Anti-oppressive Practice: Why Bother?

Social work has always been a contested concept. From the late nineteenth century when casework was seen as a method for working with applicants for charity, some organizations were keen to disassociate casework from moral welfare whilst other organizations tended to emphasize their work on what might be described as saving souls. Social casework became a scientifically rational account of how to help the poor. This scientifically rational account of 'helping' persisted in accounts of social work until the latter part of the twentieth century. The use of the notions of help and the helping process were central to social work discourse until service users and researchers challenged whether social work does in fact help. In the face of a crisis about the legitimacy of social work commentators 1 highlighted concern that social work in particular, and social welfare policy in general, was reflecting a move towards managerialism, technicism and anti-intellectualism. Any attempt to address difficulties inherent within conceptualizations of social work in the early twenty first century is therefore faced with the added dimensions of having to either justifY or effectively deal with problems brought about through managerial ism, technicisim and anti-intellectualism. This chapter takes as its starting point Lena Dominelli's (1997) claim that anti-oppressive practice is the new practice paradigm of social care work. It is questioned whether anti­ oppressive practice is a technical, political or moral activity. The curriculum for social work education informs us that we should be anti-oppressive. Whilst it is not suggested in this chapter that we should be oppressive, it is argued that contrary to popular belief there is little evidence of moral theory in social work and substantial evidence of technicism. As such anti-oppressive practice looks more like a technical response to a problem posed by a drive for managerial efficiencies rather than a coherent and morally sustainable account of practice. It is questioned whether anti-oppressive practice could be a guiding principle for practice in an atmosphere of anti-intellectualism, technicism and managerialism.