Heather
Horizon Greene
Portland,
OR
Justice
Centered Social Work
Though my
name for this work has evolved over the years, I’ve been a practitioner of
anti-oppressive social work for over 11 years.
These days, I most love the idea of justice centered social work,
choosing justice as the core of my work, rooting and centering my work in
justice.
Language was
actually the entry point for me into this work. While working at my BSW
internship, I listened uncomfortably as a co-intern, and then future social
worker, made rude, offensive and homophobic jokes about a gay staff member in
our agency. Listening to the student’s
cruel statements, I felt uncomfortable, offended, saddened, and yet struggled to
say out loud, as I hope I would today, “that makes me uncomfortable; please
stop.” Though there were many lessons
for me as I continued to process the experience, my takeaway was the beginning
of a journey that has continually pushed me to look at how we use language in
our healing practice and at the impact language can and does have in either
supporting or hindering the practice of justice.
Language is
a tool of our craft. How we talk (with
our peers and colleagues) and
write (in
our progress notes) about folks, in addition to how we talk with them,
can
powerfully transform and strengthen the overall intention of our work. It is
one tool, one way, to help us bring our practice into alignment with our
values. Paying careful attending to our use of language is one of many ways we
can, in fact, root our practice in an awareness of justice.
While
exchanging emails recently with a colleague, I had an opportunity to think a
bit more about what my practice of justice centered language looks like
today. Reprinted here with permission,
my colleague inquired:
What has been your experience of
integrating anti-oppressive language into your clinical work? Particularly with
paperwork and things that other people will read and see? I find myself daunted
to put such things forward when I think about having to explain or being
criticized by others. Which isn't to say I always back down about it, but I do
tend to censor myself more than I like.
My
response: A few thoughts. There are certainly some therapy modalities that are,
Some of those are narrative approach, strengths perspective, empowerment work,
consciousness raising, feminist theory, client-centered practice, and even more
evidence based practices like DBT. Those practices have a more natural
commitment to power sharing and each persyn (therapist and client) bringing
their own unique offering and starting place, rather than a value-based
hierarchy of some of the more traditional psychotherapy models. (And therefore
a more natural professional discourse that is more aligned with anti-oppressive
work). Even if we have a "radical" framework, I can think of a number
of times when I have thought someone would understand or relate to the language
of anti-oppression, though it turned out to be a barrier. I think we see that
in a lot of empowerment work, where folks don't often think about their life
experience in terms of oppression--though sometimes that is how we (have
learned to) understand it. So I think of these justice-rooted theories and
knowledge bases as informing how I practice and how I understand change--and
acknowledge the important of that--but I also have a commitment to
"meeting folks where they are" and honoring their self-wisdom and
intuitive expertise in their own healing process.
With paperwork, I think there are very practical and natural ways to talk about folks in ways that are persyn-centered, acknowledge people's strengths and resilience (and identities), are narrative based which reflects a commitment to deep listening (which is also radical and anti-oppressive), and which validates and normalizes, rather than pathologizes, people's lived experiences. To me this can read as intentional and mindful, rather than radical, and I think when you're able to bring presence and intentionality to charting, folks who read that will often notice the positive. It’s more sparkly because it is more in alignment with treating people with integrity and often more in alignment with our values in general; it’s actually nice to model that for other practitioners. I think too when we get to the assessment piece of our notes, that where we get to most use our voice naturally.
*I can understand that it might feel daunting, and would also be curious to know more about that for you. I think I would recommend starting with a small commitment. Like can you commit to using someone's name more, rather than the word patient or client. Seeing how that feels. And I also want to offer that it’s possible that your more intentional use of language would not be polarizing or criticized, though it’s possible that it would be. I would like to suggest, however, that you can develop and balance the skill of writing intentionally about people while capturing the situations in ways that meet insurance or diagnostic criteria, yet are healing and not pathologizing.
*I guess I would be curious to know where you feel you are censoring yourself. There's probably a lot of good information there about your own edges, the (rightly identified!) problems with the system, the environment you're working in and the folks (colleagues) you're working with.
So a quick summary:
*using persyn-centered language
*include/acknowledge people's strengths, resilience and identities
*listen deeply and try to capture some of that
*validate and normalize people experience
*try not to pathologize people (I have to really work on this, since I work in such a Pathologizing environment, and this is really the professional culture)
*be intentional and mindful in your writing
*use your voice and its honor your own boundaries and starting place.
*validate and normalize people experience
*try not to pathologize people (I have to really work on this, since I work in such a Pathologizing environment, and this is really the professional culture)
*be intentional and mindful in your writing
*use your voice and its honor your own boundaries and starting place.
This
conversation feels quite relevant and timely for me, so I wanted to offer it
here in the hopes of encouraging us to think about our language use and how we
can use language as a tool of intention and justice. The (ecofeminist) part of
me that recognizes the interconnection of all oppressions, also knows
intuitively that all justices are interconnected. Where oppression creates disconnection (or
perhaps where disconnection reinforces oppression), justice creates connection.
Or, stated differently, one way of practicing justice is simply to connect. We
can, and should, use our words to humanize, to honor, and acknowledge people’s
strengths, abilities and resiliencies.
We can, and should, do our best, as often as possible, to speak with and
about folks in ways that are healing and just. We can, and should, do the
continual work, as the call of liberatory humyn service practice requests, of
attempting—to the best of our ability—to align our values of justice with the
manifestation of all areas of our practice. Language is a tool of our craft and
it is but one of many ways for us to create change, support transformation, and
invite justice into our work.
