Critical Anti-Racism Praxis: The Oppression Of Social Work In North America

Most social workers in North America start their promising career with a social service organization armed with a burning desire to solve a social problem, contribute to society, or anything noble in purpose. They are usually in the forefront in any crusade against oppression committed to a marginalized group. However, when such oppression is however against the social workers even within the organization where they work, it is ironic that they seem to be silent about the situation. A lot of North American social workers experience this form of oppression because it works clandestinely. Consequently, an examination will be made to explain that operation and to scrutinize the arguments why social workers need to be aware of the existence of

According to Dei & Caliste (2000), this form of modern racism is based, among others, on conditions that are socially created which maintain and reinforce such environment. A critical understanding of the structural patterns, the identity of the dominant group, and their social location necessitates that these practices be identified. Second, being aware of the invisibility of whiteness can dismantle the system of oppression (Yee, 2005, p. 90). Recognition is not enough since social service workers collude with the status quo. Despite recognizing its existence, they have failed to see themselves as implicated in the same structure that oppresses them. Third, when systematic oppression and the clandestine identity of the whites have been concretized, discussion can be directed from a common generalization of the whites to a more contemporary understanding of the patterns of racism (ibid, p. 91). There must be a conscious exposure of the dominant group’s action as inviolable and natural; any analysis must reveal what identity and culture operate to further commit this systemic form of oppression and racism in the practice. Lastly and importantly, an effective and meaningful solution to the problem necessitates an understanding of whiteness and oppression (ibid, p. 95). Else, it will be more of conflict of rhetoric rather than, as what Dei & Caliste (2000) implied, an analysis of racial relations within broader sociological