Critical practice and its values

Critical practice does not necessarily encompass a different set of values and ethics than those prescribed in the ethical documents of social work. However, it highlights the importance of particular sets of values and leads social work to critically think about its ethical engagements (Dominelli, 2002). One of its most important characteristics is that critical practice places values and ethics in context to enable their meaningful implementation in everyday practice. Critical practice challenges individualization given it usually neglects that individuals are part of wider groups. In this sense, ethics such as self-determination can be perceived as an inappropriate

ethic when related to specific cultural contexts where individuals‟ problems are collectively sanctioned (Healy, 2007).

Another important characteristic of critical practice is that it appreciates the political nature of values. Therefore, understanding power relationships enables more empowering forms of practice, which is also one of the main targets for critical practice. However, empowering social works‟ clients can also be an ethical challenge for practitioners especially when clients can exercise their authority over the more vulnerable, (e.g. domestic violence cases) (Dominelli, 2002).

For Dominelli (2002) promoting social justice constitutes the key difference between traditional practitioners and critical ones. There is, however, an inherent ambiguity in the way that social justice can be defined. This is because there is a tension between collectivity, emphasized by social justice, and individuality which is emphasized by human rights. However, as Clark (2002) argues, human rights and social justice are not necessarily opposed as ultimately “justice can be defined precisely as the satisfaction of rights, and the satisfaction of rights as the necessary outcome of truly just social arrangements” (pp.39).

This tension is best addressed when individuals are understood as citizens (Clark, 2002).

Citizenship suggests that all individuals should be considered as equally entitled to rights and duties as supported, enmeshed and realised by society. It requires citizens to recognise each other as mutually obligated and equally responsible (Clark, 2002). However, citizenship does not end with formal legal provisions and duties. The identity of humans as citizens aims to abolish private relations of domination, and therefore support the functions needed for individual autonomy and prosperity. Furthermore, citizenship encourages real participation of all people in the decisions that govern their lives, which is actually one of the main components of social justice (Solas, 2008).

However, social work‟s identity has been commonly characterized as “ambiguous”, its role in the promotion of social justice questioned and its effectiveness lacking evidence. At the same time, there are others who argue that social work is a victim of an inhuman political and economical system, which systematically structures an unjust society to undermine human rights. Ironically, social work as a part of the political mechanism is obligated to contribute to this (Dominelli, 2002;

Banks, 2001; Clark, 2000). In addition, ethical dilemmas are compounded by legal, organizational

and practice requirements that further constrain the practitioners. Consequently, social control is an intrinsic part of the social work identity, and this is a paradox especially when social work is considered as an agent of social change (Rossiter, 2001).

Rossiter (2001) argues that it is not easy for social workers to be sure how their role supports or challenges social structures. She suggests that social workers should continuously try to recognize the ways in which they participate in the formation and the reproduction of oppression.

She argues that social workers should be critically examining their practice to evaluate its consequences by questioning whether social work has a place for “ethical innocence”. Although this questioning is genuinely ethical, its answer necessitates political awareness.

Similarly, Briskman (2001) challenges the ethical code of IFSW by arguing that this code does not help social workers to determine whether they must practise by pursuing the best possible “good”

or contrarily by pursuing the target of the least possible damage. In ethical terms, if social workers must pursue the best possible “good” then they must challenge social stability imposed by those who have the power. Acknowledging the division of society into powerful and powerless leads to the conclusion that structures are imposed by those who have the power to marginalize and oppress. If this is true, then social workers should ensure that these competitive social systems have a voice in the public domain, and engage in social activism to empower those who can bring about structural changes.

Critical theorists argue that social work values and ethics should be regarded only in conjunction with political theory and knowledge on social relationships in macro-social structures (Meagher and Parton, 2004). For example, the ethic of care challenges the image of the autonomous person who pursues or masters an independent life as opposed to interdependence. In addition, it provides a framework for challenging de-humanization of social services by recognizing the essential role of emotional commitment to the relationship between social workers and their clients. However, the ethic of care can also be used for the promotion of policies that encourages domiciliary care over services provided by the state (Kirkpatrick, 2006). Therefore, the ethical analysis of care possibly helps to understand micro level relationships and decisions, but from a critical perspective it does not explain the ethics of macro level practice.

Critical practice has also encompassed critical reflection as a transformative learning process that aims to prepare practitioners to challenge and change dominant power relations and structures (Morley, 2007). Reflective practice enables practitioners to improve their practice by understanding and learning to articulate the theories, the unquestioned values and norms that inform their practice. The combination of critical theories and reflection raises practitioners‟

awareness about the political dimensions and processes implied in the construction of knowledge. Moreover, the purpose of critical reflection is to analyze, resist and change constructed power relations, structures and ways of thinking (Osmond and Darlington, 2005).

Critical reflection is attuned with the commitment of critical social work practice to social change, social justice, and anti-oppressive practice as it enables practitioners to appreciate the political and social context of their clients‟ experiences. Moreover, it enables practitioners to gain insight into how their own values and beliefs may contribute to dominant power relations and therefore to the oppression of vulnerable people. This is highly important for social workers in terms of their ambiguous role (see also sections: 2.2, pp.29; 3.1.1, pp.76). In this respect, Morley (2007) argues that critical reflection minimizes the potentially unintentional contradictions between social workers‟ practice and their emancipatory intentions.

Conclusion

Political practice was always the neglected side of social work intervention (Gibelman, 1999;

Payne, 1999; Figueira- McDonough, 1993). It appears that this was reinforced by stereotypes in relation to what constitutes a scientific status and the image of a caring profession. Payne (1999) argues that science is believed to be a value-free activity. As such, social workers excluded themselves from the political discourse, staying artificially political neutral; to attain scientific status. Furthermore, Dudziak (2002) argues that humans are educated to believe that conflict is a negative value and should be avoided as it may detract from the image of a “caring” and

“positive” social worker. As Figueira-McDonough (1993) argues, even in countries where welfare policy is most advanced and social workers have gained considerable recognition as service deliverers, their presence at the level of policy development and program leadership is hardly recognized.

Nevertheless, social justice has always been a leading value for the social work profession. In response to this objective, social workers should be equipped to build a clear conception of

justice against which to compare the prevailing situation. However, ethical analysis alone is not adequate for progression towards social justice, its implementation requires a commitment to policy practice that includes policy analysis and social action.

Critical practice emerges as an important approach to social work as it also identifies the profession as promoting greater social equality and interventions beyond the personal level (Payne et.al., 2002). Furthermore, the critical analysis of social work ethics uncovers the ambiguities in social work due to a framework of structured inequalities and social injustice in which the profession operates (Rossiter, 2001). To this end, the contribution of critical reflection appears to be paramount.

Values associated with a critical social work practice can shape progressive action which is committed to understanding power, inequality, and the subjective experience of well-being. Macro political values associated with socio-economic understandings of social policy, such as redistribution of resources, is critical theory‟s contribution to the construction of the morally active practitioner. In this sense, ethical social work practice is about social workers becoming ethical activists. This means social workers actively challenging the structures that do not support human well-being (Bowles et.al., 2006).

Chapter 4