|
Anita Levin: You
use the term "illegitimate privilege" in the book.
Can you explain what you mean by this term and how
it impedes the attainment of social
justice?
Ben
Carniol: First of
all, let's look at the term "privilege" and what
that means generally. There's a double meaning
because, on the one hand, the word privilege is
used in a very positive way. "It's a privilege to
know you." "It's a privilege being here." On the
other hand, "privilege" is also used to identify
benefits that certain groups of people have in our
society. Those benefits are generally seen as
normal and natural and quite legitimate. Yes, we
see there are privileged people, and we figure they
have an entitlement to those privileges. They
either work hard or there are other rationales for
seeing those privileges as credible and legitimate.
When I use the term "illegitimate privilege," it is
to point to the fact that, very often, what is
submerged or hidden is that these benefits accrue
because of an underlying injustice--an
unjustifiable inequality of power between two
different groups of people.
For example, historically,
we know that women had far fewer rights than men.
Men were the privileged, and if we look at the
literature, it is clear that the majority culture
saw the privileges of males as perfectly normal and
natural and credible. They were conditioned not to
recognize the huge power inequality between the two
and that such power inequality was fundamentally
unjust. We can look back at history and say "Why
couldn't they see what is so obvious to us today?"
It is because we have the benefit of that history.
Unfortunately, today we have the same kind of
situation. A number of years in the future, people
will look back at our era and ask the question "Why
didn't we see the unfairness that people had
privileges based upon the colour of their skin or
class or sexual orientation?"
There are a whole series of
identities that generate patterns of inequalities:
based for example, on gender, colour, class, and
sexual orientation. These patterns of inequalities
give privileges to one group at the expense of
another. That's what is meant by illegitimate
privilege. The people who gain the privileges learn
to view themselves as "superior" in one way or
another in order to justify the privileges, not
only to themselves but also to the people who don't
have those privileges. Those who don't have those
privileges come to accept that condition because
they often internalize the prejudices against them.
Take the example of class
privilege. People justify the accumulation of great
amounts of wealth by stressing how hard they work
or how many jobs they create for others. There are
many rationales. But there are also prejudices. If
you are at the opposite end of the socio-economic
stratification--if you are very poor--then you are
blamed for your poverty. This prejudice has been
called "poor-bashing." As part of this prejudice,
we say: "The poor are lazy and irresponsible.
They're poor because they're not trying hard enough
to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. Look
at all these social programs and social services we
have for them and they're still poor. That shows
that there is something wrong with them." So we get
into the habit of blaming, rather than recognizing
the barriers faced by people living in poverty.
AL: What do you
see as the most significant barriers to effective
social work practice?
BC:
One of the biggest barriers is lack of resources.
In recent decades there's been very wide public
support led by politicians and corporate leaders
for tax cuts. An inevitable result from tax cuts
has been fewer resources to finance our public
schools, hospitals, and social programs.
Unfortunately, social services have been hit
extremely hard, in fact harder than the other
sectors of public spending. So when you have social
workers in a number of agencies faced with growing
caseloads and people with greater hardship, we're
expected to do more with less, and it's basically
"mission impossible."
We are told that tax cuts
will create a healthy economy and that everyone
will benefit, but I believe this to be a faulty
analysis demonstrated by evidence of who really
benefits from tax cuts. Yet this evidence is
obscured by the illegitimate privilege based on
social class. One of the points I make in the book
is that corporate leaders represent a huge amount
of power, wealth, and privilege in this society.
They are the most powerful special interest group
in the country. They have the ear of government.
Their media have saturated us with the message that
tax cuts are the way of the future.
Yet studies have, in fact,
shown that the people who actually gain the most
from these tax cuts are the people in the most
privileged circumstances. They benefit the most and
the rest of society feels the pinch of lower
quality services in such areas as health care and
public education. Of course, social services have
been hit so hard that they are in a state of crisis
today. All this makes a mockery of democracy, which
is supposed to serve everyone, not just the rich.
So the gap between rich and poor grows and
government seems helpless to stop it.
AL: What do you
see as the way to oppose the growing rich-poor gap?
BC:
First, we must expose, challenge, and defeat the
value system that fuels today's trends. Take
individualism: this "me-first" approach creates not
only personal isolation, but also indifference and
hostility to the well being of others. It has a
huge impact on social services because service
providers are encouraged to accept this ideology.
And let's face it. We are part of the society and
we are all, including myself, influenced by such
attitudes.
Second, we must present an
alternative approach, one based on human rights,
which will challenge not only social services but
also the rest of society to develop institutions
and practices consistent with equity and social
justice. That includes addressing the
organizational structures of social service
agencies.
AL: How would
you address the organizational structure of social
service agencies to deliver more effective
services?
BC:
Within social
service organizations, the various dynamics of
individualism compounded by privilege and
disadvantage gets inserted right into social work
practice. In other words, bureaucracy, hierarchy,
and systemic inequalities become structured into
the way we provide help. For example, there is an
unjustifiable discrimination against women. This
gender prejudice still lingers within the social
services, which is a paradox because social
services has so many women working in it. Until
recently, the administrators of most social service
organizations and schools of social work were male.
At the same time, within the social services, just
as within the larger society, there are challenges
going on continuously against this injustice and
the illegitimate privilege that flows from gender
prejudice. The women's movement has taken on the
issue of gender inequality and has made alliances
with others, such as the labour movement, to press
for gender equity.
This organizational
conflict has been called "contested terrain." On
the one hand you have the hierarchy with power
flowing down from senior levels of administration,
due to authority mixed in with privilege. On the
other hand you have a democratic type of
questioning and challenging of decisions and
practices, based on a ground-up, or bottom-up
approach to power. This conflict operates sometimes
subtly and sometimes not so subtly within social
agencies. I see this contested terrain as a
dynamic, not at all restricted to social agencies,
but pervading our entire society.
Within social agencies,
management is caught in a squeeze. It is not given
enough resources by the funders, and so, as a
result, you have fears, not only experienced by the
managers, but by the front line workers, that if
they become too honest in their appraisal of what
is happening in the larger society, then
controversy will result and funding will be cut.
This cold shiver of fear often permeates the
agencies, and the administrators will sometimes
discipline staff that are doing excellent work on
the front line for being too outspoken, too
controversial, and too radical. In my opinion, they
are not being too outspoken. They are simply
listening to the plight of the service users and
advocating for change in the best interests of
service users.
AL: How do the
theories taught in social work education address
this discontent?
BC:
Theories taught in the schools of social work can
be divided into two general categories. One is the
conventional theory, which tends to accept the
inequalities of power within the society and leads
to a kind of an adjustment approach to social
problems--to help people cope better.
The other category, which
is a more progressive approach, is based on a
structural analysis of what the power relations are
in the society, and so there is an explicit
identification of oppressive practices and
structures around the various "isms" such as
colonialism, heterosexism, racism, and ageism. When
workers are aware of these, then they can apply a
sense of dialogue that includes those larger
dimensions. They can help the individual service
user realize that they are a cog in a very large
wheel, part of which is based on structured
inequalities that are unjustifiable. So in a sense,
the worker becomes an ally to the service user.
Progressive service providers are conscious of the
power difference between themselves and service
users, and deliberately attempt to share that
power, creating more mutual, more egalitarian
working relationships with service users.
AL: How have
the approaches of Aboriginal social work
practitioners and tradition teachers influenced you
as a teacher and practitioner?
BC:
They have influenced me in a very profound way. One
of my teachers in this area is an Anishnabe Elder.
Her Aboriginal name is Waubauno Kwe. Her English
name is Barbara Riley. I first met her at a
workshop and as I heard her speak and saw the way
she interacted with the workshop participants, I
found myself being very open to the kind of
teachings that she was providing. I discovered that
Aboriginal cultures are very sophisticated and
intricate. I was amazed at the extent to which I
had internalized the privilege of mainstream
culture that has devalued and created false images
of Aboriginal culture. I am very grateful to her
for her willingness to become one of my mentors.
She is responsible for my traveling along a road
where I learned much more about Aboriginal world
views, and realized that when it comes to helping
people, there is a whole area of wisdom that
Aboriginal culture can offer us.
Aboriginal spirituality
plays a large part in the teaching and helping
circles, which are led by Aboriginal teachers. It
doesn't matter what one's religion or cultural
affiliation is. The kind of spirituality that these
teachers are sharing with us is a very universal
recognition of being grounded in nature and that we
are interdependent, not only with nature, but also
with each other.
An understanding of this
spirituality helps us in terms of how to be good
helpers, how to listen, and how to be present. This
spirituality challenges us to draw upon the best
side of ourselves in order to be able to listen to
the pain of others. It creates a bridge between a
service provider and the people who need the help,
by providing a respect, which recognizes a
fundamental human commonality that exists among all
of us. It taps into that commonality in such a way
as to magnify the listening capacity and resist the
need to rush in with all of our preconceived
notions. We are able to walk alongside that person
in pain. Yes, opinions can be offered but
definitely not imposed. It creates a kind of
respect for the person that not only is consistent
with social work values but also, I believe,
extends them further. I believe we can all benefit
from learning about Aboriginal wisdom.
AL: Your book
is now in it's 5th edition. To what do you
attribute its popularity in social work
education?
BC:
I attribute its success to the many people who have
helped to put all of the editions together. They
are the people who are on the front lines--the
service providers and the service users, the people
who are subjected to the injustices. I have been
fortunate to be able to listen to the ways service
providers have been struggling against tremendous
odds to provide effective services and to
suggestions for what needs to be done to turn the
situation around.
AL: How is the
5th edition different from past
editions?
BC:
The critical edge of the previous editions remains.
But there is a far greater emphasis on the
international dimensions of corporate greed and its
impact on social services.
There is also clarification
about what is meant by "illegitimate privilege" and
how that plays out through our multiple identities.
With a recognition of our separate identities, such
as class, age, and disability, the stage is set for
asking: Do we have benefits flowing from
unjustified power? Do we experience oppressive
conditions due to the unjustified power by others
over us? And is all this acceptable? How can we
work for change?
AL: Are there
examples where resistance or innovative approaches
by service providers has brought social justice
closer to reality?
BC:
Some examples of good practice come from situations
where service users have a voice in the governance
and the delivery of the services. There is an
emphasis on inclusiveness. For example, many
women's shelters have led in innovation in how to
provide a woman-focused service, where women
residents have a voice in the way that services are
delivered.
In Canada, Aboriginal
people are gradually delivering more of the
services to their own community. But there are huge
problems because colonial attitudes and privileges
are still prevalent. So you find resistance by
Aboriginal people against contemporary colonialism.
Aboriginal leaders are starting to demand that
services be culture-based to express the world
views of their own communities.
Some innovative services
are premised on the realization that people of
privilege should not have the loudest voice--and
that space must be made within the service to hear
from people who have been excluded as a result of
the "isms." An effective service gives voice to
people who have been silenced for too
long.
Despite numerous examples
of effective social services, today in Canada, they
are in the minority. The majority of social
services are characterized by a very different
reality. In most cases, social workers are rushed,
don't have time for follow-up, and treat their
clients as numbers. That reality is quite unhelpful
and even damaging to service users. That is the
reality that must be changed.
AL: What advice
do you have for social service providers who wish
to practice progressive social work?
BC:
Progressive practice means connecting ourselves up
with social movements that are already in existence
in the community, for example the women's movement,
Aboriginal networks, the labour movement, and
various human rights organizations. Our challenge
is how to make that connection in an ongoing way.
We need to learn more about the various social
movements working for social justice. When we learn
how to work with these grass-roots initiatives, we
stop being isolated within a bureaucracy and we
become part of a revitalized democracy. This has
implications not only for service providers and
service users, but also for anyone who wants to see
greater social justice. Put another way, we begin
to participate in making democracy real. We are
starting to do it within the social services, and
the challenge is to encourage everyone to do it
within the larger society.
|
