Social Workers' Use of The Language of Social Justice
Social Workers' Use of The Language of Social Justice
Social Workers' Use of The Language of Social Justice
Correspondence to Dr Martin Ryan, Department of Social Work and Social Policy, Faculty of Health
Sciences, La Trobe University, Victoria, 3086 Australia. E-mail: [email protected]
Summary
This paper examines the use of social justice terminology by a number of beginning
and experienced social workers. Transcripts of interviews about social workers’ practice
from another of the authors’ studies (a qualitative study of social work knowledge and
skill development) are analysed for use of terminology consistent with social justice
ideals, and for other predominant themes. Findings indicate that social justice terms
are little used, even when discussing practice scenarios which might clearly suggest
issues of social justice. A significant proportion of workers’ language demonstrates an
awareness of social environmental factors, but a predominant language usage implies
approaches which could be seen as inconsistent with social justice individualistic focus
on the analysis of practice scenarios, and what we have termed a ‘professional’, that
is, ambivalent orientation towards social action. Implications of the study include the
need to question and/or reaffirm the social justice basis of social work, particularly
through the construction and use of relevant language to frame our practice.
describe our research study. The remainder of the paper consists of an analysis and
discussion of the participants’ use of language.
language does not fit with the theory we intend to enact, we may produce unwanted
outcomes.
More recent trends in social science thinking develop this theme by paying
increasing attention to the ways in which our use of language actually creates the
ways in which we see and understand our world (Hartman, 1991). Postman (1992)
casts language as a powerful ‘ideological instrument’ in that it carries our barely
conscious assumptions which shape and give coherence to our world. Not only does
it determine what is named and how, but it denotes structures and power relations
through assignation of subject/object status, activity and passivity (p. 123).
Post-structural theorists have developed these ideas in more detail, arguing that
we construct our reality by the way in which we talk, or ‘discourse’ about it (see,
for example, Rojek et al., 1988). Deriving their work from theorists such as Fou-
cault, attention has thus become focused on the power of discourses to shape ‘real-
ity’. Questions of which discourses are dominant, whose discourses they are, and
what power interests are maintained by these discourses (Weedon, 1987) are thereby
central to the debates about social work’s role in society, and about its ability to
fulfil its mission.
Feminist post-structural theorists have also drawn attention to the way in which
language supports and creates gender imbalances. In particular, the tendency to cat-
egorise terms into pairs (‘binaries’—’male’ and ‘female’) which are opposed
(‘oppositional’) results in a tendency to ‘privilege’ one item (usually the ‘male’) in
the binary pair above the other (usually the ‘female’) (Berlin, 1990; Sands and
Nuccio, 1992). Feminists also argue that there are often suppressed or marginal
perspectives (often the female) which are not heard or given prominence in many
accounts of discourses. In this way, a dominant perspective (usually patriarchal) may
come to be regarded as the only perspective, and thus a view of ‘reality’ is created
which appears to be universally accepted and applicable.
Therefore, being aware of the terminology we choose, and the way in which we
use it can be critical in determining whose view of ‘reality’ we are accepting, what
power relations we wish to reinforce, the sort of world view we wish to adopt, and
in identifying the type of social work we wish to create. Do we wish social work to
be about furthering social justice, and if so, do we use a discourse which is compat-
ible with the ideals of social justice?
Critics of social work, and of a post-structural perspective, might argue that we
already know that social work practice inhibits social justice. Whilst we would not
accept such a statement as conclusively proven, we do wish to examine the more
modest claim that the ways in which we talk about social work might be incom-
patible with social justice ideals. There may, of course, be more direct ways to
ascertain the political dimensions of practice, yet our experience, and much literat-
ure, suggests that the gap between our actual practice and the terms in which it is
described is a fruitful area of enquiry. We wish therefore, in this paper, to examine
the simple question of whether the language we use matches what we say we do—
do our terms fit our ideals—in the hope that some more specific identification of the
practice of social injustice in social work may set us on a clearer path to furthering
the ideals we espouse.
4 Linette Hawkins, Jan Fook and Martin Ryan
Longitudinal study
1. Stage one 2 vignettes ‘marriage problem’ (Involving generational, inter-cultural
and professional issues. The woman appears depressed and
is worried about the possibility of her mother-in-law
coming to live in her household. There is no apparent viol-
ence involved.)
‘shoplifting’ (A 12-year old girl is caught shoplifting, and
after which other concerns emerge regarding her mother’s
work and living arrangements, and whether her mother
wishes the girl to remain living with her).
2. Stage four 1 vignette ‘racism’ (Involving a series of racist incidents, and com-
plaints of racism by students undergoing counselling, on a
university campus.)
1 critical incident Chosen from the participant’s experience of the social
work course.
3. Stage six 1 vignette ‘mens’ group’ (Involving inter-personal and potentially
political conflicts within a group for men dealing with
issues of maintenance and custody of children.)
1 critical incident Chosen from the participant’s field placement experience.
4. Stage nine 2 vignettes (Identical to stage one.)
Expert Study
2 vignettes (Identical to stages one and nine of the longitudinal study.)
1 critical incident Chosen from their work experience.
Given that there are varying definitions of ‘social justice’, and that we could in no
way conclusively determine exactly what each speaker meant when using particular
terminology, we decided, for the purposes of the study, to trace which terms, which
might be commonly associated with a ‘social justice’ framework, would suffice. It
should be noted that this latter need not be seen in opposition to other frameworks,
merely as a different type of discourse. We believed it was reasonable to assume
that certain words and phrases are associated with certain frameworks, as any study
of differing theoretical perspectives will show, and that usage of certain terms, espe-
cially if forming a pattern, might indicate familiarity, and perhaps adherence to, a
particular theoretical persuasion.
To develop a list of terms which might be said to be compatible with a ‘social
justice’ framework, we conducted a search of social work and related literature
which espoused social justice principles, in that the actual term ‘social justice’ was
used in some privileged way (for example, in the title, or stated as a guiding principle
of the document) (Benn, 1991; Saleebey, 1991; Tesoriero and Verity, 1993; Rose-
6 Linette Hawkins, Jan Fook and Martin Ryan
rights/duties/obligations
equity/equality
access
participation
contracts
social change/activism
empowerment
advocacy
disadvantaged
oppression
social critique/critical consciousness
community development/organisation/social development
politics
co-operation/co-ordination
feminist
action-based
policy
critique
disciminatory
Miller, 1994). A paper by Reeser and Leighninger (1990) about the establishment
of a social justice curriculum was particularly helpful in identifying these terms. We
also surveyed the recently released Australian Association of Social Workers
(AASW) Competency Standards document, the AASW Code of Ethics, and course
information leaflets from several social work and community development courses
for usage of the term ‘social justice’ and concomitant terminology. Identified terms
included those which implied the recognition of power injustices and the need to
change these. Table 2 lists these terms.
We were aware that it is often assumed that ‘structural’, ‘radical’ or ‘feminist’
approaches to social work are congruent with a social justice framework, but we did
not include terms like these unless they were explicitly used in the documents them-
selves. We also refrained from including other terms which we assumed might be
seen as synonymous with ‘social justice’ unless they were used within the actual
documents themselves.
Our analysis suggests that, in speaking about a range of practice situations, the social
workers we surveyed used very little social justice terminology. Not only do social
workers use few social justice terms, but it also appears that few social workers use
social justice terminology. Of our thirty experienced social workers, only two used
more than two social justice terms, and eighteen used no social justice words at all.
Of the people involved in our longitudinal study, social justice terms were used only
three times by two students in stage one. Although, by stage nine, usage had
The Language of Social Justice 7
increased to over twenty instances by eight students, only two of these people used
more than one social justice term. In general terms it seems that usage is more likely
to be by a small number of participants who use multiple terms, rather than a larger
number of participants using a small number of terms each. In this sense, it appears
that not only is social justice terminology used sparingly by any workers, it is used
by a minority of workers. We reached the conclusion that the use of social justice
language in social work is not widespread.
The extent of usage of social justice terminology also appears related to the type
of work or situation about which the worker is talking. For instance, usage of social
justice terminology markedly increased when responding to the vignettes at stages
four and six, the ‘racism’ and ‘mens’ group’ situations. The ‘racist’ vignette involves
a social worker employed in a student services position in a large university. Part of
her/his job is to assist students from non-English speaking backgrounds. Several
students being counselled by the worker complain of racist remarks from fellow
college residents, and imply that academic staff are also involved. College tutors are
also concerned about racist feelings on campus, as is the head of one of the colleges.
Racist graffiti has appeared on campus.
The ‘mens’ group’ vignette involves a community health social worker running
a group for men dealing with issues of child maintenance and custody. Conflict
arises between two group members about the affiliation and aims of the group, and
there are personal concerns about some of the members, one of whom appears
particularly hostile to female professionals.
It could be suggested that these types of scenarios more readily imply the use of
a social justice framework, since they involve situations where collective concerns
and explicit power relations are perhaps more readily evident. Our findings confirm
that there was markedly more social justice terminology used regarding these situ-
ations. Sixteen people used social justice terminology in talking about the racism
vignette, and fourteen people similarly with the mens’ group scenario.
However, an interesting finding is that, even though these situations might logic-
ally suggest the use of a social justice framework, closer analysis reveals that other
frameworks successfully compete. With the racism vignette, eight students did not
use any social justice terminology at all, and eighteen (60 per cent) used only one
social justice term or less. The dominant discourse appeared to imply a more clinical
or therapeutic, more individually-oriented stance than the social justice terms denote.
Twenty-two students used terms commonly associated with these less ‘social justice’
oriented approaches, and, of these twenty-two, all but eight used such terms more
than once. For example, the word ‘support’ was used twelve times, while ‘clarify’,
‘counselling’, ‘attitude change’ and ‘meeting’ were used seven times each. ‘Systems’
and ‘interview’ were also commonly used. This contrasts with the most used social
justice terms—‘discrimination/discriminatory’ (six times) and ‘policy’ (seven times).
With the mens’ group vignette, usage of terms implying a less politically-oriented
stance, were those which focused on the inter-personal level, rather than broader
structural conflict. They included (with instances of use in brackets): ‘mediate’ (6),
‘assessment’ (5), ‘problem’ (3), ‘counselling’, ‘monitoring’, ‘conflict resolution’,
therapeutic/ therapy’ and confronting’ (twice each). These predominated over social
8 Linette Hawkins, Jan Fook and Martin Ryan
justice terminology such as ‘lobbying’ (4), ‘dis/empowering’ (3), ‘politics’ (3), ‘par-
ticipating/participants’ (2), ‘advocate’ (1) and ‘socio-economic’ (1)). These findings
suggest that, even in situations where a social justice perspective might be expected
most appropriately to apply, social workers still tend to use the terminology of other
frameworks which are more likely to imply a treatment-oriented, and a power
‘denial’ type of stance.
When those interviewed talked about other types of scenarios, notably the critical
practice incidents they themselves chose, the usage of social justice terminology
dropped significantly. For example, when describing critical incidents from their
experience of social work study, only two participants used social justice termino-
logy (‘rights’ ‘powerless’, ‘community work’), and another two used related ter-
minology (‘radical’, ‘questioning status quo’). At stage six of the longitudinal study,
only two people speak about ‘advocacy’, and at stage nine, two.
If social justice terminology was generally little used, what type of language did
predominate? Although experienced social workers spoke little in social justice
terms, a considerable number of them (about one third) used terms which reflected
an awareness of the influence of environmental factors, such as ‘context’, ‘socio-
economic’, ‘systems’.
However, it appears that, overall, the language of experienced workers implies
an individualistic as opposed to a broader structural focus. The term ‘individual/
individuality/individuation’ is used by six workers, along with ‘counselling’ (6),
‘perceptions’ (6), ‘family therapy’ (5), ‘family dynamics’ (5), and ‘isolation’ (5),
then, in descending order, ‘in/dependence’ (4) and ‘family pathology’ (3). Other
common terms (‘assessment’ (7), ‘resources’ (4), ‘strategies’ (5), ‘negotiate’ (4),
‘options’ (3), ‘short/long term’ (3)) might be said to be more indicative of traditional
The Language of Social Justice 9
professional social work jargon, whereas others ‘crises’ (4) could indicate a particu-
lar theoretical framework, like crisis intervention. Other more commonly used terms
(2–3 times) include ‘relationship/s’, ‘explore/exploratory’, ‘problem’, ‘professional’,
‘involvement’, ‘feelings’, ‘establishing’, ‘confidentiality’, ‘demanding’, ‘interven-
tion’, ‘support/ing’, ‘authority’, ‘interaction’. Again, many of these terms appear to
be related to a focus either on more individualistic orientations, or on traditional
professional processes. Some of the terms above like ‘options’, ‘strategies’, ‘short/
long term’ could also be seen as part of the language of managerialism (Rees, 1995;
Hough, 1999).
Overall, it was difficult to identify a particular theoretical framework underlying
the language used. Workers tended to use a range of mixed terminologies related to
their theoretical frameworks. This finding is somewhat supported by Diane Zulfa-
car’s study (1991), in which 286 workers used 67 different terms to describe the
theoretical perspectives, models or value orientations they used, many of them stat-
ing that they used a number of perspectives or worked from an eclectic approach.
Broadly speaking however, by comparing the language used with the terms Payne
identifies in connection with some of the major available methods (1991), approxim-
ately one third used a clinical/therapy/family therapy approach, three applied a sys-
tems framework, three an eclectic approach (stated as such by the participant), two
implied legalistic/statutory control, five appeared to take a social justice and/or fem-
inist/structural perspective and the remainder were mixed. The difficulty in identify-
ing the use of theoretical perspectives by the experienced workers in the study might
have been compounded by their tendency to use terms which reflected the context
of their work environment rather than their own ideas.
Words commonly used by participants at stage nine of the interviewing were
‘mediation’, ‘counselling’, ‘inadequacy’, ‘problems’, ‘relationship’, ‘case’, self-
esteem’, ‘perspective’, ‘dynamics’, ‘therapy’, ‘assessment’ and ‘feminist’. Again, as
with the experienced workers, this list seems to indicate a predominance of individu-
alized and ‘medical model’ language implying a professional ‘problem’ orientation.
These themes are echoed in an overview of language used in stages one, four and
six. In stage one, students spoke about ‘talking to’, ‘finding solutions’, ‘deciding
actions’, ‘getting (them) to’. In stage four, they spoke about ‘interviewing’, ‘finding
solutions’, ‘putting up a package’, and ‘intervening’, and, in stage six, the common
language was about ‘monitoring’, ‘supporting status quo’, and ‘maintenance/auto-
nomy’, which may imply a more managerial stance.
Another dominating theme from a close analysis of responses to the racism vign-
ette, was that which we have labelled a ‘scientific inquiry’ perspective—students
spoke about the need to ‘find evidence’, ‘define the problem’, ‘clarify’ (both their
role and the problem—mentioned seven times altogether, search out the ‘underlying
problem’ or ‘get to the bottom of the problem’ (five times), conduct a ‘needs assess-
ment’ (four times), devise ‘strategies’ and ‘intervene’. Another theme which ran
parallel to this in the language used was the assumed importance, raised seven times,
of ascertaining whether the racist claims were ‘real’. One student referred to feeling
compelled to discover whether the NESB (Non English Speaking Background) stu-
dents’ complaints were ‘feelings or ‘pseudo-feelings’. This recurrent theme, echoed
10 Linette Hawkins, Jan Fook and Martin Ryan
in the concern (raised three times) about remaining objectives or having difficulties
with value conflicts, drew attention to some of the assumptions social work students
seemed to be making about the importance of ‘objective reality’, and the related
tendency to either deny the racism, minimize the potential conflict, or ‘blame the
victims’. Related to this point was the fact that twelve students mentioned the desire
to identify the ‘effects of the racism on the students’ (implying the paramount
importance of the micro-perspective), usually as part and parcel of deciding whether
or not action was required to be taken themselves as the social worker. In relation
to this, ‘clarifying’ the situation was related to ‘clarifying’ the social worker’s role,
in relation to whether or not they should take action against the racism.
Detailed analysis of responses to the racism vignette also revealed a ‘bureau-
cratic’ theme. Quite a number of students mentioned the need to investigate or
develop organization ‘policy’ (seven times), invoke ‘procedures’ (twice), call ‘meet-
ings’ as opposed to ‘interviews’ (seven times), and investigate the ‘law/legal’ posi-
tion.
preclude the use of other, perhaps incongruent, perspectives, by the same person.
The use of terms which indicate a detached professional and ‘scientific inquiry’ type
of perspective is a case in point, in that this is often combined with the use of terms
which also indicate a wish to equalize power in a social justice perspective. Quite
clearly, this again bears out the ‘old news’: that is, the apparent contradictions
between ‘espoused theory’ and ‘theory in action’ (Argyris and Schon, 1974).
Another question which needs to be addressed is that of how much social justice
terminology it is reasonable to expect workers to use in talking about their work. Is
it reasonable to expect workers to use the language of social justice if this is not
reflected in the literature used in their education, or in official documentation?
Although social justice is espoused by social work organizations (Australian Associ-
ation of Social Workers, 1999), in social work writing (e.g. Statham, 1978; Jordan,
1990; Rees, 1991; Ife, 1997; Leonard, 1997) and in social work documentation,
how much social justice language is actually officially used? This question warrants
separate and further investigation. It would be interesting to conduct, for example,
a study of job advertisements, course outlines, textbooks and professional association
codes of ethics to see how practice is framed, and whether ‘social justice’ ways of
talking about our practice predominate, or whether they appear as marginal.
Another important question is the extent to which practitioners’ experiences and
work contexts influence their use of social justice terminology. It should be noted
that the majority of experienced workers were in settings and roles which might be
said to be more ‘traditional’ (direct service, child and family welfare, and manage-
ment roles) and perhaps less inclined to encourage social justice perspectives. In the
case of the students, this becomes a slightly more complex question, since their
course handbooks explicitly claimed that the course was based on social justice
principles. However it might have been that these principles were espoused in over-
arching philosophies, but not in particular subjects.
What are the implications for social work? If we want the profession of social
work to pursue a social justice mission, which our official and espoused position
suggests, then we need to take steps to ensure that the way we frame and conceptual-
ize our practice is congruent with, and furthers, social justice principles. It appears
that we rarely use social justice terminology to talk about our work. It is in our
official documents, but has not made its way into the everyday way in which we
conceptualize and speak about what we do. Perhaps we need to examine our current
language, to consciously use social justice terminology where appropriate, or to coin
new ‘socially just’ terms to suit our purposes.
References
Australian Association of Social Workers (1999) Code of Ethics, Hawker, ACT, Australia,
Australian Association of Social Workers.
Benn, C. (1991) ‘Social work, social policy and social work’, Australian Social Work, 44(4),
pp. 33–7.
Berlin, S. (1990) ‘Dichotomous and complex thinking’, Social Service Review, 64(1), pp.
46–59.
Fook, J., Ryan, M. and Hawkins, L. (1996) ‘Expert social work: an exploratory study’, Canad-
ian Social Work Review, 13(1), pp. 7–22.
Fook, J., Ryan, M. and Hawkins, L. (2000) Professional Expertise: Practice, theory and
education for working in uncertainty, London, Whiting and Birch.
Fromkin, V., Rodman, R., Collins, P. and Blair, D. (1996) An Introduction to Language, 3rd
edn, Sydney, Harcourt Brace.
Furlong, M. (1990) ‘On being able to say what we mean: the language of hierarchy in social
work practice’, British Journal of Social Work, 20, pp. 575–90.
Hartman, A. (1991) ‘Words create worlds’, Social Work, 36(4), pp. 275–6.
Hough, G. (1999) ‘The organisation of social work in the customer culture’, in Pease, B. and
Fook, J. (eds.), Transforming Social Work Practice: Postmodern Critical Perspectives,
North Sydney, Allen and Unwin.
Ife, J. (1997) Rethinking Social Work: Towards Critical Practice, South Melbourne, Longman
Cheshire.
Illich, I. (1977) The Disabling Professions, London, Marion Boyars.
Jordan, B. (1990) Social Work in an Unjust Society, Hemel Hempstead, Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Kellehear, A. (1993) The Unobtrusive Researcher, Sydney, Allen and Unwin.
Leonard, P. (1997) Postmodern Welfare: Reconstructing an Emanicipatory Project, London,
Sage.
Payne, M. (1991) Modern Social Work Theory, Basingstoke, Macmillan.
Postman, N. (1992) Technopoly, New York,Vintage.
Rees, S. (1991) Achieving Power, Sydney, Allen and Unwin.
Rees, S. (1995) ‘The fraud and the fiction’, in Rees, S. and Rodley, G. (eds.), The Human
Costs of Managerialism: Advocating the Recovery of Humanity, Sydney, Pluto Press.
Reeser, L. C. and Leighninger, L. (1990) ‘Back to our roots towards a specialisation in social
justice’, Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 17(2), pp. 69–87.
Rojek, C., Peacock, G. and Collins, S. (1988) Social Work and Received Ideas, London,
Routledge.
Rose-Miller, M. (1994 ) ‘Evaluation, social justice and social work’, Australian Social Work,
47(4), pp. 21–6.
Ryan, M., Fook, J. and Hawkins, L. (1995) ‘From beginner to graduate social worker: Prelim-
inary findings from an Australian longitudinal study’, British Journal of Social Work, 25,
pp. 17–35.
Saleebey, D. (1991) ‘Philosophical disputes in social work: social justice denied’, Journal of
Sociology and Social Welfare, 17(2), pp. 29–40.
Sands, R. and Nuccio, K. (1992) ‘Postmodern feminist theory and social work’, Social Work,
37(6), pp. 489–94.
Statham, D. (1978) Radicals in Social Work, London, Routledge Kegan and Paul.
Tesoriero, F. and Verity, F. (1993) ‘Towards citizen control and social justice in a disadvant-
aged community’, Australian Social Work, 46(1), pp. 37–45.
Throssell, H. (1975) Social Work: Radical Essays, St. Lucia, Queensland, Australia, University
of Queensland Press.
Vinson, T. (1986) ‘The obscure language of welfare’, Advances in Social Work Education,
Kensington, New South Wales, Australia, Heads of Schools of Social Work in Australia.
Weedon, C. (1987) Feminist Practice and Poststructuralist Theory, London, Basil Blackwell.
The Language of Social Justice 13
Zulfacar, D. (1991) ‘Avenues for growth: developing professionalism and diversity in direct
practice’, Advances in Social Welfare Education, Clayton, Victoria, Australia, Australian
Association of Social Work and Welfare Education and Heads of Schools of Social Work
in Australia, Monash University.
Acknowledgement
The authors wish to acknowledge funding assistance from the Australian Research
Council in support of this research.