Critical Whiteness Theory in Social Work by Susan Young and Joanna Zubrzycki - Coursework Example

Critical Analysis The article by Young & Zubrzycki explores how Critical Whiteness theory in social work curricula can aid in the establishment of indigenous social work as a central approach. The authors argue that, the approach allows confronting the incomplete and chiefly un-reflexive practices drawing social work’s Euro-centric heritage, which is dominated by taken-for-granted principles and knowledge that negatively influence indigenous peoples. The article by the authors presents a forceful argument for the incorporation of critical Whiteness approach within social work practice by recognizing the privilege of whiteness based on the depiction of culture, race, and ethnicity. The proposal to incorporate critical discussion of whiteness in social work practice can be regarded as inconclusive. There other more effective tool such as critical multiculturalism that should be adapted, in addition to critical Whiteness, to subverting racism. This paper will review Young & Zubrzycki main arguments, and will appraise the quality of the writing and areas of weaknesses manifest in the article. Critical Analysis Introduction Racial categories represent social constructs and whiteness studies present analytical tools to probe white privilege and superiority. The approach draws from the premise that every white identity is influenced by the prevailing system of privilege and is essentially complicit with it. Hence, only identities that pursue to transcend or challenge that privilege are successfully anti-racist. Whiteness studies seeks to generate anti-racist forms of pedagogy and knowledge, which in turn, makes whiteness visible in light of the visibility being perceived as confronting the diverse modes of white privilege. Whiteness, as an indicator of identity, draws from the notion of racism and domination, which may leave some quarters with narrow imaginary via which they can view themselves as actors when generating oppositional space to fight social justice and equality. Whiteness situates “white” in the lexicon of racialized identity and allows critical analytical connections to be drawn between national identity, personal identity, and neo-colonial power relations. Article Summary The article by Susan Young and Joanna Zubrzycki draws from the Australian Prime Minister’s apology to the stolen generations, which they consider to be a chance to tackle the past complicity within Australian Indigenous disadvantage (Young & Zubrzycki, 2011). Whiteness is considered as a site of dominance, since its represents a multilayered construct entrenched within the fabric of Westernized society resting on the way white institutions, people, and cultures that are racialized and ethnicized by society and history. Whiteness is also mirrored within the construction of practices and knowledge, which makes the positioning of ethnicity, race, and culture within social work texts utilized within Australian social work education. The field of whiteness studies relates to the problematization of the whiteness of settler societies relative to indigenous population, which is contextualized in a history of colonialization (Young & Zubrzycki, 2011). The Indigenous Australians were violently ejected from their families over a 40-year period ranging from the 1930s in an effort to destroy Aboriginal culture and assimilate them into the mainstream Australia. The Official Apology acknowledged historical practices and policies that adversely impacted on Australia’s indigenous culture and the individuals removed from their families. The authors call for development of indigenous social work as a central for practice. The professional and theoretical interest on critical Whiteness recognizes race privilege, as well as questions relating to the invisibility of race. Research studies highlight the need for practitioners to be knowledgeable on the diverse practices, especially in relation to whiteness principles. The authors contend that, the insights availed by a centralized indigenous social work have certain resonance for work with families and children. Evaluation As described above, Young & Zubrzycki explore how the Australian social work profession has continued to be part of the disastrous history of indigenous disadvantage. Young & Zubrzycki argue that the social work profession still persist to play a role within the ongoing colonial practices (Young & Zubrzycki, 2011). Nevertheless, the fundamental position held by the profession within the delivery of welfare services such as child protection system, also avails social workers with the chance to be part of the establishment of new, highly positive relationships, which are culturally respectful and collaborative, with Torres Strait Islander and Aboriginal people. The intended audience of the article are practitioners engaged in social work practice. The authors contend that the infusion of social work curriculum with cross-cultural perspective including multicultural pedagogy bear some merits in teaching students regarding how to work with diverse cultural groups and generates an imbalance that undermines white privilege and connection to power, racial oppression, and inequities within access to resources. Although, the authors outline key words in the article, they do not go further to define the key words. The article successfully presents a forceful argument for the incorporation of critical Whiteness approach within social work practice. The authors contend that Critical Whiteness theory within the social work curriculum avails a powerful conceptual and practical chance for students and practitioners to become racially cognizant within their work with indigenous people, enabling the work to be more efficient within the profession’s social justice mission, while minimizing some of the extant colonizing practices (Chui & Wilson, 2006). Young & Zubrzycki utilized an array of supporting research methodology including qualitative content analysis of social work test relating to cross-cultural practice (Young & Zubrzycki, 2011). This approach can be criticized on the grounds that, it is inherently reductive and appears to disregard the context that generates the text. Although, the text hinges on a theoretical base, it does so too liberally in drawing meaningful inferences regarding the relationships and result implied in the study. Young & Zubrzycki maintain that embracing critical whiteness theory and indigenous social work knowledge can propel social work’s purpose in delivering social justice and fostering human rights principles (Young & Zubrzycki, 2011). The authors contend that such a move can allow practitioners to embrace diverse approach reinforce the status quo and present alternative kinds of knowledge that substitute indigenous ways of knowing. Young & Zubrzycki argue that the incorporation of Whiteness theory within social work curriculum is one way of guaranteeing that practitioners possess the tools that allow them to appreciate the reasons they hold and adopt steps to redress unacknowledged privileges. There is an inclination in Critical Whiteness scholarship to lower one of its core insights relating to racism privileges (that it does not discriminate against) to individualized perceptions of privilege, which accompanies the notion of power that is contained to being viewed as a resource that can be possessed. This conceptual decision denies the capturing of racism as an intricate problem carrying numerous dimensions (Pease, 2006). As such, at its present state, critical Whiteness might not be an adequate tool to subvert racism. Race undoubtedly shapes white people’s lives in the same way as indigenous people given that, white people and indigenous people live racially structured lives and the systems of differentiation influences those on whom it bequeaths privilege in the same way as those it oppresses (Gray, Midgley, & Webb, 2012). As such, white people can be regarded as “raced” in the same way that men are “gendered.” Critical studies can be criticized on the grounds that it is empirically unjustified owing to immigration and the country’s colonial past. It can also be claimed that the hegemonic whiteness is not viewed and problematized. This informs the call for self-reflective practices, for the generation of white self-understanding on the grounds of white people, especially with regard to privileges. One can argue that racial categories derive from racist discourse, and cannot necessarily be stripped of their naturalizing impacts by simple act of defining them as social constructions (Cooks & Simpson, 2008). This makes it reasonable to be employed as scarcely as necessary, punctuated with care, especially by individuals labelled as white, whom have to deal with the fear of being racially marked. The authors fall short of acknowledging that, whiteness, as a socially constructed term that subject to multiple influences, is not necessarily a monolithic, static category that always carries a certain set of meanings in every context. Indeed, within a certain historical context, numerous forms of whiteness manifest. Indeed, Whiteness is multifaceted, circumstance-specific, and reinscribed around the shifting meanings of race within the society. The implication of Whiteness differs relative to history, context, gender, class, region, sexuality, and political philosophy (Green, Sonn, & Matsebula, 2007). Whiteness, akin to all racial categories, is fluid and hinges on the altering and emerging features of social life, while simultaneously mirroring the deeply entrenched, structural, slid-state elements of race and racism. The article can also be criticized on the grounds that it overstates its support in evidence and appears to neglect contrary information. Notwithstanding the significance of the contribution made by the article, the article does not resolve the nexus between praxis and anti-whiteness theory. The other shortcoming of the article relates to the author’s dependence on personal opinion, instead of empirical data. For instance, on page 166, the authors claim that, a critical Whiteness perspective can render essential contribution to the development of Australian Indigenous social work, since without the incorporation of analysis of White privilege, the “new” body of knowledge will increasingly remain an alternative. However, the authors offer little justification for the outlined assertion. To some extent, critical Whiteness strengthens the significance of critically analysing the inclination of the dominant culture to inform knowledge development and privilege White values and practices. The article downplays the problematic nature of the whiteness approach since it fails to acknowledge the issues that arise from the investigation of Aboriginal problems or issues. The authors also fall short of addressing how racism and Whiteness persist to operate in diversity work largely viewed as inclusive and productive (Briskman, 2007). This is a caution in the sense that the adoption of Whiteness lens in educating Australian social workers may entrench racialized practices reproduced within embedding processes. Although, such an outcome may ne discomforting, the adoption of “Whiteness lens” among social work practitioners may foster deep understanding on how racializing practices are active within policy, personal standpoint, and professional practices, even in instances in which approaches to embedding indigenous perspectives support recommended strategies. The potential of transforming whiteness into “something essential” can be considered as a necessary risk, which is worth taking. Undermining whiteness in Australia requires repositioning of the epistemological foundation to a connection between non-indigenous and indigenous so as to avert continuing to privilege the sovereignty of whiteness over indigenous sovereignty. Evidently, the approach suggested by the authors carry the potential of entrenching a shift in practices and thinking. However, the authors fail to acknowledge unstated assumptions based on normative grounds owing its racist effects, which can yield to entrenchment of patterns of stratification and yield to forms of exclusion. Instead of positing “whiteness” as a legitimate perspective among an assortment of other valid perspectives, critical whiteness theory explores the historical growth of “whiteness” as a symbolic and cultural value and foundations of subjective-formation (Walter, Taylor, & Habibis, 2011). Indeed, whiteness theory is pertinent to aiding social workers appreciate the mechanisms of subjective formation and reproduction that persistently redirect resources within Australia. This informs the commitment to comprehend the intricate and dynamic character of racialized power relations, which renders whiteness theory “critical” and differentiates it from neo-liberal identity politics. A critical multicultural practice encompasses an analysis of whiteness and dedication on the part of social workers to embrace antiracist practice. Multiculturalism will aid social work practitioners’ capacity to reflect on their complicity within dominant power relations. Multiculturalism represent the process of school reform that pervades instructional and curriculum strategies, guide interactions among stakeholders, while at the same time informing how schools conceptualize the nature of learning and teaching (Nylund, 2006). Multiculturalism carries the potential of transforming the self, the profession of social work and the society. The curriculum should pay extra effort to incorporate diversity of approaches and perspectives, especially relating to the experiences of diverse groups. Conclusion I concur that whiteness will catalyze understanding of racism and enable social workers to move beyond merely addressing material conditions of inequality and start to question the discourses and positions or privilege and dominance that draw from an ideology of white hegemony and superiority. Social work profession is socially, culturally, economically, geographically delinked from Indigenous people, which reinforces the view that the introduction of critical Whiteness would be a welcome development. I suggest that social work practitioners and educators adopt critical multiculturalism as a kind of praxis in addressing racism. A critical multiculturalism practice incorporates a commitment of the white social workers and therapists to adopt antiracist practice and critical analysis of whiteness. Multiculturalism is viable accompanying policy since its represents a celebration of diversity and appreciates the significance of inclusion and participation, while highlighting pluralism, differences, and tolerance. References Briskman, L. (2007). Social work with indigenous communities. Annandale, N.S.W: Federation Press. Chui, W. H., & Wilson, J. (2006). Social work and human services best practice. Leichardt, N.S.W: Federation Press. Cooks, L. M., & Simpson, J. S. (2008). Whiteness, pedagogy, performance: Dis/placing race. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Gray, M., Midgley, J., & Webb, S. A. (2012). The Sage handbook of social work. Los Angeles: Sage. Green, M. J., Sonn, . C., & Matsebula, J. (2007). Reviewing whiteness: Theory, research, and possibilities. South African Journal of Psychology, 37 (3): 389-419. Nylund, D. (2006). Critical multiculturalism, Whiteness, and social work: Towards a more radical view of cultural competence. Journal of Progressive Human Services, 178 (2): 27-42. Pease, B. (2006). Encouraging critical reflections on privilege in social work and the human services. Practice Reflections, 1 (1): 15-26. Walter, M., Taylor, S., & Habibis, D. (2011). How White is social work in Australia? Australian Social Work, 64 (1): 6-19. Young, S. & Zubrzycki, J. (2011). Educating Australian social workers in the post-Apology era: The potential offered by a Whiteness‘ lens. Journal of Social Work, 11 (2) pp. 159-173. Read More