall outside the scope of what is currently defined as socially acceptable (p. 198). Examples of ableism include inaccessible public buildings, unusable transportation systems, and segregated education. Examples of ability privilege include the certainty that theatres and entertainment venues will provide comfortable and convenient seating arrangements and knowing that my favourite books will be available in an accessible format Class Seabrook (2002) defines class as the “division of society into unequal strata or groups. The differences between them express social relationships and constitute the social identity of the members of each group” (p. 14). For Bishop (1994) class is “not simply a matter of income, but of power” and determines a person’s ... “access to resources, of say in the political system, even of say in their own lives” (p. 128). Yeskel and Leondar-Wright (1997) define class as “relative social rank in terms of income, wealth, status and/or power: (p.238). They define classism as the institutional, cultural, and individual set of practices and beliefs that assign differential values to people according to their socio-economic class; and an economic system which creates excessive inequality and causes basic human needs to go unmet (p. 238). For Day (1989), classism is “prejudice against the presumed immorality of those in lower economic classes – beliefs that they are lazy, unmotivated, immoral, promiscuous, stupid, or incompetent” (as cited in Dubois & Miley, 1996, p. 153). Seabrook (2002) discusses class privilege and states: Privilege in every society spins myth to legitimize its power or its monopoly over resources. Ruling castes or classes perpetuate themselves by a mystical appeal to antiquity, lineage, divine sanction or ‘breeding’, which justify their right to rule (pp. 21-22). For Swanson (2001) ‘poor-bashing’ is integral to classism. Poor bashing is evident when people who are poor are humiliated, stereotyped, discriminated against, shunned, despised, pitied, patronized, ignored, blamed, and falsely accused of being lazy, drunk, stupid, uneducated, having large families, and not looking for work (p. 2). Examples of classism and class privilege include belief that certain work is beneath one, that everyone could eat well if they just budgeted properly, higher and higher university tuition fees, and the criminalization of street youth and homelessness. Age Robertson (1987) defines ageism as the “belief that one age category is in some respects inferior to other categories and that unequal treatment of them is therefore justified” (as cited in Dubois & Miley, 1996, p. 156). Focusing primarily on discrimination of the elderly, Thompson (1993) define ageism as a “tendency to devalue older people and overemphasize the negative aspects of later life” (p. 17). He further emphasizes how age is a “significant dimension of the social structure” (p. 18) which greatly affects the “distribution of power, status and opportunities” (p. 17) in our society. He also acknowledges that many of the issues around ageism apply to children as well. Age privilege refers to the benefits and rights afforded individuals by a “social/ economic/political/ideological system” (Bishop, 1994, p. 126). Bishop (1994) suggests that at any particular age we may experience both privilege and discrimination, depending on the social situation. One example of ageism is the practice of mandatory retirement. Age privilege is apparent in the media as individuals who fall within the target age demographic can be certain that the majority of television programming will be directly relevant to them or feature personalities approximately their own age or stage of life. Back to the top

Knowledge as Multiple Anti-oppressive theory is rooted in an epistemology that invites the expression of multiple and varying truths about society and social relationships and gives rise to the concept of “different ways of knowing” (Belenky et al., 1986; Bruyere, 1998; Cairns et al., 1998; Chan and Dilworth, 1995; Collins, 1991; Ellsworth, 1989; Giroux, 1992). “No one group or individual possesses the theory or methodology that allows it to discover the absolute truth about other people’s experiences. What is required is an organizing framework that allows different perspectives on the truth to be held” (Dalrymple and Burke, 1995, p. 11). In rejecting the possibility of unitary or ‘master’ truths such an epistemology is in potential conflict with some traditional professional practices such as diagnosis and assessment processes, which encourage practitioners to discover the ‘one best professional truth’. Furthermore, such an epistemology frequently conflicts with our desire to learn the ‘right’ answer and the ‘right’ way to practice. Anti-oppressive practitioners must therefore be able to work effectively within a context of contradiction, uncertainty, and multiple understandings of reality. Anti-oppressive theorists understand that ‘reality’ can vary as a result of differences in social and material conditions and develop the skills needed to recognize and support variations in clients’ ‘ways of knowing’. Back to the top

Power The concept of power is an essential element of anti-oppressive theory and is seen as “integral to social problems and solutions” (Fisher, 1995, p. 199). Power is traditionally thought of as a commodity that is unequally distributed and used as a mechanism of domination over others. However, anti-oppressive theorists challenge this conception of power as a possession and, similar to the understanding of oppression, see power as relational, or as something “people use and create” (Fook, 2002, p. 52). Starhawk (1987) distinguishes between power over, power with, and power from within. Collins (1991) presents a view of power as an internal creative force or mobilizing energy and therefore sees power as infinite and self-determined. Back to the top

Diversity, Difference and Identity The term diversity has become a buzzword with a variety of connotations and synonyms (Goodman 2001, 4)”. The word “difference” is one of these synonyms. ... ‘difference’ is increasingly used in academic and common discourse,[but] its meaning is not at all clear. Difference is generally understood to refer to a broad and ever expanding set of particular groups or categories such as race, gender, age, sexual orientation, class, and physical or mental ability. The defining features of ‘difference’, as a general concept, however, remain ambiguous ( Stainton and Swift 1996, 76). Identity can be understood as “the social self that is named and experienced. Identity is socially constructed and includes social positions such as gender, race, and sexuality” (Ristock and Pennell, 1996, p115). Anti-oppressive understandings of difference and identity are evolving, primarily as a result of the challenges posed by post modern theorists. However, no matter how they are conceived, there is an agreement on the centrality of these concepts for effective anti-oppressive practice. This centrality is reflected in the education of social work students. A belief that ‘mainstream’ social workers need to be educated about groups different from themselves has emerged over the last three decades. This belief has become to be reflected in social work education through a proliferation of courses dealing with the experience of being ‘different’ from the mainstream population and discourse. Beginning with the idea of ‘class’ difference in the 1960s and expanding into areas of gender, race, culture, age and physical and intellectual ability, the number and variety of such courses have grown rapidly in the 1990s. (Stainton and Swift, 1996, p. 75) In an attempt to ensure equality social workers sometimes deny difference. While well intentioned, this approach, which Dominelli (1988) refers to as a ‘color blind approach’ has oppressive implications. These include a denial of the personal implications of difference, practice approaches that are culturally inappropriate, and a denial of the impact of oppression and domination. At the same time, there are dangers ignoring commonalities and in reifying difference, which can potentially lead to dichotomous thinking that results in oppositional categories. As Collins (1998) states “defining one side of the binary by the absence of qualities or characteristics of the other side afford(s) one side normality and relegate(s) the other to a deviant, oppositional other” (p. 146). Back to the top

Self Awareness and Reflexivity There are multiple understandings of self awareness within the social work literature (Kondrat, 1999; Miehls and Moffatt, 2000; Schon, 1983; Sheppard, Newstead, Di Caccauo & Ryan, 2000; Taylor and White, 2001). At a very basic level, self awareness means being able to listen and fully attend to social interactions. At a slightly more complex level, self awareness entails an examination of one’s own values and prejudices to see how they may be affecting one’s work. Moving the process even further, a reflective self awareness asks workers to consider how there social location or identity influences who they are an how they relate to clients. Finally, a stance of critical reflexivity prompts workers to ask how their actions may be reproducing or desconstructing structures of oppression and domination (Kondrat, 1999). Sheppard et al (1998) provide a description of such critical reflexivity in practice: The reflective practitioner, in practical terms, is one who is aware of the socially situated relationship with their client(s) i.e. with a clear understanding of their role and purpose; who understands themselves as a participant whose actions and interactions are part of the social work process; who is capable of analyzing situations and evidence, with an awareness of the way their own participation effects this process; who is able to identify the intellectual and practice processes involved in assessment and intervention; who is able to do so in relation to the nature and purpose of their practice ( p. 767). Back to the top

Action Awareness and analysis are necessary, but not sufficient, components of anti-oppressive theory and practice. Action directed towards change is also essential. Whether referred to as practice guidelines, objectives, or strategies, suggestions for action are consistent with social justice theory. Coates (1993) describes five practice guidelines: (a) maximize supports from the client’s environment, (b) help people reflect on their personal/political situation and develop their own plan of action, (c) maintain accountability to the client, (d) help modify existing structures and/or build support systems/counter systems, and (e) promote the development of personal skills that increase peoples’ ability to deal with their environment. Moreau (1993) delineates five practice objectives: (a) materialization, (b) collectivization, (c) defense, (d) increasing the client’s power in the worker client relationship, and (e) increasing the client’s power via personal change. Carniol (2000) identifies five strategies: (a) reconstructed social work counseling, (b) alternative social services, (c) social action groups, (d) working with unions, and (e) coalition and social change movements. Although expressing themselves differently, all of these authors direct social workers to take action to promote both personal and structural change to improve the lives of clients. It is understood that actions may be limited by the political and social context of services and that strategies for taking effective action within such contexts must be developed (Fook, 2002). Back to the top