With our country ever more diverse, the United States is torn with issues surrounding social justice. In some cases, the arrest or shooting of a person of color by a white policeman has resulted in rioting and in widespread demonstrations. That is a result of perceived racial injustice. People who are under-insured and can't afford healthcare are sometimes denied access to medications or procedure they need. That is injustice in
healthcare. Women are sometimes not given the same business opportunities or paid the same wages as men in the same positions, and that is gender injustice. It is difficult to arrive at an all-inclusive definition of social justice, and examples like these may come close to pinpointing the term. The Miriam Webster definition is egalitarianism. That means everything equal, and that is a difficult state at which to arrive. Additionally, there is a
difference between justice and social justice. The term justice means that people are treated in accordance with their deserts. Puritanism, for instance, held that people who were poor were merely slackers, and they did not deserve help. Nativism has rationalized the subjugation of American Indians and black people for the same reasons. Justice
involves concepts of right and wrong and people receive positive or negative sanctions based on their past performance. Social justice, however, maintains that all people deserve and should have access to the same rights and resources. Most people accept that premise, but differ in how to achieve that equality. Social justice looks for equality in and out of the court system. There are two main views in the US of how to achieve social equity. The leftist
view prescribes legislated programs to even the playing field. These programs result in policies like the college quota system that mandates schools to admit a certain number of people of diverse races, genders and those with mental of physical challenges. The objection to this type of program is that is creates another inequity. Students without the challenges are penalized by having less access to schools that are filling their quotas to qualify for federal funding. The leftist view also
advocates levying more taxes on the wealthy to pay for programs for the poor. Taken to the extreme, that view becomes socialism. Right-wing philosophies try to solve the problem in another way. They say the wealthy should not be penalized, but encouraged to be philanthropic. Suppose, asks the right wing, that the wealthy pay 35 percent taxes while the middle class pays 25 percent. Then, if there is a general refund, should everyone receive the same rebate, or should the most go to those
who have paid the highest taxes? Plus, do the poor, who have paid nothing in taxes, receive an equal share of the refund? The right-wing philosophy also quotes studies supporting the theory that things like college quotas only do more harm and promote racial unrest. Of course there are other types of inequalities in our society. Besides economic and racial inequality there are gender and healthcare issues. At its foundation, the concept of social justice involves making everything equal and leveling the playing field for everyone. Social workers deal with the problem of deprivation every day. In addition to how social justice is seen, and to what remedies are recommended by different parties, one injustice often leads to another. Poverty leads to inadequate healthcare which creates a greater burden of securing funds to pay for medical treatments for the poor. College quotas may lead to under-prepared students entering programs and failing out. Like a line of falling dominoes, one problem often causes another to emerge. Even so, legislators and social work professionals encourage society to keep working on the problems. Social justice may be a difficult state to achieve, maybe even an impossible one, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to give everyone opportunity and respect. See also: Top 25 Most Affordable Master's in Social Work (MSW) Degree Programs Eye on EthicsKeeping Social Justice in Social Work Deborah is a clinical social worker in independent practice. Her clinical work focuses primarily on trauma and loss issues. Many of her clients have been sexually abused, victims of domestic violence, and have struggled with loss issues associated with divorce, infertility, and death. When Deborah applied to graduate school, her goal was to become a psychotherapist. At the time, Deborah knew little about the social work profession’s unique history and values. Her aim was to obtain an MSW to be eligible for licensure and third-party reimbursement for her clinical work. However, during her MSW education, Deborah learned about social work’s unique commitment to social justice issues and assisting society’s most vulnerable populations. By the end of her MSW education, Deborah resolved to supplement her clinical work—which she knew would continue to be her primary focus—with significant involvement in social justice issues. One of Deborah’s clients, Ida, suffered from clinical depression and was a victim of domestic violence. Ida and Deborah worked together to help Ida learn ways to cope with the end of her marriage and address her clinical symptoms. Ida decided to leave her abusive husband and find her own apartment. However, earning only slightly more than minimum wage in her full-time job at a convenience store, Ida quickly discovered that she could not afford the high rents in her community. As a result of her work with Ida, Deborah became aware of the local affordable housing crisis. Deborah became actively involved in a statewide affordable housing coalition, whose goal is to raise public awareness and lobby for affordable housing legislation and funding. Several times per month, Deborah allocates time in her schedule to meet with coalition members, including several social work colleagues and other concerned professionals and citizens, to prepare a public relations campaign and work with state legislators on proposed legislation. A Social Work Tradition Social work’s earliest concern with justice has its roots in the Bible and religion. Acts of charity were meant to fulfill God’s commandments as much as to be genuine acts of kindness. However, by the late 19th-century, criticism of religious charity was mounting because of its somewhat moralistic and paternalistic image; this concern led to the invention of the more secular phrase we continue to use: “social welfare.” The complex events associated with the early 20th-century Progressive Era, settlement house movement, and the nation’s most severe economic depression helped turn social workers’ values and attention toward the daunting social welfare problems of the broader society. Social workers could not help but recognize the need to examine the structural flaws that created widespread vulnerability and dependency. The aftermath of the Great Depression signaled a noteworthy split in social work’s basic priorities. A significant portion of the profession continued to concentrate on clinical and psychotherapeutic work, emphasizing individual change and well-being, while other practitioners worked primarily in public welfare agencies and other social programs begun under the New Deal and designed to address society’s poorest and most vulnerable citizens. Ever since that era, social workers have struggled to blend the profession’s diverse and simultaneous commitments to clinical and broader social justice issues. Although social work’s involvement in social justice issues and related social action has waxed and waned since the profession’s early years, social work has sustained its ideological commitment to social justice. Thoughtful social workers have always understood that individual clients’ struggles with problems such as clinical depression, anxiety, domestic violence, substance abuse, and poor health often stem from significant social and economic problems associated with poverty, unemployment, unaffordable housing, inflation, and other environmental problems. Treating individuals’ private troubles is important but ultimately may have limited impact if the public issues that create the private troubles are not addressed. The Social Work Difference Perhaps the most important distinction is that social workers are educated to understand the intimate and complex connection between individual suffering and the social context from which it arises. Social workers are educated from day one to understand the environmental correlates and determinants of human suffering, and that long-term solutions to the conditions that create human suffering must be addressed in the political and policy arenas. Astute social workers know that lasting change occurs as a result of enlightened legislation that addresses key social issues; reasoned and principled social and agency policies and initiatives; and adequate funding by federal, state, and local governments. As the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) Code of Ethics states, “Social workers should engage in social and political action that seeks to ensure that all people have equal access to the resources, employment, services, and opportunities they require to meet their basic human needs and to develop fully. Social workers should be aware of the impact of the political arena on practice and should advocate for changes in policy and legislation to improve social conditions in order to meet basic human needs and promote social justice” (Standard 6.04[a]). Perhaps the most clear and compelling evidence of social work’s truly unique commitment to social justice is in the preamble to the NASW Code of Ethics: “The primary mission of the social work profession is to enhance human well-being and help meet the basic human needs of all people, with particular attention to the needs and empowerment of people who are vulnerable, oppressed, and living in poverty. A historic and defining feature of social work is the profession’s focus on individual well-being in a social context and the well-being of society. Fundamental to social work is attention to the environmental forces that create, contribute to, and address problems in living.” Genuinely embracing this fundamental value is exactly how the profession can continue to keep social justice in social work. — Frederic G. Reamer, PhD, is a professor in the graduate program of the School of Social Work, Rhode Island College. He is the author of many books and articles, and his research has addressed mental health, healthcare, criminal justice, and professional ethics. What do you mean by social justice?“Social justice is the view that everyone deserves equal economic, political and social rights and opportunities. Social workers aim to open the doors of access and opportunity for everyone, particularly those in greatest need.” National Association of Social Workers. “Social justice encompasses economic justice.
How can a social worker promote social justice?Social workers empower individuals and groups to influence social policies and institutions and promote social justice. Social workers advocate for change to ensure that all people have equal access to the resources and opportunities required to meet basic needs and develop fully.
What are the 4 social justice principles?There are four interrelated principles of social justice; equity, access, participation and rights.
What are some examples of social justice?There are so many social justice issues out there that you can help with, such as voting rights, refugee crises, workers' rights, economic justice, healthcare, hunger, education, gun violence, and more. And these issues often overlap with each other and touch the people we care about.
|
What is social justice in social work
Related Posts
Copyright © 2024 muatrau Inc.
