by Professor Vishanthie Sewpaul (PhD)
Emancipatory Social Work Theory and Practice has various roots in what has been called Conflict Theory; Critical Theory; Feminist Social Work Theory and Practice; Anti-Oppressive Theory and Practice; Anti-Racist Social Work; Structural Social Work Theory; Radical Social Work and Liberation Theology.
It must be noted that even within these categories there might be a broad range of leanings and dissenting views. For example, feminist theory has sub-divided into African feminism; Black feminism; Liberal feminism; Socialist feminism; Developmental feminism; Radical feminism; Lesbian feminism; Psychoanalytic feminism; and Cultural feminism.
As social scientists we fragment at our own peril! Liberation theology might take overt religious standpoints, such as Islamic Social Work; Buddhist Social Work or Christian Social Work, or be underscored by more unifying spiritual dimensions that address core values and principles, that are aligned with those of social work. Religions have the potential to oppress or to liberate; it is the liberation potential that emancipatory approaches embrace. What the various roots of emancipatory social work have in common is understanding the structural dimensions of life and power dynamics based on intersecting social criteria, and understanding and undoing oppression and/or privilege.
Emancipatory social work embraces these roots, but moves beyond them to focus on liberation from the constrains of one’s own thinking, recognizing the inter-connectedness between individual consciousness and societal consciousness, and the importance of transforming both individual and societal consciousness, directed towards deliberative, collective emancipatory action. Central to emancipatory social work is the politicization and awakening of the self, and the development of action strategies that such awakening provides the potential for.
Conventional social work, even with its more critical roots tends to focus on issues, problems and concerns of the people who social workers engage with. While not eschewing the importance of understanding, and heightening the consciousness of people who we engage with, and adopting participatory methodologies to engage people as active agents, emancipatory social work turns the spotlight on us, as professionals. The focus is on how the constraints of our own thinking, and the worldviews that we hold might influence our conceptualization of people, their life challenges, the methods and strategies that we choose to use, and the goals that we aspire towards.
At the heart of emancipatory social work is understanding the multiple sources of oppression and/or privilege and working towards more just societies.
“Thy human right is for activity only, never for the resultant fruit of actions … neither allow thyself attachment to inactivity” (in Sri Paramahansa Yogananda, 1999 p. 281).
We have control only over actions in the current moment, not over the outcomes, yet we are often preoccupied with fears born out of past experiences or anxieties about the unknown future. The lesson is that if we dedicate ourselves 100%, unconditionally to the task/action at hand, the consequences will take care of themselves. For example, if a student commits himself or herself totally to the task of studying for an examination, rather than ruminate about the past or live in the future by trying to predict the content and outcomes of the examination, the desired results will be achieved. The overarching focus in Asian worldviews and practices is on mindfulness: living in the present; understanding the nature of the self and the universe, and their inter-relationships; and the non-permanence of all phenomena. The enlightenment derived from the understanding of the latter enables one to approach pleasure and pain; praise and criticism, and life’s sufferings with equanimity. If some of these worldviews and practices are infused into social work on a global level, they can contribute to a more enhanced profession.
The GSWSEP speaks of liberation from the entrapments of our own thinking. The GSWSEP, which applies to teaching, research and practice contexts, has specific principles related to this with 4.7 and 4.8 reading as:
Social workers recognize that dominant socio-political and cultural discourses and practices contribute to many taken-for-granted assumptions and entrapments of thinking, which manifest in the normalization and naturalization of a range of prejudices, oppressions, marginalizations, exploitation, violence and exclusions.
Social workers recognize that developing strategies to heighten critical consciousness that challenge and change taken-for-granted assumptions for ourselves and the people whom we engage with, forms the basis of everyday ethical, anti-oppressive practice.
As social workers, we are products and producers of our socio-political, economic and cultural worlds. The ideologies that we hold are reflected in, and reinforced by, dominant social systems such as the family, education, culture, religion, economics, politics and the media (Sewpaul, 2013). It is, therefore, critical that we become aware of cultural, political and capitalist ideological hegemony and appreciate how we can shift from being the “subjected being” to a free subject that is the “author of and responsible for its actions” (Althusser, 1971, p. 182). With the development of self-awareness and critical consciousness (Freire, 1973) there is a greater chance that social workers would use their voice and skills to contribute to socio-economic, political and cultural change and development.
The self must become the site of awakening and politicization, and this must begin in the classroom (Sewpaul, 2013; 2015). Emancipatory social work is directed at heightening awareness of external sources of oppression and/or privilege that hold the possibility of increasing people’s self-esteem, courage and conviction, so that they, themselves begin to confront structural sources of poverty, inequality, marginalization, oppression and exclusion (Sewpaul and Larsen, 2014). Rather than the conventional outward focus on understanding people who we work with, the GSWSEP emphasizes that, as social workers, we need to begin with ourselves. Without transformation of our consciousness, we are not going to be able to transform societal consciousness. The systems, structures, laws and policies “out there” that we often criticize, are representations of the collectivities of consciousness of all of us, particularly of those who occupy powerful positions. We must be courageous enough to examine our complicities in reproducing the prejudices and harms that we wish to repudiate. Educators must provide safe spaces in the classroom to facilitate such self-examination, using strategies such as reflexive writing and dialogue, experiential teaching and learning, the biographies of students, journaling, art, drama and real world lessons.
Written for a global audience, the 2014 Global Definition and the GSWSEP do not address any specific religious and/or spiritual leanings. Some might interpret the empowerment and liberation that is referred to in the Global Definition from a pragmatic, secular point of view only, while others might combine this with understandings of liberation theologies.
The pedagogical and practice implications of principles 4.7 and 4.8 will be contextually interpreted and applied, as social work educators, researchers, practitioners and students adopt strategies that challenge and change ideological control of consciousness that are usually at the heart of prejudices, discriminations, oppressions, poverty and inequality based in inter-sectional social criteria such as race, caste, gender, class, sexuality, religion, language and geographic location (Sewpaul, 2013; Sewpaul and Larsen, 2014).
Buddha did this 2500 years ago: as he challenged the nobility and the religious and political elite to understand, and undo the structural sources of discriminations and injustices – based on social position and caste, and to some degree gender, and to use non-violence, loving kindness, care and compassion to bring about a more just and equal world (Nhat Hanh, 2018), thus highlighting the inextricable relationship between the personal and the political (Sewpaul, 2015).
