Feminist Theories in Social Work

Feminist Theories in Social make waterThis research selects the application of wo mens liberationist thought in genial wee action. Specific countrys of consideration embroil the gap from cordial failers personal adoption of feminist constructs and their use of such(prenominal) constructs in daily practise, the effects of perpetuation of hegemonic intimate urge roles by neighborly so chthonics, and domesticated delirium victims sensings of the posture of fond spurt based on the pur adopts of their genial doingers as considered above. This research still describes a steering sort of college social work students who atomic number 18 kindredwise domestic violence victims.It records their perceptions of social workers foundationviewsand the regard of such on service. Conclusions include that in that location is asignificant gap among the taste or acceptance of feministconstructs amongst social workers and its application in daily fieldpractise, th at social workers are very much in tout ensemble likelihood to perpetuate hegemonic sexuality roles, and because of such perpetuation view domestic violencesituations as soul occurrences quite an than spark off of a greatersocietal pattern of burden aroundness, and that domestic violence survivorsfeel outgo served when work with them uses a feminist theoreticframework.INTRODUCTION feminist movement and social work have been associated for slicey years however,although many social workers personally abide by operative from a feminist aspect, the systems of social work still favour work from atraditional or patriarchal perspective. This research, indeed,seeks to premiere consider findings from anterior hire regarding thisphenomenon and the theoretical frameworks for both social work andfeminist thought. In this light of information gleaned from thesefindings, it became plain that hegemonic sex activity roles, a commontopic of feminist research, play a applicable gra mmatical constituent in work with survivorsof domestic violence. Specifically, domestic violence survivors areoften directed, either explicitly or implicitly, that their situationis personal and should be considered and dealt with from a personal andpathological perspective instead than applying the tenets of feministthought that view such situations as manifestations of structural and power problems in our greater inn.This written report then seeks to document whether this gap betwixt social worktheory supportive of feminist worldviews and social work application ofpractise exists, and if so, how prevalent a gap it is. This isaccomplished by means of use of a focus separate of college students, all ofwhom have interpreted at least ane course in social work theory and arethemselves domestic violence survivors who have been served, towhatever level of quality, by social workers. Discussions within thefocus gatheringing knobbed ideas of gender roles and social worker advocac yof hegemonic gender roles, whether explicit or implicit. The focusgroup then built on this foundation to consider group participantsexperiences with social workers and whether they presented an soulfulness / pathological perspective of domestic violence, or whetherthey presented a perspective that consider the wider influence ofsociety and its systems. This was further related to the effect ofsuch perceptions on the understanding of and service to groupparticipants at the time of intervention.LITERATURE REVIEWFeminism has emerged in the past thirty years as a viableworldview. Dietz (2000), quoting glob (1980), be womens lib astransformational politics that aims at the dismantling of allpermanent power hierarchies in which one category of piece dominatesor controls an different category of humans (372). In the feminist and authority traditions, the personal is political, and respective(prenominal)change and social change are seen as interdependent (Deitz 2000,372). Feminism co ntends it is non adequate to simply include women inthe worlds political and power systems, as these were designed by andfor men and because favour a highly masculinised mechanism forresponding to issues and require women working within these systems todo the same (Scott 1988, Moylan 2003). Simply including women is notenough society moldiness give womens experiences equal time andconsideration, level(p)tually recasting the very meanings of the topics itconsiders (Scott 1988). Rather, womens liberation movement argues women must be engagedin both the system development and decision-making processes that shapeour society (Moylan 2003). Consequently, one field of battle where feminism has particularly challengedtraditional views is in the area of gender roles. For example,Dominelli and McLeod (1989) examine the charge in which social problemsare defined, recognising gender as particularly chief(prenominal) inunderstanding lymph node groups, and stress egalitarian relationshipsb etween therapists and clients. Gender is likewise an importantconsideration of social work payable to the patriarchal society that stilldominates or so of our world. This power framework rests on a basis ofhegemonic masculinity (Cohn and Enloe 2003). Connell (1995) createdthe term hegemonic masculinity to describe the valued rendering ofmanhood in a society. He argues that whilst on that point are multiplepossible masculinities in a culture, only one or a few are al or so valuedor considered ideal (Connell 1995). This gender definition isconstructed both in relation to muliebrity and to separate, subordinatedmasculinities, and is used to justify both mens domination of women,and the hegemonically mannish mans power all over other men (Cohn andWeber 1999).Whilst women are increasingly being include in world systems, thesystems themselves still were designed for and operate by and for men.Therefore, women who insert within the system must do so from staminate personparad igm, even if it is sometimes at odds with their own preferencesfor how to go nigh traffic with a situation (Cohn and Enloe 2003).Feminism historically is a reassessment of male supremacy, the view thatgender dress was socially constructed and could not be changed (Cott1989,205). maleness is often defined as what is not feminine, andfemininity as what is not masculine, although understanding thedynamics of one requires considering both the workings of the other andthe relationship and overlap between the two (Cohn and Enloe 2003).Masculine definitions are often based on strength, domination andviolence, whilst feminine on weakness, nurturing, compassion andpassitivity (Rabrenovic and Roskos 2001). The result is pressure onmen adhering to a hegemonic definition of masculinity to view forms of ache bying conflict other than a fleshly or masculine response asfeminine and a threat to their manhood (Moylan 2003). The popular model of gender holds that masculinity and femininityare unchanging expressions based on the chromosomal male and womanishbodies (Butler 1990). Gender is assumed to be hard-wired, at leastin part (Hawkesworth 1997). Masculine actions and desires for men andfeminine actions and desires for women alone are normal, thesemasculine and feminine traits are not a depend of choice, and all mortals can be classified as one or the other (Hawkesworth 1997).However, whilst our society men are considered strong and rife, andwomen passive and nurturing, the meanings of male and female bodiesdiffer from one culture to another, and change (even in our ownculture) over time (Connell 1993, 75). For example, there have beenperiods in Western history when the modern convention that mensuppress displays of sensation did not apply at all, when men wereeffusive to their male friends and demonstrative round their tangs(Connell 1993, 75). Masculinities and feminities are constructed oraccomplished in social processes such as child rearing, horny andsexual relationships, work and politics (Connell 1993, 75).Feminism, however, contends gender is a constructed by to each one culture,and as a social practice subscribe tos the incorporation of specificsymbols, which support or color in human potential (Hawkesworth 1997).Gender is created through discursively constrained performative acts,and the repetition of these acts over time creates gender for theindividual in society (Butler 1990, x). People project to act likewomen or men are supposed to women are taught to set in a femininemanner, men are taught to act in a masculine manner. This is oftenreinforced by authority figures, such as social workers. Barnes (2003)cites a number of studies which find social workers often assume thedisciplinary see of notions of what and how to be woman,perpetuating traditional gender roles (149). Armed with rigid codesof gender usurp behaviors, social workers often sought toregulate and mediate womens interactions with the social, economic,and pol itical world (Barns 2003, 149).Feminism and social work share a number of similarities. Both confidein the inherent worth and dignity of all persons, the value of processover product, the wait of unity-diversity, the importance ofconsidering the person-in- environment, and a commitment to personalempowerment and active participation in society as a means to bringabout meaningful social change (Baretti 2001, 266-267). Similarly,both feminism and social work address multiple approaches to handlingsituations, challenging the institutionalized subjugation common in manypower structures and supporting the reconceptualization andredistribution of that power (Baretti 2001, 267).It follows that one impact of feminism on social work practise is theconsideration of issues from a societal rather than personalperspective. For example, this might include viewing a domesticviolence situation not from the perspective that the family isdysfunctional, but from the perspective of the society that created thefamily. The psychology-based focus of clinical social work oftenleads to individualizing social problems, rather than to viewing themas the result of relations of power, primarily burdensomeness and shout(Deitz 2000, 369). As such, individuals experiencing such difficultiesare taught that their particular experiences are inappropriate,rather than addressing the systems that created the difficulties in the beginning(a) adjust (Deitz 2000, 369). Dominelli and McLeod (1989) re-evaluate social work practice from afeminist perspective, considering the functions of social work such astherapy, fellowship interaction, and policy making not from apathological standpoint but from one of defined roles endorsed bysocietal conditions. As such, they contend that working from afeminist perspective allows the social worker to address the causes ofsocial issues, rather than the symptoms played out in individualslives (Dominelli and McLeod 1989). hotshot area of release in social work practise between those operatingfrom a feminist framework and a traditional framework is the concept ofdistance. Traditionally, the patriarchal preconceived idea against relationalityand connection is intended to lead to connection without harm, lovewithout power abuse, touching without sexual abuse in psychotherapy(Deitz 2000, 377). Unfortunately, in practise it often results inpower over relationships where those receiving services feel lessthan those providing them. Healing happens when someone feels seen,heard, held, and charge, not when one is interpreted, held at adistance, and pathologized (Deitz 2000, 377). Deitz (2000) finds thatsocial workers often institutionalize a power over stance fromprofessional training and discourse that constructs the identities ofclients as somehow disordered, dysfunctional or impaired. Whetherbetween parents and children physicians and patients social workersand consumers of services Whites and Blacks or heterosexuals andlesbians, gays, bisex uals, and transgendered persons, power overrelationships give the dominant partners or group the right to definethe meanings of subordinates experiences (including their resistance)and thus their opportunities for self-affirmation (Deitz 2000,373).This creates professional relationships that ignore theenvironmental, historical, and social contexts of the problem, discountpeoples strengths and resilience in assessment and intervention, andlead to the objectification of people as diagnoses, rather than toempowerment (Deitz 2000, 370). The keys to empowerment in feministmicro practice are reconnection and transformation through politicalactivity survivors of oppression and abuse experience reconnectionthrough relationships based on mutuality, collaboration, andtrustworthiness (Deitz 2000, 376).Theories from social work, psychology, and particularly developmentalpsychology describe empowerment as primarily a process, with thepersonal transformation of the individual comme il faut empowe red at itsfoundation (Carr 2003, 8). Barriers to empowerment and problems ofdisenfranchisement caused by powerlessness are primarily political,rather than psychological. impotence is defined as the inabilityto effectively manage ones emotions, knowledge, skills, or resourcesit is derived from the absence of external supports and the existenceof ontological power blocks that become incorporated into a personsdevelopment (Carr 2003, 13). As such, many survivors also work toreconnect to others in their communities, often seeking politicalactivity that emphasizes the empowerment of others, such as byorganizing Take Back the darkness marches or speak-outs, volunteering forcrisis hot lines, seeking legislative changes, or be feeler socialworkers or human service professionals (Deitz 2000, 376).For example, feminist work with abuse survivors emphasizes therelationship between abuse and oppressive social relations (Deitz 2000,374). On the other hand, the dominant clinical social work appr oach tooppression and abuse relocates the problem of oppression in victims.Psychological theories are typically employed, which locates pathologyin individuals, rather than in oppressive relationships and systems,and considers the long-term effects of oppression to be symptoms ofindividual pathology (Deitz 2000, 374). Unfortunately, whilst manysocial workers have been exposed to or even personally supportoperating from a feminist framework, the systems in which they workprevent them from actively utilising feminist brainwave in their dailypractise.RESEARCH PLANThis research seeks to guinea pig the prevalence and impact of traditionaland feminist practitioner constructs from the perspective of thoseserved. Specifically, a focus group study will be conducted with agroup of college students, all of whom are currently studying socialwork and therefore have some concept regarding social work practice,feminist and traditional worldviews. In addition, all students in thefocus group will have experience domestic violence and have beenprovided the services of a social worker in some form during theirteenage years.Three areas of questionion will be under taken by the group. These willbe provided to individual group participants in writing some(prenominal) daysbefore the group in order for students to have time to consider whatthey would like to share regarding their opinions and own experiences.The first group activity will involve creating definitions ofmasculine and feminine from the perspective of a typical socialworker based on the students teenage experiences. Students will thenbe asked to discuss where, if at all, they personally feel they andtheir family members who were involved in the domestic violencesituation(s) scene regarding these preconceived definitions. It is pass judgment some students will have been uncomfortable with societalconstraints they or their family experienced as teenagers. As all arestudying social work, they are also anticipated to make moreconnections between societal power issues, hegemonic gender roles, andtheir influence on domestic violence than a focus group without suchbackground. The third area of password will centre on how thestudents perceptions of their social worker(s) understanding of genderroles influenced their and their families receipt of adequateservice. The researcher will both tape record and take notes on the groupdiscussions. Data gathered from the group will then be compiled andanalysed. In addition, students from the focus group will be given theoption to write a response to the group activity, if they so desire.These will be further included in the group data.METHODOLOGYData collection involved quartette means. Prior to the group starting,each participant was given a questionnaire (see Appendix 3) to gatherbasic demographic information. The questionnaire also asked for abrief summary of their inglorious situation. Regarding data collection ofthe group proceedings, as described abov e the focus group session wastape-recorded and the researcher took notes to adjunct the recordingof group discussion. The recorded sessions were then transcribed intoprint form, with research notes added in at the chronologicallyappropriate points of the transcription to provide a more completewritten overview of the focus group discussion. In addition, groupparticipants had an option to write a response the group to be includedin the group data. Four participants wrote responses, which wereconsidered with the group data following analysis of the focus groupdiscussion. Participants were provided with the iii areas of groupdiscussion several days prior to the actual focus group meeting. Theywere not given any directions or guidance regarding the optionalwritten responses to the group activity.Data analysis first involved dividing and coding group data. Responsesto the first topic of discussion were separate into three categoriesthose representing a traditional worldview, those rep resenting afeminist worldview, and those that did not clearly represent eitherworldview. From these groupings, overall findings regarding theworldviews typically experienced by the group participants weresummarised. This was then further compared with the definitions oftraditional gender roles identified by the group.Data from the second topic of discussion were also disordered down intothose representing a traditional worldview, those representing afeminist worldview, and those that did not clearly represent eitherworldview. It was important to then note participant perceptions andemotional responses to these codings, and in which worldview groupingthey and their families were reported to feel scoop out served andempowered. Data from the specific discussion regarding service were then similarlyanalysed, and combined with previous findings to present a picture ofthe impact of traditional versus feminist worldviews on social workpractise, emphasising work with teenage domestic vio lence survivors andtheir understanding of gender roles in society. It was anticipated at the conclusion of such research, a view could beasserted as to whether feminist perspective has a significant impact onthe practise of social work as it is currently undertaken and whetherthis impact, if any, leads to improved service.As the focus group involved a relatively small number of participants(nine total) and data from their interactions were primarilyqualitative in nature, it was decided not to perform any complexstatistical analysis on focus group data. It was felt that such typesof analysis would neither reveal findings that could be consideredstatistically significant nor provide a more accurate understanding ofthe issues under consideration than a more qualitative analyticalapproach. In consideration of topographic point and relevance portions of thediscussion were used to support conclusions in the findings andanalysis sections of this dissertation, whilst an overall summary oft he around relevant portions of the discussion are included in Appendix2.IMPLEMENTATION OF haveNine students meeting the criteria laid out in the research planagreed to participate in the focus group. They were primarilyorganised by one group participant, who had discovered other domesticviolence survivors through classroom discussions and throughparticipation in a survivors group in the topical anesthetic community. All ninestudents were currently studying social work or had taken at least onesocial work course as part of a related course of study, such aseducation or criminal justice. There were sextette women and three men,ranging in age from nineteen to twenty-seven. Racially, seven were flannel, one was Black, and one was Asian. All present as comingfrom upper working class to midst class backgrounds. All hadexperienced domestic violence as teenagers, making their experiencesfairly juvenile and therefore providing a relatively current depiction ofsocial work practise. qui n students (three women, two men) had beenremoved from their biological parents at some point during theirteenage years. All had been involved in interventions into the familyby a social worker representing either a administration organisation, or inthe plate of one woman, a local church. Some of the participants previously knew each other and were somewhataware of each others experiences, which should be considered in groupanalysis. Five regularly participated in a survivors support group inthe community. One man and one woman were cousins. In addition, twoof the men had known each other as teenagers from intervention throughthe school system.Jennifer, a twenty-four year-old Caucasian woman, was chosen to be themoderator, as she had been the one who had assisted the researcher byarranging for most of the participants to become involved in thestudy. The group then moved most immediately into discussion of thetopics provided. The group had been provided a whiteboard for its use,w hich Jennifer implemented to organise individual comments and ideas.It is surmised that the easy manner with which the group undertook thediscussion was based on the fact that they were all students andtherefore used to having study groups, group discussions, and the like,and that all of them had at least publically shared their experiencespreviously, either as part of a classroom discussion or survivorsgroup, or both, and were therefore more comfortable in pleasing in suchdiscussion than might be typical for a focus group dealing with suchexperiences.FINDINGS AND ANALYSISThe first finding of this research is that the majority of socialworkers in service or domestic violence survivors to not consistentlyemploy feminist constructs in practise, despite the likelihood ofhaving been exposed to such constructs. This manifested itself inthree significant shipway. First, families were overwhelming dealt withas individuals with problems. That is, the abuser was described asmaking poor choices or having some type of pathological issues that ledto his or her decision to abuse (in one participants family, bothparents were abusive). As such, the abuser was described from apsychoanalytical standpoint by the social worker(s), and his or herbehaviour labelled as individually deviant. The survivors of the domestic violence situations, particularly the female parents, as the majority of abusers from the groups experiences weremale family members or gallants of the mother, were also reported tobe consistently dealt with from an individual perspective. In thissense, their behaviour was also reported to be categorised by thesocial workers involved as unhealthy, pathological, and coming fromsome sort of unresolved personal issues, such as low self-esteem. Inthe case of only one participant did the social workers involved ineither intervention or therapy consistently relate the domesticviolence situation to broader issues of oppression, societal powerstructures and the relate d hegemonic gender roles, or patriarchal normsof society. It is of note that this participant received service froma progressive women-helping-women organisation, rather than atraditional government-organised social work programme.Group participants also repeatedly described their family situationsas unhealthy, and they sure enough were, but from the perspective thatboth the abuser and abused were reacting or displaying emotioninappropriately, rather than that the motif or norming behind thebehaviour was at fault. For example, Trent described his mother asdrawn to violent, alcoholic men. She eer seemed to go for theseguys that didnt know how to express anything except by pause stuff,yelling, hitting, you know. His further descriptions of his mothersboyfriends indicated an surmise that if these men had been raisedwith or taught proper means of dealing with their frustrations andemotions, the abuse to him and his mother would have been lessened oreliminated. This idea was support ed by at least one social worker, whosuggested counselling for Trent, his mother, and the then boyfriend asone possible way of addressing the abusive situation.Several participants did bring feminist theory and thought into groupdiscussion, pointing out, for example, that dominance or aggression bymen in any form was unhealthy, and question why it was only seen asunhealthy by most of the social workers they had encountered, and byothers they knew in the community, when physical violence was actuallyinvolved. There was a related discussion, albeit brief, about the unwillingnessof neighbours, relatives, and others in the community, such as membersof the same church, to intervene in the domestic violence situation.Participants indicated their perception that whilst this was often dueto a fear of getting involved or astute how to help the situation,there were repeated occurrences in everyones experience where anunwillingness to intervene derived from others implications that theman of the abode had some right to choose the way in which thehousehold operated, or that he had a right to discipline his wife /girlfriend and children as he saw fit. Wendy reports hearing an auntstate Well, its his family, their kids, she wants to stay with him,and dismiss the ongoing violence as therefore an acceptable familylifestyle, or at least one in which none of the rest of the familyshould be expected to intervene. Participants then acknowledged thisand several other systemic situations that perpetuated their abuse,such as reluctance of authority figures to continue call into question wheninitially told nothing was wrong, and unwillingness of police tointervene repeatedly. Similarly, regarding gender roles, discussion indicated a belief bymost participants that their social workers believed a traditionalstereotype of what was appropriate behaviour for a man and a woman, andthat these behaviours were different. There were reports of acceptanceof physical response as an appropri ate masculine reaction, but thelevel of physical response not being considered appropriate. Maleparticipants were encouraged to talk about their experiences, butreport never being given permission to express fear, or an emotionalresponse such as crying. One male participant reported starting to cryas part of a group experience, and being discouraged rather thanencouraged to continue, whilst female members of the group were allowedto and even supported in such emotional expression. There were similarreports of several(a) hegemonically feminine expressions, such as crying,fear, and nurturing behaviours, being supported and encouraged bysocial workers for male family members but not female, as well as anacceptance or assumption of weakness on the part of adult females whochose to remain in an abusive situation.The discussion then moved to the effect of traditional and feministperspective on social work service. Participants overwhelminglyreported tone of voice better served when soci al workers sought to empowerthem and their families. This did usually involve practise of methodsderived from a feminist view, such as the use of reflective journalingand support groups, as well as encouragement from the social workers tothe mother that she could, indeed, survive and prosper outside thedomestic violence situation, that she did have the inner reserves toaddress the situation and move to a healthier lifestyle, and thatsocietal pressure to be with a man, either as a romantic partner or asa develop / commence-figure for children was not necessary for asuccessful life. Participants also report feeling personally empoweredby such encouragement, and therefore able to support their mothers inattempts to leave relationships.From their own study in social work theory, focus group participantswere able to soon discuss the ramifications of the patriarchalsocietal power structure on a womans decision to stay in a violentsituation. One issue brought up included the perception that societywill view a woman as a failure and undesirable if she does not have aromantic relationship with a man in her life. A number of womenparticipants in the group reported feeling similar pressure to maintaina romantic relationship with a man in their life, regardless of theirother commitments or interests, and an expectation that they would notbe successful women if they did not ultimately get married and havechildren. When questioned by other participants, the three maleparticipants reported not feeling such pressures. Another issue raisedwas the mothers perception that they needed a father figure tosuccessfully raise children, particularly boys. This was perpetuatedin the life experiences of group participants even though the menoccupying these roles were viewed by the male participants asdestructive, rather than constructive, influences. Issues of supportin disciplining children and managing household operations were alsoindicated, as was the financial support provided by the batterer. Thegroup indicated all these issues were societal, rather than individual,and lack of addressing of them affected the effectiveness of the socialservices they had received.Overall, the participants were generally positive about at least onesocial worker with whom they had a relationship during their teenageyears. Participants typically felt feeling most encouraged and bestserved by those social workers who did not present themselves as beingdistant or above the participants and their families, and who did notoverly emphasise their familys issues from a perspective of individualdysfunction. These findings indicated that a feminist interactiveconstruct, which avoids power over methods and practise is perceivedto be most effective by domestic violence survivors.RECOMMENDATIONSIt is recommended from findings of this study that social workersare first provided greater exposure to and training in feminist methodsand theory as it relates to their practical, day-to-day pra ctise. Forexample, all participants reported some positive experiences inresponse to reflective methods such as reflective journaling andsurvivor support groups. Considerations of ways to more greatlyinclude such methods in typical practise are therefore indicated. Of greater concern are the systems in which social workers operate.Whilst most of the social workers in these focus group participantsexperiences had some familiarity with feminist theory or methods, asindicated by their emphasis on empowerment or use of specificstrategies, there is something within the government-sponsored socialservices structure that prohibits practise truly based on feministtenets. A sharp contrast was provided by the young woman served at aprogressive, secluded service, where feminist theory was the obviousframework on which service was based. She was by far the most positiveabout her experiences and workers, and reported insights, understandingand empowerment to change not consistently reported by other focusgroup participants.It therefore recommended that more research be pursued as to whatfactors constrain social workers from functioning from a more feministframework. Issues such as time (many social workers have far morepeople to see and serve than they would like to have, or often feelthey can serve effectively), lack of material resources such asappropriate space, lack of effective training, or discouragement insuch regards from supervisors or others in power. Specificallyidentifying relevant factors could then form a framework forprogressing with change in social work practise within a typicalgovernment service organisation.It is further recommended that individual social workers consider whatconstraints they persona