ANTI-OPPRESSIVE PRACTICE AND SOCIAL TRINITARIANISM: AN INTERCONNECTION OF FAITH AND SOCIAL WORK PRINCIPLES

By: Lydia Hogewoning

Presented at:

NACSW Convention 2012 October, 2012 St. Louis, MO

Abstract 

Anti-oppressive social work (AOP) provides an important model towards identifying and

maintaining empowering client relationships in the context of existing oppression in society and

practice. Yet for Christian social workers, the question remains whether such a model, which is

postmodern in nature, can be upheld alongside faith values. Through examination of the Social

Trinitarian model, key theological principles are shown to reinforce AOP as a worthy model for

social workers to implement in practice. Drawing on the works of theologians Miroslav Volf and

Jurgen Moltmann, and social theorist Lena Dominelli, this paper demonstrates how a Social

Trinitarianism theology of love, equality, and openness to the other connects to core AOP

principles of empowerment and critical consciousness.  

Keywords: Anti-oppressive Practice, Social Trinitarianism, Empowerment 

Think of what defines social work practice. The term “oppressive” is not usually the first

adjective to come to mind. After all, social work, as defined by the International Federation of

Social Workers, is a profession seeking to “promote social change, problem solve in human

relationships, and empower people and groups to enhance [overall] well-being” (IFSW, 2012).

However, as contradictory and perhaps painful it is to admit, social work is associated with

oppression simply because it deals with broken human relations. Plain and simple, relationships

in every facet incorporate elements of exclusion and oppression resulting from sinful human

identities. In turn, Christian social workers bear the responsibility of analyzing the nature of

oppression in personal and professional relationships as a fundamental step in implementing the

type of service and profession defined above.  

Social work practitioners seek to work by values and ethics which uphold social justice

and respect for the dignity of the other. Similarly, in Christianity believers seek to carry out

biblical commandments urging mankind to “love the Lord your God, and your neighbor as

yourself” (Matthew 22:29). So in response to oppression, how do Christian social workers merge

professional and religious mandates? As a leading social work model in response to the existence

of oppression in practice, AOP aligns with a Social Trinitarian model to provide key insights for

equitable relations in social work practice. Ultimately, through examining the nature of

oppression, the benefits of anti-oppressive theory, and the dimensions of Social Trinitarianism, it

becomes evident that Trinitarian themes endorse AOP methods, which Christian social workers

can adopt to increase empowering practitioner-client relations.  

Exclusion 

Before considering the use of AOP one must consider the need for it. One must consider

the nature of oppression, how it relates to and is present within social work, and how AOP is a

model Christian social workers can adopt.

The nature of oppression infiltrates all aspects of life. Lena Dominelli (2002), a leading

social work theorist, defines oppression as “relations that divide people into dominant or superior

groups and subordinate or inferior ones. These relations of domination consist of the systematic

devaluing of the attributes and contributions of those deemed inferior, and their exclusion from

the social resources available to those in the dominant group” (p. 8). Exclusion, which ultimately

results from oppression, is a significant concern for social workers.  

Theologian Miroslav Volf speaks considerably to the nature of exclusion and injustice in

his book, Exclusion and Embrace. When humans experience a perceived threat to their personal

identities and lack the ability to maintain and affirm a unique identity, they exclude others by

contrasting themselves against a constructed, and inferior, identity of the other (Volf, 1996). To

better understand this, consider condemnation. According to psychologists, “people who form

patterns of condemnation frequently do it to enhance their own self-esteem because blaming or

criticizing another person makes one’s own qualities and behaviors appear better or superior”

(Hull & Kirst-Ashman, 2009, p. 312). Furthermore, Dominelli (2002) suggests that the very

nature of identity formation includes understanding one’s identity in relation to another. This

process is often evaluative, where the individual ends up measuring him/herself in a hierarchy

against the other based on the personal values he/she holds. Consequently, Dominelli (2002)

argues, hierarchy results in one identity or trait being regarded as superior to the other, thus

creating an “us-them” dynamic resulting in division and posing risk for oppression.  

An additional component of exclusion and identity formation relates to how individuals

analyze their identities based on how they conform to larger societal expectations. As Volf

(1996) explains, people “are uncomfortable with anything that blurs accepted boundaries,

disturbs our identities, and disarranges our symbolic cultural maps” (p.78). Exclusion occurs

when individuals are either accommodated or rejected by society’s standards (for example,

consider xenophobia or stigma against single mothers as deviating from the traditional family

model). Thereby, exclusion acts as a way to “perpetuate the othering process which confirms

unequal social relations” (Dominelli, 2002, p. 39). Moreover, identity includes many cross-

sections including dimensions of age, race, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation,

physical appearance, and more, which may jointly result in a dynamic and complex form of

oppression. Lastly, the role of identity formation in oppression is universal. From a Christian

standpoint, oppression aligns with a Reformed view of the fallen nature of man—humans both

experience and perpetuate it (Newman, Suarez, & Reed, 2008). 

The concept of oppression and exclusion concerns social workers because it opposes

values of self-determination and respect for the dignity and worth of all people (NASW, 1996).

Christian social workers must not only consider its existence in society but also its existence in

the very nature of social work practice. Acknowledging that identity formation and power play

an important role in oppressive practice, social workers must realize their professional identities

are tied to power, which can play an influential and sometimes unconscious role in causing

oppression. 

Recognizing the power associated with the social work profession can be an

uncomfortable realization, especially considering the various anti-oppressive ethics which seek

to guide its practice. As Dominelli (2002) attests, for social workers to identify themselves as

the oppressors “can cause feelings of paralysis and guilt, especially where it is difficult for the

individual concerned to extricate him or herself from [the] privileged status” (p. 46).

Nevertheless, best practice methods include acknowledging these power structures and

addressing them at the following two levels. First, practitioners must explore to what degree their

personal social status aligns with the dominant social status of who holds power in regard to

policy decisions and accepted societal norms (Newman et al, 2008). What structural inequalities

does one’s lifestyle or very class reinforce? In reference to the population group the practitioner

works with, how does the practitioner’s lifestyle impact oppression faced by that population

group on a micro, mezzo, or macro level? For example, it is crucial for the practitioner and client

to consider the role of race in a therapeutic relationship if one is from a dominant race/ethnicity

and the other from a minority group. This recognition encompasses being aware and resistant to

reinforcing “hegemonic value systems and ways of knowing and viewing the world” which may

further disadvantage the client (Dominelli, 2002, p. 92). 

Second, practitioners must examine to what extent they practice “authoritative work.” In

its nature as a helping profession, social work has the potential to be paternalistic in that the role

of the social worker is often to help or bestow knowledge on a vulnerable client group (Pitner &

Sakamoto, 2005). Dominelli (2002) critiques the traditional approach of viewing a client as

passively requiring the knowledge and skills of the practitioner. She argues that identifying

clients in need as “defective, percolates this configuration of the person and sets the context for

power-over dynamics to be (re)produced rather than egalitarian ones” (Dominelli, 2002, p. 98).

After all, Pitner and Sakamoto (2005) raise an interesting point—“who knows more about

oppression, those who teach it, or those who live it?” (p. 439).  

Social workers must acknowledge their roles as having the potential to perpetuate

oppression in practice, primarily through homogenizing tendencies around client groups and

treating clients with the hope of outcomes rooted in personal values ingrained in the social

worker’s identity. For example, a social worker may unconsciously promote a nuclear family

model as a best outcome through reinforcing prescribed gender roles around custody and

parenting issues (Dominelli, 2002, p.51). Social work can also be oppressive through what

Dominelli (2002) refers to as the “acquisition of information approach.” This concept refers to a

practitioner’s aim to gain cultural competency through educating her/himself on a particular

identity group. For example, the social worker learns key facts about the other as if those cultural

identities are static, which reinforces the social worker, rather than the client, as the expert

(Dominelli, 2002).  

In addition, this way of creating space for the other rarely considers how the social

worker’s identity relates to the client’s identity (Dominelli, 2002). Exposure through education

does not eliminate power divides—rather, “in naming or viewing the other as different, [social

workers] affirm their own identity as the norm, and fail to appreciate the significance of its

interactive capacity and exclusivity” (Dominelli, 2002, p. 53). Dominelli (2002) contests that

through the process of consciously or unconsciously applying stereotypes, social workers deny a

client’s agency and self-determination, including his/her “capacity to contest culture or engage in

its creation and recreation” (p.53). Anti-oppressive writers have written against modern theory

endorsing social work practice as “neutral” in respect to social bias, stating that it remains

embedded within a white, middle class perspective (Vanderwoerd, 2009). Social workers must

examine how practice may unconsciously reinforce marginalization. When practitioners strive to

allow client self-determination in practice without examining the influence of personal values

and biases in guiding client engagement, social workers may be reinforcing marginalizing

tendencies, even when it would be difficult to identify it as such (Coholic & Todd, 2007).  

Oppressive Identities  

Despite the collaboration and empowerment that occurs in social work, practitioners

cannot disregard the presence of personal identities as reinforcing oppressive structures and

encounters. As promoted by Newman et al. (2008), deconstruction of how “dominant discourses

are shaped, whose interests social workers serve and whose they may subjugate and the exposure

of the marginalized perspective, is an essential part of understanding power dynamics and the

risk of reinforced oppression” (p. 409). A commitment to social justice in social work practice

also involves personal reflection and responsibility beyond structural and societal advocacy.

Anti-oppressive theory, a post-modern perspective drawing on themes from feminist,

constructivist, ecological, and system theories, provides a social work model in reaction to

oppressive and dominating discourse in practice as further described below (Sakamoto & Pitner,

2005).

The Anti-Oppressive Model

In social work, the anti-oppressive model aims to function and promote equal, non-

oppressive social relations between various identities. As Dominelli (2002) defines it, “in

challenging established truths about identity, anti-oppressive practice seeks to subvert the

stability of universalized biological representations of social division to both validate diversity

and enhance solidarity based on celebrating difference amongst peoples” (p.39). Traditionally

and still today, this model analyzes and advocates against macro levels of oppression. It remains

dedicated to principles of social justice, which is also upheld in NASW values, by

acknowledging diversity within oppression and considering the intersection of the “isms” (Pitner

& Sakamoto, 2005). However, progressive AOP models emphasize social justice against

oppressive practice at the micro level through analyzing the sociological and psychological

components of oppression. A fundamental aspect of this analysis is through the discipline of

critical consciousness. Newman et al. (2008) explain critical consciousness as the reflective and

critical process of “challenging domination” on a personal, interpersonal, and structural level. It

is a “deconstruction of one’s stories or accounts of practice in which [the social worker] works

towards identifying [his/her] assumptions (theories or construction about power) and changing

these along more empowering lines” (Newman et al., 2008, p.409). Pitner and Sakamoto (2005)

outline two main methods for accomplishing critical consciousness. First, they endorse

standpoint theory in which practitioners are called to examine personal social identity and status

to gain self-awareness on their inherent biases. Second, social workers must be aware of their

“professional training schemas” through which they consider and interpret information within

practice (Pitner & Sakamoto, 2005). Anti-oppressive social work as a schema therefore “guides

[social workers] to listen for oppression” in practice with individuals, society, and structures

(Pitner & Sakamoto, 2005, p. 443). In turn, practitioners advocate against oppression through

social work practice by promoting increased respect for the “inherent dignity and worth of all

people,” and “social justice” (NASW, 1996). Acknowledging NASW values, along with “the

importance of human relationships,” remains an integral part of building empowering client-

practitioner relationships (NASW, 1996).

AOP & Christianity

Anti-oppressive practice remains an important model for the progressive implementation

of social work values; however, Christian social workers face the challenge of balancing the

post-modern approach with the modern “truths” fundamental to the Christian faith. Coholic and

Todd (2007) consider the compatibility of Christianity and AOP. They state that historically,

social work and religion have been closely tied. Historical examination reveals that “religious

interventions have contoured social work as a practice of beneficence and self-sacrifice in which

people, not institutions and cultures, are the object of change” (Coholic & Todd, 2007, p.9).

Moreover, they question whether Christian social workers have the ability to separate

fundamental religious values from impacting their ability to uphold client self-determination

(Coholic & Todd, 2007). Especially in response to the gradual academic and societal shift in

ideas on spirituality and sexuality, the authors question whether Christians, who profess to

uphold some kind of orthodoxy or “right practice,” inherently create exclusion or self-separation

as a way to preserve their “tradition” as truth (Coholic & Todd, 2007, p.8). Is it possible then for

Christians to maintain faith values and the truth of Christ while carrying out anti-oppressive

practice? Coholic and Todd (2007) may argue no, however, based on the examination of

Trinitarian themes, anti-oppressive social work does actually correspond with Christian ideas on

biblical human relationships, as will be demonstrated further on.  

Before one considers the relation between AOP and Trinitarian themes, it is valuable to

contemplate whether AOP is a model Christian social workers should follow in the first place.

Several critiques against AOP exist and warrant explanation. First, AOP is criticized as being

post-modern and subjective in its attempt to validate people and views in an effort to remain un-

oppressive. As Volf (1996) promotes, extreme post-modern subjectivity can itself result in

oppression since it generalizes “new forms of exclusion by the very opposition to exclusionary

practices” (p.64). A subjective view of exclusion results in “non-order” where there is no clear

boundary on what is permissible or not in society, resulting in chaos (Volf, 1996, p. 64). Second,

another limitation of this model is the lack of consensus on a clear definition of AOP due to the

number of dynamic perspectives on what oppression encompasses (Pitner & Sakamoto, 2005).

Responses against oppression vary. For example, some see it as getting rid of all the ‘isms;’

others focus on a hierarchy of oppression; others view it as eliminating all power differentials;

still others see it as incorporating empowerment approaches (Pitner & Sakamoto, 2005). Lastly,

the AOP model is criticized for being too idealistic or “discouragingly lofty,” especially

considering one of its main objectives is “the eradication of all forms of structural oppression,”

making it largely unattainable for social workers to fully carry out or measure progress due to the

complexities of structural inequalities (Pitner & Sakamoto, 2005, p.438).  

In response to the critique against post-modernism, AOP is less about determining truths

and values about society than it is about the greater concept of human relationships and the

challenge