This paper explores internalized oppression as a presenting problem in social work practice, analyzing how social workers can effectively address systemic and personal manifestations of oppression while maintaining ethical professional boundaries. The paper examines three interconnected domains: addressing oppression through an anti-oppressive lens, navigating ethical dilemmas and clinical decision-making, and working with systems to achieve social justice. Drawing on the NASW Code of Ethics and contemporary social work theory, the paper highlights the interpersonal and relational complexities practitioners face when empowering marginalized clients while managing power differentials, dual relationships, and competing professional obligations.
The domain in which social workers practice and the outcomes achieved therein are based essentially on the relationships forged and nurtured, irrespective of any theoretical methodology being followed. Social workers often face queries on ethical and moral grounds, specifically when confronted with power transactions that pervade within communities and that often contrast with their own professional ethics. Mullaly (2002) explains this predicament clearly: oppression "is the subservience practiced on large groups by more powerful (economically, politically, culturally and socially) classes as perceived by the public in general" (p. 27). Work in the domain of emancipation of the oppressed class requires an understanding of the cause and effect of oppression's manifestation on both the societal and personal psyche. The philosophy of oppression and consequent oppression mostly revolve around feminism, radicalism, racism, and structural and liberatory structures (Campbell, 2003). Professionals in the social work domain hold power by way of their knowledge, status, and training; however, this power is not necessarily oppressive.
Professionals in the social sector carry a special viewpoint when approaching work in relation to people, families, communities, or societies. Through our practices, we utilize our insight to influence change—individually and in the immediate system—by making people aware of their capacity to create change and to lessen, avert, and eliminate abuse at societal and community levels. It is the skill of the social worker to achieve realistic balance in the domain they operate within, in the face of inevitable power differentials. As laid out in the Code of Ethics, social workers build proper limits with clients and ensure that clients benefit from the relationship they enter into (National Association of Social Workers, 1999).
Conscientious social workers draw on professional perspectives on morals, standards, practice techniques, and the personal environment. It exemplifies the profession's main goal: to advance social and economic equity by empowering underprivileged clients who are under duress owing to persecution or vulnerability. Social work requires the expert utilization of self to restore, maintain, and upgrade the organic, mental, social, and spiritual functioning of people, families, and groups. Social workers are generally mindful of and alert to various manifestations of oppressive forces and behaviors, such as marginalization, bias, ethnocentrism, ostracization, and abuse. Many professionals in the social work domain perceive their role as tending to these or other relevant issues. As a calling, social work has customarily been looked to for authority and support in adjusting and altering the conditions that obstruct human potential and dignity (Goldstein, 2010).
Sustainable and inclusive social development will be the most effective way to foster change. To begin with, this is a common hurdle for the social worker that seeks their attention. The new challenge for the profession is to handle subtler manifestations of prejudice that are less blatant than subjugation or isolation. To a greater degree, the social customs and values that are imbued in the helping professionals' structure often block dynamic advancement and awareness of the sorts of prejudice that are more apparent and pervasive (National Association of Social Workers, 1999). On the other hand, social work professionals and their organizations can apply designed methodologies to charter course corrections at the personnel, organizational, social, and community levels. The particular undertakings are subject to criteria for intervention and the specific conditions governing that element (Goldstein, 2010).
The practices in which social work is employed, constituted, and assessed are largely influenced by contemporary thoughts and methodologies of both "risk" and "power," which are both dynamic and significant in the social work domain. It is perceived as a manifestation of action which occupies an uncertain and indeterminate position at the interface between the individual and society, and between the marginalized and the mainstream. Expanding on this, "power" imprints social work thoughts and practices in various different ways, connecting and spanning individual, positional, and social spaces (Smith, 2010).
Social workers bear four basic obligations: to society, to the profession, to clients, and to self. Social workers need to identify themselves with the profession. In recent years, social workers have revitalized their attitudes about ethical values. Most of those practicing in social work were not taught about moral limits, practices, and dilemmas during their academic training, though this gap is being addressed in continuing education programs. Today's social work students and practicing social workers are taught the best structures to help with difficult decisions and to identify moral and ethical dilemmas. Consequent to changes across state laws and the requirements of healthcare social workers, NASW has established applicable standards of practice across all fields and domains. These standards are expected to be realized and adhered to by all healthcare social workers (NASW, 1999).
The background for some moral questions of healthcare workers is the fact that we depend on income for our professional goals, and to some degree, for our emotional, spiritual, and mental wellbeing, owing to the inconveniences and agonies being faced by other individuals. This is valid also in other professions, such as medicine and law, and it raises the same essential moral and ethical issues for all such professional groups: conflict between the interests of patients or clients pitted against self-interest. These correspondences obligate fiduciary commitments (Kutchins, 1991) in which specific strictures are important to secure clients from exploitation mentally, economically, physically, or from legal misery. A number of the strictures in the moral and ethical codes address these specific issues in respective professions (Freud & Krug, 2002).
Complexities of Ethical Decision Making in Social Work Practice: Moral issues emerge irrespective of practitioners' work situations and capabilities, the settings in which they work, or the populations they serve (NASW, 1999). The Code addresses six distinctive segments: social workers' moral obligation to clients, to colleagues, as experts, to the social work profession, to employers, and to society. It is not clear why such an association was chosen, as these areas overlap invariably and do not correspond clearly to the natural courses in which we experience ethical and moral questions. It requires a procrustean push to find the relevance of particular moral issues to those found in the Code's moral models. Alternatively, a more helpful structuring would have been one around the significant clashes experienced in social work domains, such as issues of limits and boundaries and those of self-interest.
Guidelines of the Code of Ethics (NASW, 1999) contain numerous prescriptive articulations expected of a conscientious social worker. Certain provisions are strictly prohibited—for example, "giving or appropriating considerations in exchange for a referral" (section 2.06). Others, such as the prohibition against bartering, recognize circumstances in which such a prohibition may be crossed. We view it as a quality of the code that, in this uncertain world, most remedies are not rigid and allow for deliberation. Some norms are useful, related to legal commitments and requisites such as protecting the limits of confidentiality; while others are generally exhortative. The Code refers to its norms as either "enforceable" or "aspirational" rules (Freud & Krug, 2002).
Though social work professionals are permitted to cease offering help to clients who renege upon agreed financial considerations, they are also required "to make an effort to abstain from forsaking clients who are still in need of services" (Freud & Krug, 2002). In different areas, the Code's solutions only urge evident measures of practicality. Social work professionals work with undocumented immigrants and do not impugn them. Social workers have historically overlooked situations in which an Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) mother supplemented her small benefits through informal work (Freud & Krug, 2002).
The therapeutic encounter includes moral decisions by its very act; the ethical qualities governing this practice have been portrayed as those identified with compassion, empathy, and regard for human dignity, honor, and respect. It is a given that healthcare providers are mindful of their moral obligations to patients; however, it is also known that the structure of the workplace can restrict practitioners' capacity to assiduously follow those obligations. With respect to therapy, supervisors and officials have the same moral concerns as hands-on practitioners. Despite the broader structures set for moral obligations, there is evidence that sometimes therapists act on the fringes of moral consideration, contrary to therapy's sensitized values, and have transgressed the limits imposed by different imperatives to their moral decisions. Many choose to enter the field of social work to help other people develop and enhance their life circumstances. Yet when dealing with clients, such professionals must maintain clear limits to guarantee professional integrity and accountability (NASW, 1999).
Numerous experts enter the field of social work to help other people develop and enhance their life circumstances. Yet when working with clients, social workers must maintain clear limits to guarantee professional trustworthiness and accountability. Additionally, the clinical issues of managing overlapping relationships and the management of transference and countertransference are elements that cannot be overlooked. Professionals in child welfare regularly find themselves in dual responsibilities. According to the NASW Code of Ethics (1999), dual relationships occur "when social workers identify with clients in more than one relationship, whether professional, social, or business" (p. 9). Social workers must be knowledgeable and aware of the NASW Code of Ethics, which provides a complete and key blueprint of one's responsibilities in the profession and guidance in addressing the needs of those we serve. When dealing with clients, a significant skill that social workers must employ in encouraging client development or change is gaining their confidence, trust, and appreciation. This is fundamental to the client engagement methodology, which must be established in the early period of the relationship. For those in child welfare, this represents an extraordinary challenge, as there is an established right and legislative power to remove children from their own homes, while continuing to meet expectations with families to ensure improved functioning, adjustment, and/or family reunification. Unfortunately, experts in our field experience issues in the arena of client rapport-building many times. In order to address clients' needs, specialists may end up becoming closer to the client under the pretense of making a difference. Objections filed against social workers result in forced fines, penalties, licensure sanctions, suspension, or denial. In some cases, workers have even been jailed for wrongdoing such as infringement of confidentiality, misrepresentation in record-keeping, misconduct, and other violations (Freud & Krug, 2002). In child care and welfare, administrators must assume an influential and important role in demonstrating, instructing, and participating in deliberations with specialists on topical issues of client engagement, rapport-building, and affirmation of realistic limits in the worker-client relationship. Continuing education programs, training in child welfare, and social work schools also have an obligation in providing training and knowledge about management of relationships with clients and questions about prevalent moral issues (Freud & Krug, 2002).
As workers in the social sector, we have an obligation to address the issues of relationships with clients and moral and ethical limits. This discussion merits dialogue amongst professionals in other related fields and our peers. In current times that profess lengthy legal entanglements and constituent debates, it is a subject of considerable and crucial significance. The individual and corporate costs and liabilities connected with cases of exploitative practices have durable effects on those in the profession and on the individuals who are served. Fortunately, training in ethics for social workers is required by state licensure standards. This provides an opportunity to be aware of our moral commitments and limits in serving others in actual practice. Unlicensed workers are not absolved from the risk of liabilities in child welfare or other social work settings. Both public and private organizations generally have attributed essential principles, moral strategies, and guidance in order to assure structural and institutional safeguards that represent the extent of obligations of representatives while serving client groups or individuals. This is designed with the aim of keeping all away from troubles (Freud & Krug, 2002).
"Human rights, equity, and professional competence in clinical work"
"Community organizing, systemic change, and age-sensitive practice"
You’re 58% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.