Entrapment

This blog is a dedication to what I think critical social work is. By looking at different social issues in a variety of mediums I work to deconstruct what critical social work means to me, and how I can be a agent of social change. This blog reflects issues that are important to me, in illustrating these issues I hope to convey how I am involved in critical social work and why it is important to me.


I created the collage posted above to illustrate myself. I feel I am conflicted in this world. I receive messages from educational institutions, religious institutions, people I encounter in my every day life, workplace etc. At times I feel trapped by cultural norms. I feel my mind is imprisoned by knowledge that is not always true. I also feel that in social work practice I become trapped by agency practices, and at times feel helpless and become imprisoned by it rather than resisting. It is critical social work that grounds me and allows me to question these institutions of power, and analyze what knowledge they have created. Critical social work practice allows me to question why things are the way they are, and how they came to being this way. It allows me to be informed of institutional practices as well as where I fit into these practices.


For the purpose of this assignment I will be looking at the Safehaven Program within the YWCA. I worked at the Safehaven program in my first year of social work practice. It was a shelter for young girls aged 13-17 who were involved in the streets. Historically it specifically was for young girls who were involved in prostitution but had later changed it’s mandate to accept any female youth who were living in the streets. It was a transitional program and helped young girls to create goals and work closely with a case manager to achieve them. It was also in place to build self esteem, educate young women about social issues, and give them tools to live independently. Unfortunately this program was shut down. The mutual decision posed by both the YWCA management and the Child and Family Services who both felt that they were on two different mandates and could no longer help each other in keeping this shelter running.

Plato Re-Moulded

In Plato’s republic Plato spoke about government and what is good government. He stated that philosopher kings would make good leaders. He felt that the philosopher kings could set “good moral code” for the rest of the citizens. He believed that philosopher kings could be put into place to try to make people more “virtuous.” In today’s world we can view politicians as philosopher kings with a particular agenda. Instead of making people “virtuous” they are in place to mould people to be a certain way and are influenced by corporations and other influential individuals who hold wealth. We as citizens give governments the power to influence us and mould us, if we did not give them this power they would not be elected. As social worker’s we have to be aware of power and how it is exercised along with knowledge and where it comes from. In practicing critical social work we have to question dominant discourse and ask ourselves how it has come to be?


As critical social workers we can either choose to be an agent of social change or an agent of oppression. Moffat in his article on surveillance and government speaks about social workers that work as agents of social control by oppressing the poor, they are put in place to “punish and discipline the irresponsible poor (Moffat, 1999).” If we work for agencies that oppress the people we serve then how can we change those agencies to emancipate marginalized groups from this control? Critical social work looks at the “self” and understanding the “other” and how the two are related. In any depiction of the "other" the "self" has always been evident. It is also important to know the historical circumstances of the marginalized people we serve, and look at intersecting oppressions whether the oppressions stem from race, class, age, sex, etc. Foucault speaks about capitalistic societies as being “enclosing societies”; he goes on to describe societies as “getting rid of not the dead but the living (Foucault, 1999).” Through social control getting rid of the living is possible because people are molded into what the state wants them to be. In critical social work practice we have an opportunity to educate ourselves on social control and also to reflect on what social constructions are part of our lives. We are also able to see how we act as “agents of social control”. If we fail to see ourselves as agents of social control and fail to be aware of who we are as people we will never truly help our clients. In critical social work we have to move from being agents of social control to agents of social change. It is a journey and it is vital we embark on this journey, otherwise why are we being educated at a University that preaches critical social work? We need to ask ourselves why are we here? Why did we choose to study critical social work if we were not going to put it into practice?

Self

The Fault Line

The above image was drawn by my Critical Perspectives Professor. It is a linear line that represents the starting point for a person from a marginalized group. Moving towards to the end of the line they become informed of their oppression and can no longer blame others for their oppression. As critical social workers it is our duty to the people we serve to educate them on their oppression, and to empower them to have their own voices, and be advocates for social issues in their lives. If we do not give them the tools then we are not truly empowering them to make informed choices. In educating the marginalized populations of their oppressions we are raising consciousness.


We were asked at the beginning of the semester to think about who we were, what we believed, and how we take care of ourselves. In answering these questions we were asked to use the concept of the medicine wheel to illustrate our reflections. The above image is my reflection. I feel I continue to work on my spiritual self, I embody many different teachings and I am constantly exposed to more. I am content with where I am headed spiritually and where I have already travelled. Mentally I am conflicted, and realize I am experiencing trouble sleeping and feel inflicted with stress. Physically I have noted no words, I am being completely honest with myself. I do not feel I have neglected to take care of my physical self and it requires some work and more reflection. Emotionally I am happy and have found passion in my education and feel content in what I am doing in life.

The importance of the medicine wheel is its encouragement of a holistic view of ourselves. It takes into account the mental, spiritual, emotional and physical facets of who we are as people. Ideas of the medicine wheel remind me of an article I read in undergrad. In the article the author describes the notion of “wholeness” seen in Aboriginal culture, the worldview is circular, and everything is interconnected. Little Bear describes wholeness is like a flower with four petals, “when it opens one discovers strength, sharing, honesty and kindness, these four petals create balance, harmony and beauty (Little Bear, 2000). I also feel we can use it in practice to know the different areas of our client’s well being. Heron states that “resisting the reproduction of dominant power relations rests on an analysis of one’s subjectivity and subject positions (Heron, 2005).” It is important in critical social work for us to focus in on ourselves and reflect on who we are as people. If we preach self care yet are not taking care of ourselves than is it realistic to push this upon clients we serve? I always remember the analogy of being in an airplane and not being able to give any dependents oxygen unless you have put your oxygen mask first. So helping others can only occur once you have helped yourself. I also view the wheel as a journey, it is ever changing and won’t remain the same. As you have new lived experiences it will change, as you reflect more you will be able to add more things.

Self awareness allows ourselves as social workers to be aware of our cultural baggage and to separate it so it does not interfere with our efforts to know one another (Dean, 2001). If we allow our conceptual baggage to interfere with our work then we may cast judgements to clients. For example if we are believers that abortion is bad then how can we help a young girl who is pregnant make the decision of whether or not to have the baby? We must ask ourselves are we able to remove our personal bias’s out of the situation we are in to help this young girl make the best decision for herself. Dean also calls for an exercise of increasing our own self-knowledge at the same time increasing the understanding of the other (Dean, 2001). This is an important concept because we need both to create social change. Self awareness in critical social work also helps us to understand who we are, and how we have come to be who we are. We can reflect on how we have been shaped by society. Foucault uses the idea of institutions making multiple imprints on our body, he states “institutions mobilize us in intimate ways including particularly through our bodies (Foucault, 1999).” We must recognize what these imprints mean and the effect the imprints have on how we see the world around us. In reflecting on ourselves we can create new imprints which in turn will assist us in helping marginalized people, and also assist in giving us a voice that stands against oppression.

City of God

Synopsis: This movie was set in Rio de Janeiro. It tells the stories of children who are living in poverty. They have been displaced due to their colonial masters. They continue to live in a land where divide and conquer tactics are evident, fighting against their own people to get power. There are clear indications of a continued colonialism in this movie. The movie is filled with violence, tears, suffering, but also laughter, resiliency, and hope. When we in the west speak of Brazil we speak of the tourism we have experienced or our family and friends have experienced. We speak of the weddings we throw at these exotic lands, the partying, and the fancy hotels. We forget to see the reality of what is happening, we forget to ask ourselves why are nations living in poverty? The first clip shown above illustrates how Brazil will be transformed by the Olympic games set to take place in 2016. The second clip is a scene from City of God.

In the movie City of God one of the character’s states “For the rich and the powerful our problems don’t matter, we are too far removed (Ribeiro & Meirelles,2002).” This quote holds true both historically and in society today. Kondrat speaks of “structuration” and how “persons as selves and identities are shaped, sustained, and modified by the structures and practices of their socializing communities (Kondrat, 1999).” We are shaped by structures that rule us, these structures include community groups, educational institutions, religious organizations, workplaces, government systems etc. The institution practices that are imposed upon us create knowledge which we take in, and in doing so we may oppress other groups by believing this knowledge as truth. Foucault states “knowledge produces formulations of truth , we come to see things in a particular way (Foucault, 1999).” As we grow up in school system’s we are taught that Canada is a country of peacekeepers, that the west has liberated other nations, and we learn about Darwinism and the notion of “survival of the fittest”. We are not taught about why countries in the world are oppressed, their histories, and their lived experiences. So when we look at Brazil we think it is their problem they are oppressed, we think it is their government that is corrupt, their police forces that allow continued oppression to their own people, we pity them, feel sorry for their stories but we don’t really know them or the reality of what globalization is doing to the rest of the world.

In critical social work practice it should be our duty to learn about issues that surround our client’s lives, and we also need to know their lived experiences in order to be a helping agent. If we block ourselves up from their lived histories, and what role we have played in their oppression then we cannot truly help clients. The clients Safehaven served came from all backgrounds, their stories were all different, and their lived histories were unique. Within the program these girls were only numbers, their histories were written from a biased eye, never taking into account their real lived experiences. They were labelled, categorized, and lumped into groups. Their numbers were so incredibly important to us so we could attain funding, if we had no numbers we would have no funding. The story of their parents being thrown into residential schools and continued oppression they faced today was never heard. The fact of the matter was that these girls were in their displaced position for specific reasons and due to historical experiences they had. Many of the young girls I came into contact with were Aboriginal, about seventy five percent of our clients came from an Aboriginal background. The families of these young girls were seen as dysfunctional, and their parents were seen as “bad” parents. Many of their parents had experienced the impact of the residential school system, they were robbed of their histories, language, family relations, faith, and culture. We need to describe residential school systems for what they were which is “cultural genocide”.

Both the children in City of God and the young girls in the Safehaven program are misunderstood. They are misunderstood because we fail to see their lived histories and experiences. We fail to acknowledge historical oppressions which continue to exist and cause marginalized groups to remain where they are. We also refuse to educate marginalized groups and empower them to advocate for themselves, because we feel as social workers it is not our role to do so. Critical social work practice is encouraging of social workers change agencies they work in, and transform the agencies. Foucault states “transformative knowledge is disturbing by nature; it disturbs acceptable ways of doing and disturbs the person implementing it, it is serious and dangerous work (Foucault, 1999).” Transforming an agency will never be easy, it will never be simple, breaking down historical systems of oppression that have been around for many years can never be an easy task. But does that mean that we as critical social worker’s should not take the leap? If we refuse to take the leap than how are we genuinely helping our clients. If we sit back and allow our clients to be numbers, to be written on like a blank slate, to be oppressed further and educated about their social problems in such a way where “they” are the problem we are failing them. The only way to create transformation is to fight the structures that implement oppression and free ourselves, and our clients from the chains of bondage. It doesn’t only stop when we fight against institutionalized practices we also have to put into practice what we preach in our one on one relationship with our clients. We have to not only be able to hear their stories, we have to see where we fit into their stories. How have we oppressed them? What privileges do we have over them? How can we help our clients re –tell their stories? And how can we educate our clients and create new discourses and help our clients create new discourses. The only way to fight against written words and discourses that stereotype marginalized groups is with words as Patricia Hill Collins stated in her book “Fighting Words with Words”. In her book Fighting Words, Collins states in discourse we can find beliefs about Black people, the discourse uses language to illustrate Black sexuality, criminality, stupidity, laziness, street crime, drug dealers, welfare queens etc (Collins, 1998, p. 82). For Collin’s a way to fight back against this oppression is to study discourse according to their structure, organization and thematic content, and also the external factors such as the creators, recipients, social, cultural and political settings (Collins, 1998, p. 82). As a critical social worker it is important to me to fight back words, because words define who we are. We are obligated to follow laws that are worded in a particular manner, our legislations, policies, mandates etc all involve a language that has been created by a dominant power. We cannot follow these words blindly without questioning what they mean, and how they have shaped who we have become to be. We also have to be aware of the idea of a client being the “expert”, a member of a marginalized group may know something “different than what a member of a majority group” may know (Kondrat, 1999).

Resiliency

The above clips illustrate the same story told in two different ways. One is told in a way that gives the person inflicting violence a voice and silencing the survivor. The second clip illustrates the survivor telling their account of rape and giving themselves a voice. Traditionally social work has aimed to write on a client as if they were a blank slate. Debates exist in social work on how to treat clients, whether we should treat them in a one size fits all solution or offer differential services. There is no real prescription of how social worker’s should practice. We cannot be taught in dialogues or role plays of what to say to a client when they come into our agencies. We cannot ask professors in class “what would you say to a client who says “this”. It isn’t fair to practice in such a way as it does not give us an understanding of ourselves or the clients, the roles we play, the power imbalances, and historical circumstances that have shaped the client’s lives. Foucault stated that “clients do not exist outside the historical activity of social work” and that social workers do not start from where the client is, they start inside social work (Foucault, 1999). There is a specific link that exists in practice, and power relations are evident. We cannot argue that we don’t hold power over our clients. Having the right to take away a child from his/her parents is a clear indication that we do have power. This power rests within our agencies mandates, documents and laws, as well as specific historical discourse. But we are part of our agencies, we cannot separate ourselves and say that we do not exist within them. What we can do is try to create social change and emancipation for marginalized groups.

In working with a client and hearing their story we can either use a strength based approach or we can simply ignore their resiliency and write on them like a blank slate. We can either help them re-tell their stories or we can hear their story offer them resources and send them off. The reason why I have included these two clips is because most of the clients I worked with at Safehaven had experienced sexual abuse throughout their lives. They were survivors of the abuse but mostly viewed as “victims”. It is important to “recognize and reframe victimhood as resistance and survival against remarkable odds (Fook & Pease, 2002).” Although our program’s mandate was to use strength based practice and implement resiliency the overall mandate of the agency did not coincide with the mandate of our specific program. The broader agency viewed these young women as “dirty”, “violent”, “poor”, “scary”, “criminals”, “impolite”, “drug addicts”, “alcoholics”, “prostitutes” etc. In reflecting upon my experiences within this agency I remember having to do a lot of paper work one day and only one client being in the program that day. I wanted to spend the day with her, I knew her boyfriend had just been thrown in jail, that she was pregnant not feeling well, and that she was feeling very lonely. I told her to hang out with me as I did paperwork and that when I was done we could go out for a movie. I brought her downstairs to go to the fax room with me. This room was part of the Ivory Tower, it was where all the bureaucrats sat. It was where the “professionals” were, the management, the executive powers. It was not at all welcoming, not even to the shelter workers. She stood there and we chatted about life. We went back upstairs and spent more time together. My supervisor came in later and asked me if I had taken the client into the fax room. I nodded yes I had taken her downstairs with me. The supervisor stated that the Executive Director does not like clients from the shelter coming into the fax room. This is a clear representation of institutionalized practices, and how institutions may be in place with a mandate of “helping” marginalized groups but in their very nature are oppressive institutions. The executive director never cared about this young girl’s life story, her feelings, where she came from and what she went through. This young girl to me was always and will forever be a survivor. I cannot ever imagine living on the streets and building tools of survival and having the strength that this young girl had.

Imprisonment of our minds

In this post I would like to look at prison’s in a mental state as well as a physical state. We are moulded to believe certain ideologies, ways of doing things, what innocence means, and what guilty means. Through societal structures we are taught how to live our own lives, and how to judge other people’s lives. Foucault in his work analysed prisons but his focus was not on “institutions, theories, or ideologies, it was about practices (Foucault, 1999).” Foucault felt that it was the practice of imprisonment that was important, as this is what generated social identities and produced knowledge and practice (Foucault, 1999).” This can be true of social work practices, if we strictly look at only the institution than we are taking away from the practices which directly create the oppression to marginalized groups.

We can look at imprisonment of our own minds as social worker’s. How have we come to know what we know? We can say it is from educational institutions. But to look more deeper we can see it is the practice of “teaching” and its historical roots that have given us the knowledge that we have. If we want to remove oppression from the “teaching” process, teachers have to be educated about historical oppressions faced by populations that they serve, as well as the social issues they teach. If they neglect to learn about the oppressions than they are replicating historical oppression. One clear example of this that can be seen in Canadian society is the teaching of Aboriginal culture and history within the school system. Students are being robbed of learning a true history of Aboriginals, the teacher’s are replicating oppression, and students are leaving educational institutions and continuing to replicate oppression in the agencies they work in. The only way to break free from this mental prison is to learn a different type of knowledge and to re write this knowledge and combat dominant western discourse. It is also important to implement teaching and learning in our social work practice. As critical social workers we have a privilege in society in going to university and becoming educated. We also have a duty to our clients to help them learn about historical oppressions they may face. Rossiter speaks of “trespassing” and how when social workers engage in this activity they may do harm (Rossiter, 2001). Rossiter’s article speaks of “the trespasser is a “lawful citizen” who, because well disposed toward the low, daily becomes the agent of injustice (Rossiter, 2001).” It is important for us as social workers to know when we can “trespass” and what tools we will share with our clients so that they will be able to advocate for themselves, and continue to have support in their lives. We cannot simply teach a homeless client about oppressions in societal structures and leave them without tools, and without support, that would be a huge disservice.

Sudbury speaks about the incarceration of women in relation to neo-liberal globalization, complex relations between state penal institutions, politicians, and profit driven corporation, as well as the emergence of US-led global war on drugs as a reason for the increased number of women in the prison system (Sudbury, 2005). As social workers we are not always aware of social issues in a global sense. We localize many issues, and don’t think about the broader affects that these social issues have. This is true of imprisonment of women, particularly the imprisonment of Aboriginal women and women of color. Both groups are highly represented in the criminal justice system. As critical social worker’s it is important to look at why this is occurring. Sudbury points out that “black women and women of color are the new raw material that fuel prison industrial complexes (Sudbury, 2005).” These women are used to work in prison workshops which in turn generate millions of dollars in profit. As social workers we cannot ignore the world around us, the borders of our knowledge should not stop at our own country. We need to know how actions of our governments, corporations affect individuals within our country and outside of our country. We must also recognize how our money and actions plays a part in these oppressions and how we are aiding the oppression.

Third World Woman

Above is an image that Steve McCurry took in Afghanistan. It depicts a young afghan girl who is an orphan. After this photo was taken countless Westerner’s were contacting McCurry to adopt this child, and were willing to pay thousands of dollars to do so. For me this image represents the “Other”. It represents how we have created the exotic “Other” and choose to take parts of the “Other” but not other parts. We view this young child as impoverished, in need of our help, we feel we can give her democracy, liberation and free her from the oppressions she faces from her culture. We forget a very important aspect of the picture and that is why is this young girl impoverished, and what is her lived experience and the historical context to the photo?

As it stands today Afghanistan is being transformed into a democratic state, and is at the hands of western imperial powers. It holds a strategic location in this world, and like any other country has been impacted by globalization. Razack discusses how “natives are bound to be ungrateful and are unlikely to stop their savagery unless met with brute force and to keep natives in line, peacekeepers must become violent themselves, as they rape, torture and kill” (Razack, 2004). Razack of course was speaking about peacekeeping forces in Somalia but this depiction can be related to any peacekeeping effort including that of Afghanistan. Although we as Canadian’s are known to the world as peacekeepers we must also be aware of oppressions we too inflict upon the world. In the case of Afghanistan many Afghan women were never thought of by Western feminist movements prior to 9/11. Post 9/11 a lot of talk occurred about this oppressed group of women, it is the job of imperial feminism to be “protective, maternalistic, and believe that only white female intervention can benefit colonized women (Heron, 2004).” As women of the west we forget that Afghanistan for decades has had a Revolutionary Afghan Women’s Association that has fought the plight of the Taliban, women in Afghanistan have died fighting for their rights and fighting against harsh human rights violations. Yet those voices are silenced and our Western voices are heard.

Heron describes the North as “modern efficient, democratic, and free, the South is described with word such as unaccountable, terror, confusion, need of rescue from itself (Heron, 2004).” Words are powerful and when we use this language to describe nations we create stereotypical images of what they represent. Heron urges the interlocking of systems of oppression (Heron). We need to view how systems are interconnected, and how we in the west relate to other parts of the world. It is also important to consider the discourse used to describe marginalized people both within Canada and the world. Foucault explicitly stated “we must conceive discourse as violence” (Foucault, 1999). Discourse is not always innocent, it has a purpose, and much of what we have come to know is directly from discourse we have been taught.

In relating the plight of Afghan women to the agency I worked for I would say there were similarities in how my clients were looked at by individuals from the dominant group. The third world women suffer from “injured identities” as the colonial feminists mark their role in the Empire (Doezma, 2001). Just as Western feminists mark their print on the Empire we as social worker’s mark our print in agencies, client’s lives, policies, and in our day to day practice. My clients experienced “othering” and were also “othered” in discourses. These discourses included the Child Welfare legislations, agency mandates and policies, literature in society, media, as well as educational systems. We are taught how to view pregnant teens, homeless teens, disadvantaged children, and we can subconsciously or consciously bring that into practice with us, just as we can do so on a global level. It is important to realize that we cannot simply divide our practices into treating global issues in one way and local issues in another way. Overall transformation has to work on both levels, as living in a globalized world interconnects us all. In my shelter we had a young girl who came from Sudan, she was in the criminal justice system for attempted murder. Most of the stereotypes that surrounded her were that because she was from Sudan violence was considered alright and she was replicating that in Canadian society. As social worker’s we have to help fight off stereotypes and look at the bigger picture. We cannot simply come up for causality in our client’s circumstances. In being a critical social worker I must voice out my opinions upon hearing stereotypes and help to dismantle stereotypes, by sitting silently I am actually adding fuel to the stereotypes. It is also my responsibility to help create new discourses, change agency mandates, policies to better reflect diversity, acceptance, and strength based approaches, as well to get rid of violent discourses that are evident amongst these documents. My job is not simply to go to work, follow my “role” that is set out by the agency it is to create social change, and if I cannot do that or work towards social change than my education in critical social work practice was pointless. Critical social work practice means connecting theory with practice, and with research, and helping to emancipate marginalized groups as well as to give them a voice. It involves being an educator, an advocate, a helping agent, and a transformer.

Defining Words

In this particular clip the contestant is asked to spell out father but he spells out mother instead. For him his mother was both a mother and a father to him. Kovach emphasizes that the “European concept of legitimate thinking, what is written has an importance that is denied in the spoken (Kovach, 2005).” What is written has importance because it is embedded in our institutions, laws, policies, constitutions, educational systems, religious structures etc. Kovach also states that the language we use shapes the way we think (Kovach, 2005). Language is powerful, and can be oppressive or emancipatory in nature depending on how it is used. The dominant society uses language to silence the voices of the majority so how as critical social workers can we give a voice to the marginalized groups? Foucault argues that our aim as critical social workers is “not to destroy but to redefine and reorient what we do and what we know, it is a commitment to transformation (Foucault, 1999).” As a critical social worker if I want to redefine what I am doing, I must look to historical contexts to see what has been defined for me in the past, and where this knowledge came from. I must be aware of the tools of oppression used to indoctrinate me with this knowledge. I also must be willing to create new knowledge. In an agency format this may be looking at an agency mandate or policy document and using new language that is not oppressive. It would also be equally important to look at the histories of my clients to see what role discourse has played in oppressing them. As Foucault says “we need to take the stance that it is urgently needed to reflect on the foundations of our profession rather than rearranging furniture (Foucault, 1999.” We need to learn about the history of social work practice, and oppression that social work practice has inflicted and continues to inflicted. We also need to learn about oppressions faced by the marginalized groups we serve. We also have to reflect on the power imbalances we have with the groups we serve. Foucault discusses “archaeological work” and how in this particular work layers are re-arranged, and this makes visible what we could not see before (Foucault, 1999). It is our duty as critical social workers to make these elements visible. Foucault also borrows from Nietzsche in his idea of the “Genealogy of Morals” which offers a way for social workers to “retrace specific ways of doing and knowing to illuminate how operating assumptions have been clustered together and changed overtime” and acted as turning points to our profession (Foucault, 1999). It is important to retrace how social workers have practiced in the past and how we know what we know. It will help us to create transformation within practice and lead to social change. Audre Lorde notes it doesn't help to use the "master's tools to dismantle the master's house." To dismantle the house we must use new language, name oppression for what it is, and resist it in all ways in which it comes into our lives. We cannot ignore the importance that language plays on oppression. In thinking about Aboriginal populations of Canada one can see the idea of words very clearly. Aboriginals were forced to sign treaties in language they never understood, they were then misrepresented in western colonial discourse, researched as the "other" and continue to face these same oppressions. Social action does not simply come from agencies existing. Social action comes from within ourselves, first by reflecting on who we are and how we come to know what we know. At the same time we must understand our clients, where they are coming from, their history, lived experiences, and look at the resiliency that they hold. We must also constantly analyze the practices of institutions and discover new ways of doing things, and new ways of knowing what we know. If we do not have a hand in rewriting histories, laws, policies, mandates and so on we will not be creating true social change. In the end social change is not just about us being social workers. It is about myself going out there and being aware of power dynamics, being aware of how I may be oppressive in my very nature as a social worker, resisting oppression, educating marginalized groups, being an advocate for social causes, and empowering marginalized groups to be an advocate for themselves.

Bibliography

Bibliography
Chambon, Adrienne. S. 1999. Foucault’s approach: Making the familiar
visible. Chapter 3, Reading Foucault for Social Work.

Collins, Patricia Hill. (1998). Fighting Words: Black Women & The Search for
Justice. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis

Dean, Ruth. 2001. The myth of cross-cultural competence. Families
in Society 82(6).

Foucault Roundtable. 1999. Social work, social control, and normalization:
Roundtable discussion with Michel Foucault. Chapter 4, Reading Foucault for Social Work.

Heron, Barbara. 2004. Gender and exceptionality in North-South
interventions: Reflecting on relations. Journal of Gender Studies 13 (2): 117-127.

Heron, Barbara. 2005. Self-reflection in critical social work practice:
Subjectivity and possibilities of resistance. Journal of Reflective Practice 6(3): 341-351.

Kondrat, Mary Ellen. 1999. Who is the ‘self’ in self-aware: Professional self-awareness
from a critical theory perspective. Social Service Review 73(4).

Kovach, Margaret. (2005). Emerging from the margins:
indigenous methodologies. In Leslie Brown & Susan Strega (Eds.), Research
as Resistance: Critical, Indigenous and anti-oppressive approaches (pp. 19-36).
Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press.

Little Bear, L. (2000). Jagged worldviews colliding. In M. Battiste (Ed.), Reclaiming
Indigenous voice and vision. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.

Moffat, Ken. 1999. Surveillance and government of the welfare recipient.
Chapter 9. Reading Foucault for Social Work.
Pease, Bob. 2002. Postmodern critical theory and emancipatory
social work practice. In Bob Pease and Jan Fook, eds, Transforming
Social Work Practice: Postmodern Critical Perspectives. Allen and Unwin.

Razack, Sherene H. (2004). Those who ‘witness the evil’: Peacekeeping
as Trauma. In Dark threats and white knights: The Somalia Affair, peacekeeping and the
new imperialism (pp. 15-39). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Ribeiro, Andrea & Meirelles, Fernando. (2002) City of God (Motion picture).
Brazil: O2 Filmes

Rositer, Amy. 2001. Innocence was lost and suspicion found: Do
we educate for against social work? Critical Social Work 2(1).

Sudbury, Julia (2005) Celling Black Bodies: Black Women in the Global
Prison Industrial Complex. Feminist Review 80 (1), 162-179.