VfAlJ&CNCrTt[EA4/ügE: SriTtlUCTlJIl/M, SCXZIvM. VVtMRJCPfLAiCnTC]; by Alexandra M. Ewashen B.M.T. Open Learning University, 1991 THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SOCIAL WORK © Alexandra M. Ewashen, 2003 THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN BRITISH COLUMBIA May 2003 All rights reserved. This work may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy or other means, without the permission of the author. 1^1 ibiiothèque n a tio n a le duu Canada National Library of Canada Bi Acquisitions and Bibliographic Services Acquisitions et services bibliographiques 395 Wellington Street Ottawa ON K1A0N4 Canada 395, rue Wellington Ottawa ON K1A0N4 Canada Your me Votre Our Hie Notre référence The author has granted a non­ exclusive licence allowing the National Library o f Canada to reproduce, loan, distribute or sell copies o f this thesis in microform, paper or electronic formats. L’auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive permettant à la Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou vendre des copies de cette thèse sous la forme de microfiche/fîlm, de reproduction sur p ^ ier ou sur format électronique. The author retains ownership o f the copyright in this thesis. Neitiier the thesis nor substantial extracts from it may be printed or otherwise reproduced without the author’s permission. L’auteur conserve la propriété du droit d’auteur qui protège cette thèse. N i la thèse ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés ou autrement reproduits sans son autorisation. 0-612-80667-7 CanadS APPROVAL Name: Alexandra Ewashen Degree: Master of Social Work Thesis Title: WALKING THE MAZE: THE LABYRINTH BETWEEN PRIVILEGE AND STRUCTURAL SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE Examining Committee: Chair: Dr. Robert W. Tait Dean of Graduate Studies UNBC Supervisor: Arlene Herman, Ph.D. (ABD) Assistant Professor, Social Work Program UNBC Assistant Pmfe UNBC rard Bellefeuille, Ph.D. (ABD) ocial Work Program Committee Member: Lela Zimmer, Ph.D. (ABD) Assistant Professw, Nursing Program UNBC External Examiner: Dr. Leslie Professor, Environmental Plannitf^Frogram Regional Chair - Northwest Region UNBC Date Approved: Walking the Maze II ABSTRACT This exploratory study uses grounded theory methodology to examine how social work educators who self-identify as privileged and have adopted the overarching theoretical perspective of structural social work, understand the meaning of privilege, structural social work and practice. Two in-depth interviews were conducted with four Canadian professors of social work. The findings of this study indicate that participants develop an awareness of privilege both within the context of family environment as well as through experiences of recognizing difference. As this awareness is identified, an internal struggle ensues in the form of tension and feelings of guilt and/or the need to make sacrifices. This can also result in a decision to surrender to their location of privilege, while concurrently feeling reluctant to the idea of considering privilege. Participants find ways to reconcile themselves with the reality of benefiting from privilege, by embracing the inherent contradictions of their location. This can be a decision to intentionally strive to unlearn prejudices, a reframing of the dichotomy of privilege and oppression, finding ways to be at ease with the internal struggle, and using privilege to advocate for others. Participants understood practiee as teaching, clinical work, social activism, research and writing and the day-to-day activities they engaged in, such as the ways in which they related to others and the places where they shop and live. This process is not linear or stepwise but rather cyclical in that participants may move from any one part of the process to another in a myriad of directions. Considering privilege in the context of structural social work is therefore to engage in praxis, and as such, is part of one’s day-to-day life as well as one’s work life. Walking the Maze TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract Table of Contents List of Figures Acknowledgements Dedication 11 iii V vi vii Chapter 1 The Crux of the Matter Introduction Impetus for Study My Standpoint 1 1 2 7 Chapter 2 The Structural Approach Structural Social Work - A Definition Structural Social Work - A History The Marxist Influence Radical School of Social Work Critical Theory Feminism Anti-racism Summary 11 11 13 17 18 19 20 23 24 Chapter 3 Methods and Design Qualitative Research Methodology Grounded Theory Recruitment Process and Participants Ethical Considerations Data Collection The First Round of Interviews and Informed Consent Transcription and Initial Analysis The Second Round of Interviews Transcription of Second Interview Data Analysis Coding Memoing Analysis Development 26 26 27 29 32 32 32 34 35 36 36 37 38 38 Chapter 4 Findings Acknowledging Privilege Self Identification Family Environment Recognizing Difference Conscious Reflection Struggling With the Location of Privilege The Tensions 40 42 42 43 44 45 47 47 III Walking the Maze I Have Not Done Enough Giving in to Privilege or the Inevitability of Privilege The Unbidden Truth Reconciling Privilege This Is Who I Am Unlearning the “Isms” There Is This Paradox Settling In With Privilege Using Privilege To Advocate How Practice Is Shaped The Meaning Of Structural Social Work Teaching Clinician Relationship With Others Social Action Researcher and Writer Activities and Choices of Daily Living Conclusions 48 49 51 52 52 53 55 56 58 59 59 63 64 65 65 66 67 69 Chapter 5 Discussion Conscientization Desocialization Decolonization of the Mind Allying Conceptions of Praxis Conclusion 72 72 76 80 81 83 86 Chapter 6 Conclusions Summary of the Research Significance of Findings Limitations of Study Suggestions for Future Research Final Personal Reflections 89 89 90 91 92 92 References 94 Appendix A Introductory Letter to Participants 99 Appendix B Information Sheet and Informed Consent 101 Appendix C Interview Format 106 Appendix D Confidentiality Agreement With Transcriber 108 iv Walking the Maze List of Figures FIGURE 1. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 41 FIGURE 2. THE SPIRAL MAZE 70 Walking the Maze vi Acknowledgments 1 wish to express my sincere appreciation and admiration to the professors who participated in this research. Without their willingness to share their experiences and thoughts with me this work would not have been possible. Thank you. 1 am also deeply grateful to the members of my thesis committee: Professors Arlene Herman, Gerard Bellefeuille, and Lela Zimmer. Thank you for your steady support and excitement throughout this project. Gerard’s reminders about the relevance of this study to me were always timely and appropriate. Lela’s help with methodology among other things was extremely valuable, and Arlene’s unfailing encouragement and guidance from beginning to end allowed me to complete this work. I would also like to thank Professor Barb Isaac, Dr. Shereen Ismael, Dr. Si Transken and Professor Dawn Hemingway who were there at the inception of this study and also offered their support and encouragement. Thanks as well to Tana Woodward for her help with transcribing. And finally thank you to Bob Benvie, my partner, who was always encouraging, always inspiring, and always simply there when 1 needed him most. Walking the Maze Dedication This thesis is dedicated to my parents Alex and Julie Ewashen who have helped me to understand who I am. vii Walking the Maze 1 Chapter One Cncc /Ae Introduction Structural social work theory understands the problems of the individual as rooted in inequities that are constructed by and permeate the institutions of our society. The central task of the structural social worker is to critique and work towards the dismantling of those structures that determine how privilege and oppression is conferred. Yet ironically social workers themselves are often agents of the state or at the very least in roles of influence and power. Many of these social workers identify themselves as benefiting from privilege in our society. For those social workers who consider themselves as privileged and as having adopted a structural ^yproach, to engage in the task o f critiquing, disrupting and/or changing the very structures which bestow privilege to them, is a bewildering and paradoxical task. An assumption in social work is that theory and practice are linked. This perspective, which is praxis-oriented, is particularly integral to structural social work practice. Ife (1997) notes that we learn by doing, and by doing theory is developed. Although structural social work theory remains relatively new, even less is known about practice. Literature that discusses structural social work is growing, but there is a lack of information about how practice is shaped when social workers are schooled in a structural approach. My research question strives to respond to that gap in the literature. My question is two-fold: For social workers who have accepted the overarching theoretical perspective of structural social work, how does the meaning of structural social work sh^)e practice? In particular, how is that meaning understood and how is practice shaped by those social workers who acknowledge that they are privileged? Walking the Maze 2 While the Canadian Association of Schools of Social Woik has no classihcation system to define the different schools of social work in Canada, a review of mission statements and curriculum of social woik schools in Canada suggests that there are at least nine schools that openly advocate a radical/structural ^yproach (Radian, 1999). Dr. Glen Schmidt, current chair of the social work program at the University ofNorthem British Columbia, reports that only six of the thirty-four schools in Canada that offer degrees in social work, have adopted a structural curriculum (personal communication, March 29,2001). Apart fi-om the uncertainty over the number o f "structural " oriented social work programs, schools that have adopted this perspective are in the minority. Maurice Moreau is credited with the development of the structural approach in Canada during the late 1970s (Mullaly, 1997). Hence schools of social work in Canada that have adopted a structural fi’amework have done so within the last 30 years. The basis of a structural social work program is a curriculum that is consistent with a structural theoretical framework. Maurice Moreau (1989) describes the structural approach at the School of Social Work at Carleton University in Ottawa after 1977. He notes that critical and feminist theories associated with radical structuralism and Marxism, are the underpinnings of the ideological framework. Camiol (2000), who teaches at Ryerson Polytechnic University in Toronto, indicates that the structural approach necessitates an integration of "the personal and political aspects o f social problems and their remedies. This approach retains the importance of relationships [which has been core to traditional social work] but believes that relationships flowing in hierarchical patterns (top down) are as ineffectual as those based on assumptions of moral siq)eriority" (Camiol, 2000, pp. 42-43). Walking the Maze 3 Camiol (2000) discusses how curriculum that integrates feminism, anti-racism, people with disabilities, and same-sex orientation is essential to the radical approach. He also notes that examining how power is rendered within society, and the nature of oppression is fundamental to structural social work. Structural social work emphasizes that blame must be shifted away ftom the individual and focused on structural inequities that perpetuate and maintain oppressiorL Moreau (1989) makes it clear that this means that it is the responsibility o f social workers to be involved in institutional and structural change, rather than work as social control agents of the state. Stractural social work emerged as a critique to mainstream social work practice and theory, which was rooted in an ecological framework that used systems theory to analyze the problems of the individual (Moreau, 1989). Although this framework included an awareness of how the larger system impacted the individual, there remained an expectation that the individual would essentially adapt to the society in which he/she existed. Rarely was the ideology of the societal structure critiqued. It was because of this absence of an analysis of how power is conferred that structural social work theory emerged. Because our society is rooted in a capitalist paradigm, power lies in the hands of those who control the wealth. In many ways structural social work is therefore a critique of capitalism. Capitalism is the dominant ideology of our society and while many would argue that capitalism is good at stimulating growth and economic development, “it is incapable of meeting human need and of providing adequately for the many disadvantaged victims o f the competitive market place” (Ife, 1997, p. 16). Capitalism is based on profitability. Those who own the means of production, over-valuing those who are economically productive, and the ethic of consumerism are central to the ideology of capitalism. Capitalism assumes that there Walking the Maze 4 are those who are worthy and those who are not. Power and privilege will be bestowed on the few for the supposed “good of the many”. When social workers adopt a structural perspective it is assumed that the structures that support oppression, which are rooted in capitalism, are critically examined. There&re cqntalism is understood as inherently problematic. Yet as Bishop (1994) argues, we are subsumed by the attitudes that surround us. “We are marinated in it. It runs in ours veins; it is as invisible to us as the air we breathe” (p. 97). How do social workers who adopt a structural perspective personally reconcile the beliefs of a society in which we are steeped, with those of the structural ideology, in which we are educated? Bishop writes about the task of building coalitions with others and becoming an ally. She notes that individuals who wish to aid in the liberation of others, need to name their privileges as well as consider the ways in which they experience oppression. This viewpoint is consistent with scholars who write about structural social work. Mullaly (1997) writes, “Structural social work is more than a theory or technique or a practice modality. It is a way of life” (p. 203). What he means by “way of life” is unclear, but what is inferred is that structural social work is an identity that moves beyond the work place. Withom (as cited in Mullaly, 1997) argues that the social worker committed to social change needs “to achieve harmony among their politics, their work, and their personal lives” (p. 202). Moreau (1989) indicates that congruence between our personal/political beliefs and the ways in which we live our lives, is inherent in the practice of structural social work. This necessitates: ...an awareness o f one's personal ways of dealing with power and powerlessness in one's own life, in the profession, in agencies and in work with clients. The Walking the Maze 5 establishment of any meaningful alliances with clients which the Approach advocates can only be possible in as much as one does a considerable amount of personal and political soul-searching about the real basis upon which such alliances can exist (Moreau, 1989, p. 238). Finally, Camiol (2000) states “developing a critical consciousness” (p. 114) is part of creating change, and a way to break out “from the invisible walls that mould our thoughts and actions to perpetuate unequal social relations” (p. 115). This idea that social workers who identify with a stmctural framework must seek harmony between “political, personal and work life", that structural social work is a “way of life" which is only possible if one does a “considerable amount of personal and political soulsearching”, and that we must “develop a critical consciousness”, suggests that structural social woik is very much a personal endeavor, in that structural social workas are being asked to examine their location and what that means given their theoretical framework. As such, examining the nature of privilege is important. Social work remains a field dominated by women, but the majority of these women are white, middle class (by virtue of their education, position, and income), able-bodied, and heterosexual. These identifiers are consistent with how privilege is perceived and conferred by society. The Social Work Dictionary (1991) defines privilege as “connected to inequity, which is defined as a disparity of power or opportunity to receive just treatment or equal privilege”. Peggy McIntosh (1989), author of “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack” writes, white privilege is “an invisible package of unearned assets which I can count on cashing in on each day, but about which I was ‘meant’ to remain oblivious” (p. 10). She argues that meritocracy is a myth. Privilege assumes that opportunity is afforded to Walking the Maze 6 some without question. Kimmel (2002) also discusses the invisibility of privilege yet notes the irony that privilege concurrently is ubiquitous in nature. Unless gay, woman, or black/First Nations, etc. is named when describing someone, the assumption is heterosexual, male, and white. As an instructor, Kimmel recalls a student who indicated his relief at being able to hear an “objective” opinion from Kimmel, as opposed to the apparently subjective point of view stated by a female colleague. Privilege is invisible, yet those who are privileged set the standard against which everyone else is measured. Kimmel advocates that we examine our privilege and consider the ways that gender, race, class, and sexuality intersect because “just as all forms of inequality are not the same, all forms of privilege are not the same” (p. 44). McIntosh (1989) also discusses the complexity of privilege and how race, class, gender, ethnic status, religion, and geographic location interlock to create, sustain, and maintain oppression. This analysis is shared by Hill Collins (1990) and other Black feminist scholars (hooks, 1995). Hill Collins notes that oppression is best understood as an interlocking system. Additive forms of oppression suggest a dichotomous worldview that posits individuals as privileged or oppressed. She suggests a both/and analysis that allows individuals to be oppressor, oppressed, or simultaneously oppressor and oppressed. Privilege is not simply the absence of experiencing oppression. How then, do social workers who adopt a structural ideology, and who may be considered as privileged understand that privilege and work within a structural framework? Although there is fluidity among approaches, some social workers may consider that their location within a particular agency necessitates hocusing on initiating change from the “inside” (Mullaly, 1997). Others may work as activists and push hor structural change from Walking the Maze 7 the “outside”. Still others may emphasize their career as educators, and teach about the nature and structures of oppression. At the beginning of this research my interest was on interviewing social workers from the latter two realms (activists and educators). During the course o f the project I decided to concentrate solely on educators in order to gain an understanding of how the meaning of structural social work has sh^)ed practice. The literature that discusses structural/radical theory in social work continues to grow. However there is a lack of information about how practice is shaped by social workers who selfidentify as privileged and teach social work from a structural perspective. My Standpoint My decision to pursue this question in my thesis is in many ways an inevitable result of my life thus far. I was bom into a white middle class family and raised in a small BC interior community. My mother grew up in southern Ireland in a Protestant home and had the privilege of having the occasional servant in the home, while her father was a gentleman’s farmer, and her mother raised show dogs. Mom attended boarding school and then became a registered nurse before immigrating to Canada in her late twenties. My father grew up in a Doukhobor home in southern Alberta. His family were poor farmers and often ostracized for their beliefs and difficulties with the English language. Dad dropped out of school in grade 10 and helped his father ranch before deciding to become an auctioneer. When he and my mother married they moved to BC where my Dad worked hard setting up an auctioneering business. I always knew that it was important to him that my brother and I were given opportunities that he never had. My mother felt similarly, because althou^ her family had “money", much o f it had “run out" by the time she wished to pursue a career. As a result she had to work her way through nursing school. I ended up having the Walking the Maze 8 benefit of music, dance, and figure skating lessons as a result. And although not overtly stated, it was expected that I would pursue a post secondary education. At the same time my father’s cultural and spiritual beliefs impacted my development. Although he was a businessman and capitalist, politically he adhered to left wing views and a socialist perspective. Doukhobors are pacifists and traditionally lived communally. In our family, this meant that we belonged to the New Democratic Party, and that my father frequently brought home “strays”, often to my mother’s dismay. My mother’s profession in the health field put her in contact with the sick and frequently the marginalized, so she too saw caring for the individual as a collective responsibility. As an adolescent I had numerous arguments with my father about what I saw as incongruence in his belief system, and his pursuance of the capitalist dream. Later journeys took me briefly into the environmental movement with Greenpeace, feminism, and then activism directed towards a nuclear test site in Mercury, Nevada. In 1991 I graduated with a Bachelor’s Degree in Music Therapy and several years later joined the Ministry for Social Services as a child protection worker. Contact with the poor and the disenfranchised always left me struggling with the disparity between my standard of living and that of the “other”. In all of these ventures I was drawn to colleagues who sought to “make the world a better place” and curious as to how espoused values were put into practice, or more frequently, how individuals made sense of the inevitable incongruence in their lives. At the same time, I was aware that I felt almost compelled to pursue a life that was middle class. To do otherwise seemed scary, but perhaps even more so unimaginable. Because I could ensure financial security why would I not do otherwise and if I did “give it all up” would I be radical or just foolhardy? Does giving up middle class life make the world a Walking the Maze 9 better place? What would it look like to choose an alternate path? Should I go work in a 3"^ world country? Why is there this “feeling” that sacrifice is necessary when bestowed rewards are unearned? These were the kinds of questions I asked myself. Although I believe I have never been an avid consumer, I was aware that my choices around how I furnished my home, etc. were choices I could make rather then necessary actions. I liked second-hand stuff; I liked an eclectic look. I also felt my day-to-day work with abused and neglected children and families in poverty necessitated me coming home to a place where I could relax and be restored. I needed beauty in my world in order to balance the pain. As a music therapist I valued the creative process and felt that the songs I wrote or painting I dabbled in was linked to this need for aesthetics. I fancied myself a Renaissance gal, yet was very uncomfortable with the possible pretentiousness that this might imply. In many ways these questions and this internal struggle is perhaps not uncommon for a young woman in her twenties and early thirties who struggles with issues of identity in an attempt to create a meaningful life, especially for someone who is often told “don’t be so hard on yourself’. And although I valued the support and observation of my tendency to dwell in the world of existential angst, I also felt that these questions remained important to explore, because to do otherwise would be to condone the status quo. Over the years I made compromises that I could live with. I bought a home but it was simple and small. I bought second hand furnishings that I restored to my liking. I lived a modest li& but occasionally allowed myself a luxury or two. I bou^t ftxxi I wanted but paid attention to where it was grown. I took my own shopping bags to the grocery stores and recycled. This generally “worked” far me, but in many ways all o f these decisions were easy to make; I wouldn’t be comfortable with any other lifestyle. What remained, however, was Walking the Maze 10 this feeling that I was “playing” with making a difference. What would I be doing differently if I telt I x w making a difference? The obvious answer to that question was that I would be more politically active. This too I dabbled in, but found that I often became paralyzed by my numerous questions and lack of answers. In retrospect, my decision to pursue graduate work, in my late 30’s was in many ways linked to these unresolved personal issues. I initially entered the social work program at the University ofNorthem British Columbia, with an interest in adolescents, which was connected to my work at the time. However, I was quickly intrigued with the idea of structural social work and realized that I needed to focus my study in this area. As a middle class white heterosexual woman who is also able-bodied, I wanted to talk to others who were similarly located and find out what they had discovered about being privileged and working with the marginalized. More specifically, I wanted to know, how individuals who are educated and well informed about the inequities in our society, about the nature of oppression, and who are fi-equently living “middle class” lives, integrate their personal life and their work life? Is there a separation between work life and personal life? How is stmctural social work practice understood, and how is this theoretical ideology put into practice? Thus the focus of my thesis was determined. Walking the Maze 11 Chapter Two The Structural Approach This chapter will 6cus on examining the literature related to structural social work. I will begin with a discussion of definitions of structural social work followed by an exploration of the history of the development of this approach. The chapter will conclude by looking at the theoretical influences linked to a structural social work approach as described by Mullaly (1997), namely Marxism, radical social work, and critical theory. I will also discuss the influences of feminism and anti-racist perspectives as noted by Moreau (1989). Structura/ IFbrk-yd Mullaly (1997), who founded the Social Work program at St. Thomas University in Fredericton, New Brunswick, describes several elements that are critical in structural social work. “The term ‘structural’ is descriptive of the nature of social problems in that they are an inherent part of our present social order” (p. ix). Fook (1993) prefers the term radical to structural, but states “structural perspectives refer to those approaches which place primacy on an analysis of social structures [rather than a focus on the individual] in understanding a person’s situation” (p. 15). Moreau (1979) notes that the structural social work approach does not negate the work that must be done with the individual, but rather seeks to provide context to the concerns of the individual and to join organizational/structural action to individual action. The central concern of structural social work is power, both personal and political. ..structural social work is concerned with the ways in which the rich and powerful in society define and constrain the poor and the less powerful - the ways in which whites define native peoples and blacks, men define women, heterosexuals Walking the Maze define homosexuals, adults define children, the young define the aged, and so-called normal people define the world of the deviant (Moreau, 1979, p. 78). This analysis of how oppression is perpetuated and maintained, was initially rooted in a Marxist analysis of class, and later a gender analysis, via feminism (Moreau, 1989; Ife, 1997). Moreau, however, later noted that all forms of oppression are interwoven. He “alerted radicals about the futility of debates trying to show that any one particular oppression was somehow more debilitating and therefore more central than other oppressions” (Camiol, 1992, p. 4). Understanding how oppression is interconnected became a key goal of structural social work theorists. Structural social work “does not attempt to establish hierarchies of oppression but rather is concerned with all forms of oppressive dominant-subordinate relations” (Mullaly, 1997, p. x). Ife (1997), from the University of Western Australia, describes oppression as universal in its nature, but also suggests a postmodern approach to allow for a “relativist and culturally specific definition” for action (p. 127). Camiol (1992) describes stmctural social work as an umbrella that includes the major radical themes of numerous frameworks. Mullaly (1997) succinctly describes these influences when he states: Based on socialist ideology, located within the radical social work camp, grounded in critical theory, and operating from a conflict view of society, structural social work views social problems as arising from a specific societal context - liberal/neo­ conservative capitalism - rather than from the failings of individuals.. .Given this view of social problems, stmctural social workers seek to change the social system and not the individuals who receive, through no fault of their own, the results of defective social 12 Walking the Maze 13 arrangements.. .This goal involves a two-tiered process: immediate relief or tensionreduction [for the marginalized] on one level accompanied by longer-term institutional and structural change (pp. 133-134). Structural Social W ork-A History Although it is Maurice Moreau in Canada, who is credited with developing the structural social work approach, Middleman and Goldberg in the United States first used the term in 1974, when they identified the environment as the cause of most social problems (Mullaly, 1997). Abramovitz (1998) examines the history of social work activism in the United States, and suggests that three periods are significant, the early 1900s, the 1930s and the 1960s. She writes that the early 1900s was the begirming of the conflict between individual change and social change. The Settlement House Movement sought control over the social work profession. It had previously been positioned within the Charity Organization Society, which focused on the individual. Jane Addams, one of the founders of the movement, was strongly committed to activism and social justice (Wagner, 1990). In the 1920s, various legislative acts, including the Social Security Act, were passed in parts of the country. Southern legislators, however, defeated the bill and social activism was renewed. The Great Depression of the 1930s “made it clear that a free market could not absorb all of those willing and able to work” (Abramovitz, 1998, p. 522). In 1933, Karl Borders, a Chicago settlement worker, opened his speech at the National Conference of Social Welfare with the following: no intelligent social worker can fail to be concerned with the whole social economic order in which his (sic) work is set. The logical pursuit of such a concern will, in the best sense of the word, bring him out a politicai and economic radical (reprinted in Walking the Maze 14 Lei^minger (Ed.), 1999, p.74). It was during this time that the Rank and File Movement, a radical social work organization, developed and dominated several newly formed social service unions (Wagner, 1990). Moreau (1989) notes that in Canada, the establishment of the Welfare State after WWn initially led people to believe that poverty had been irradiated, as had other structural inequalities. However, growing costs and concerns with increasing numbers of “juvenile delinquents” and “problem families” set the stage for once again viewing societal problems as rooted in the defects of the individual. During the 1950s and throughout the 1960s, the St. Patrick’s School of Social Welfare at the University of Ottawa adopted a clinical psychological approach based on Freudian Theory (in 1967 St. Pat’s was transferred to Carleton University). The adoption of psychological theories by schools of social work resulted in a trend towards professionalization. Many social workers believed that social work and social reform were no longer congruent. Moreau (1989) notes that when the economies of North America and Europe began to falter after the post-war boom, mass protests arose in response to the cold war and nuclear armament. In the U.S., social workers were sparked by the War on Poverty, the black revolution, the women’s movement, the Vietnam War, and curricula that focused on the individual as the problem. The Radical Alliance of Social Service Workers was established in New York and in other parts of the country in the 1960s (Abramovitz, 1998). Camiol (1992) notes that unrest in the United States impacted Canada, and influenced the development of other movements that called for the recognition of human rights. In the 1970s, the second wave of feminism, gay and lesbian activists, the environmental movement, and labour unrest sparked an increased awareness of public issues as they related to the state. walking the Maze 15 Further, the Quebec Separatist movement in Canada and the grassroots movement amongst First Nations peoples about land claims issues were touted as indicators of an unstable economy. This justified the relocation of manufacturing corporations to places that offered "cheap labour and docile or repressed trade unions" (Camiol, 1992, p. 3). At the same time, systems and ecological social work theorists began influencing social science ideology. This focus shifted attention away from the individual and pushed social workers to examine how individuals and groups interfaced with other systems (Moreau, 1989). When progressive theorists in sociology critiqued dominant institutions and exposed the state function of social workers as agents of social control, the radical social work movement was renewed and according to Pease, as cited by Moreau (1989), four different streams of social work resulted. One response was to simply ignore the criticisms and maintain the status quo. These conservative social workers argued, “politics and social work cannot and should not mix" (Moreau, 1989, p. 7). The second response was to accept the criticism and to go even one step further. These structural determinists argued that there were fundamental problems with the existence of social work and that social workers could not be anything other than instruments of the state. The third most common response was to incorporate some of the criticisms into social work curricula. Moreau (1989) notes that this response resulted in schools putting more emphasis on community organization and development courses, and utilizing a generalist orientation that could incorporate individual and structural change. Moreau states that problems remained, however, with the systems framework being used in family work because of the emphasis on restoring stability and maintaining the status quo, rather then examining the social, political, and economic context Walking the Maze 16 in which individuals and families live their lives. The fourth response, in 1976, was to develop the structural ^rproach. When describing the premises of a structural approach, Moreau (1989), highlights the Marxist underpinnings of the approach. Because capitalist society is organized around paid and unpaid work, the establishment of social relationships that are maintained by various institutions in order to reinforce patriarchy, profits and private property is noted. As a result, resources and rewards are distributed amongst individuals on the basis of class, gender, and race. This structure can only be maintained when critical thinking is discouraged and division amongst groups is encouraged. Moreau credits Leonard and Levine as highly influential in shifting the structural approach away from a foundation of systems theory and an ecological framework, towards a feminist critical approach linked with radical structuralism and Marxism. Levine is also cited as pointing out that Marxism neglects gender and other forms of oppression. It was Moreau who then suggested that oppression is more accurately described as a complex system of interwoven forces. By 1977 the school at Carleton was no longer described as a structural eco-systemic approach and rather simply The Structural Approach. This approach emphasized how “differential access to power and conflict between systems are the problem, not a lack of mutual fit, reciprocity, interdependence and balance between individuals and systems” (Moreau, 1989, p. 23). Moreau (1989) goes on to state that it is the role of radical social workers to demystify the helping process and remove oneself from the role as “expert”, educate others about the inadequacies and inequities of our current societal structure, and to challenge societal structures by developing alliances with those who are powerless. Walking the Maze 17 Hunter (1981) states that although structured social inequality was known to exist, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were the first to suggest a theory that explained the nature of inequality. Many of their ideas continue to be the basis of current understandings of structured inequities. Marx and Engels proposed that class struggle has historically been an agent of change. Primarily two classes are said to exist, the bourgeoisie, who own the means of production, and the proletariat, or working class. Other elements might influence class such as education, occupation, or income, but it is ownership that is the “single most determinant of one’s social relations, actions, beliefs and share of the available material wealth” (Hunter, 1981, p. 14). Because it is primarily economic wealth that determines who has power and influence in a society, private ownership of the means to create wealth is inherently problematic, and as such Marxists advocate that the state control the distribution o f wealth. Marxist theorists describe capitalism as supporting the needs of small groups of privileged and powerful individuals over the needs of the majority of its citizens. Individuals are valued if they are economically productive; the old, the sick, and those who lack economic opportunity are conversely a burden to society. Marxists assume a conflict perspective. Various groups with conflicting views and interests struggle for resources and political power. Marxism is relevant to a structural social work approach because it explains society and how the development of the welfare state is ineffective in a capitalist structure. If collective responsibility for the individual were a central value of society, then the means of production would have to be trans&rred fi^m private to public ownership (Mullaly, 1997). True welfare can only exist in a socialist society. V/aU dngthelW aze 18 Radical School o f Social Work Mullaly (1997) notes that social work has always had a radical influence. He discusses the work of Bertha Reynolds, an American Marxist social worker in the 1930s, who believed that social work values were consistent with radical social work. It was during the 1960s, however, that a radical critique appeared more regularly in the social work literature. Many social workers felt the need to comment on the problematic nature of society rather than continuing to focus on the problems of the individual. Frequently maligned, the term radical has its Latin origins with the word “root”. Issues are examined so that the fundamental problem can be identified and addressed. Freire (2000) describes the radical as someone who fully enters into the “truth” of society in order to understand, and as someone who develops knowledge of how transformation can take place. This person is not afraid to confront, to listen, to see the world unveiled. This person is not afraid to meet the people or to enter into dialogue with them. This person does not consider himself or herself the proprietor of history or of all people, or the liberator of the oppressed; but he or she does commit himself or herself, within history, to fight at their side (Freire, 2000, p. 21). Ife (1997) has described 5 themes that are common to radical social work. Personal problems are understood as rooted in the socio-economic structure of society; the task of social workers is to provide an analysis of how social control fonctions within the profession and the welfare state; social, political and economic arrangements must continue to be monitored and critiqued; the protection of the marginalized from those who are privileged is a goal of social work, and the end goal is personal liberation and social change. Mullaly (1997) cites Mullaly and Keating who have examined the radical social work literature and Walking the Maze 19 state that for radical social workers, “conventional social work perpetuates social problems... the feminist perspective is an epistemological imperative ... [and] capitalism is rejected in favour of socialism” (p. 107). Critical Theory As stated earlier, structural social work is located within the school o f critical theory (Camiol, 2000; Ife, 1997; Mullaly, 1997). It is widely thought that it was a group of German scholars in the 1920s, now known as the Frankfurt School, who developed this theory (Morrow & Brown as cited by Creswell, 1998), however, Brormer (1994) indicates that critical theory was developed by a group of unorthodox members of the Western Marxism movement, which pre-dated the development of the Frankfurt School. Brormer makes this point to emphasize the cormection with Marxism. He cites opposition to mechanistic materialism and ahistoiical forms of interpretation, the emphasis on the dialectical method and idealism as highly influential in the ideology of Karl Korsch, Georg Lukacs, and Ernst Bloch. Critical theory also emphasizes praxis. “From the very first, [critical theory] expressed an interest in the abolition of social injustice... [and sought to] foster reflexivity, a capacity for fantasy, and a new basis for praxis in an increasingly alienated world” (Brormer, 1994, p. 3). Jensen (1997) notes that although there are various streams, what is shared is an orientation towards praxis, so that a society that is just, rational, and humane can truly be attained. Critical theorists critique capitalism, analyze the structure of power and seek to translate those analyses into meaningful forms of emancipatory practice. Ife (1997) notes that it is the interpretive nature of critical theory that allows understanding so that change directed towards action will result. Walking the Maze 20 In critical theory positivism is rejected as an understanding of the subjective nature of reality is sought. It is assumed that the meanings that individuals attach to experiences are determined within a cultural context yet also move across cultural boundaries (Ife, 1997). Universal laws or grand narratives are rejected in favour o f valuing the individual experience. Concurrently, however, it is assumed that oppression occurs within a structure and that there are themes that result in individuals identifying with a particular oppressed group. This includes discrimination that occurs because of class, gender, sexual orientation, religion, race, and culture. These themes are indicative of a conflict perspective, and thus consistent with Marxism, yet they indicate a very different standpoint. Ife (1997) notes, however, that theorists like Habermas, whose interest is language, have bridged these differences. Habermas (as cited by Ife, 1997) suggests that language both defines local realities yet “represents some form of universal rationality, which thus provides a framework for a higher order discourse” (p. 134). Language can be used in such a way that it is experienced as action. As such, a dialogue free from domination has the potential for liberation. Ife (1997) emphasizes the clear link between critical theory and structural social work. Critical theory is: directly concerned with change and empowerment, and is oriented to the kind of social justice that is such an important part of social work. Because of its link between the personal and the political, it is able to define human liberation and social justice both in individual and structural terms (Ife, 1997, p. 136). Feminism Feminists locate themselves amongst various camps, for example, liberal, socialist, radical and post-structural. During the 1970s, it was commonplace to understand feminists as Walking the Maze 21 individuals who critiqued patriarchy, and were concerned with the position and level of influence women held within society (Taylor and Whittier, 2001). Structural social work has been highly influenced by this feminist critique of patriarchy. Ife (1997) reiterates this link in the following statement: Feminism’s attempts to dismantle patriarchal structures are also of relevance to social work, given social work’s aim to bring about social justice, that from the perspective of structural social work, requires structural change and dismantling structures of oppression (p. 96). Women of colour, however, have criticized feminists who focus on gender solely as a source of oppression. Brown, Jamieson, and Kovach (1995) have noted that most First Nations women resist feminism, because of its exclusion of the realities of non-white women. Contemporary feminist ideology examines the positioning of power or dominant/subordinate relations in a broader context. Oppression is no longer understood in the context of a gender analysis. Patricia Monture-Angus (1999), a Mohawk woman who left the law school she taught at in Ottawa, Ontario to join the Native Studies Department at the University of Saskatchewan, is wary of the ability of feminism to represent Aboriginal women’s concerns. She views patriarchy as just one factor/strategy of colonialism. Black feminist thought as described by Patricia Hill Collins (1990) understands oppression as an interlocking system that results in a structure of domination. She critiques feminists who view oppression as rooted in gender and additive (adding other variables such as age, ethnicity, sexual orientation onto gender). Hill Collins quotes Barbara Smith, “W hat/really feel is radical is trying to make coalitions with people who are different from you, I feel it is Walking the Maze 22 radical to be dealing with race and sex and class and sexual identity all at one time” (p. 222). This perspective is consistent with Moreau’s (1989) description of structural social work. Mullaly (1997) notes that “the personal is political” slogan created by the women’s movement was adopted by structural social work, because it addresses the traditional split between micro and macro social work practice. By embracing this slogan there is an acknowledgement that individual practice has a political impact, and can either condone or reject the status quo. There is also an understanding that the individual exists in a society that is structured to perpetuate the beliefs of the dominant perspective. For example, pathologizing service users ignores and minimizes the impact of the political structure. When Moreau (1989) discusses the relevance of connecting the personal and the political for social workers, he suggests that to truly practice the structural approach, workers must examine how they experience power and powerlessness in their work life and in thenpersonal life. This is important, he stresses so that workers can consider where genuine alliances can be made. Stanley and Wise (1993), emphasize that feminism is a politic that is not separate from day to day life, when they discuss the slogan the personal is political. If individuals make public certain views and standards but then do not change their actions to be congruent with those same ideals they describe this as a “cop-out”. They argue that we cannot wait until the revolution comes before changing what we do. The ways in which we live our lives is the revolution. Structures are not above and separate from our daily lives. This is congruent with Mullaly’s (1997) description of structural social work as a way of life. w alking the Maze 23 Anti-racism Mullaly (1997) notes that early radical social work is criticized for ignoring racism as a source of oppression. Camiol (2000), concurs as he notes that understanding how colonialism and the role of social work has impacted First Nations people is paramount for practicing structural social workers. Contemporary structural social workers are concerned with examining how racism perpetuates the myth of white superiority, and combined with capitalism and patriarchy maintains a position of dominance over people of colour (Mullaly and Keating as cited by Mullaly, 1997). A pamphlet distributed by the British Columbia Human Rights Commission describes racism as “when someone is bothering, threatening or treating a person unfairly because of the colour of their skin, ethnic or cultural background, and/or religion or country that they come from”. Dominelli (1988) notes that racism is socially constructed and operates at an institutional level as well as an individual level. Economic, political, and ideological practices inform how a dominant group exercises power over a sub-ordinate group. Dominelli describes anti-racist social work as a commitment to the creation of a new practice of social work, which supports a diversity of educators and practitioners to work in partnerships that are free from racism. She emphasizes the need for those of the dominant group to recognize that their experience and understanding of racism will differ from those located in a sub-ordinate group. As such anti-racist social workers that are from the dominant group have a different role in the coordinated task of dismantling racism. Because we inherently benefit from racism, our awareness of short-term loss of power and privilege will obscure long-term advantages. She notes that anti-racist social work focuses on two areas: the personal and the structural. Further, to be truly anti-racist, is to have “a state of Walking the Maze 24 mind, feeling, political commitment, and action” that supports harmony and equal relationships between all people (Dominelli, 1988, p. 16). Some scholars describe this process as decolonization of the mind. This term is used by hooks (1995), a black American writer, who describes the process as a divesting o f white supremacy and internalized racism, and a commitment to radical pobticization. hooks cites Spivak who suggests that a shifting of location and viewing of self, communities, and societies ftom places other than whiteness is inherent in the process of decolonization. Whiteness is understood as more than a skin colour. It is an attitude that views the world through a particular lens, which assumes that there is one way of understanding and interacting with the world. Other beliefs and perspectives are discounted and even often remain unseen. Recognition of the sacred amongst Aboriginal people as well as non-Western ways of healing and ceremony are a few examples of previously under-valued aspects of a marginalized people. Dominelli (1988) notes that white people benefit from racism whether or not it is acknowledged, and asks social workers to engage in anti-racism awareness so egalitarian relationships can exist. Summary Structural social work examines the nature of oppression from a structural perspective. Various theoretical influences have been integrated to explain how oppressions are linked and result in perpetuating and maintaining the dominant paradigm at the expense of marginalized peoples. Located in the radical school and under the umbrella of critical theory, structural social work theory utilizes the assumptions and arguments of Marxism, feminism, and anti-racism to understand how struetural oppression can be addressed. It should be noted that ableism, ageism, heterosexism, and cultural bias are also of concern to structural social Walking the Maze workers (Mulally, 1997, 2002), however, in the interest of brevity, a more detailed examination of these areas of oppression will not occur in this paper. 25 Walking the Maze 26 Chapter Three Methods and Design Mason (2000) discusses various philosophical underpinnings that have influenced qualitative research methodology. Commonly associated with interpretive sociological traditions, which include phenomenology and symbolic interactionism. Mason also lists the case study approach, oral histories, feminist discourse, and content analysis as examples of the breadth and depth that exists within and is encompassed by the term qualitative research. Accordingly, when researchers wish to understand more about how our social world is experienced, understood, or constructed, qualitative research methods are used. Mason also notes that qualitative research can be loosely understood as interpretive. Research from an interpretive or constructivist perspective understands “that to understand this world of meaning one must interpret it” (Schwandt, 1994, p. 118). Similarly symbolic interactionism, which is closely linked to interpretivism and contructivism, asserts that human beings purposively engage with the social world in ways that are self-reflexive in order to derive meaning from interactions. As such, humans move between sensory experience, interpretation, and constructed action (Schwandt, 1994). Objective knowledge, is therefore, unattainable because knowledge and truth are created. Qualitative inquiry is fixndamentally different from quantitative research, which as the name suggests, seeks to quantify data through a statistical analysis that is mathematical in nature (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Qualitative researchers, are interested in the quality or detail and complexity of lived experiences. It is based on a more holistic understanding, and as such necessitates methods of data collection that incorporate an awareness of the context Walking the Maze 27 in which the data are produced (Mason, 2000). Data can be obtained in the form of words and/or pictures, and are collected by the researcher herself. An inductive analysis is used to describe meaning from the perspective of the research participants (Creswell, 1998). The inquiry examines a social or human problem, often in the field, and extensive data are examined, categorized, and then distilled into several themes. Because my research question is concerned with understanding how social workers, who have both adopted a structural framework for practice and view themselves as privileged, perceive the meaning of structural social work, as well as how this perceived meaning has shaped or constructed practice, qualitative research is the obvious choice. Grounded Theory Grounded theory is typically presented as an approach to doing qualitative research, in that its procedures are neither statistical nor quantitative in other ways (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). A grounded theory approach was adopted because of its link to symbolic interactionism and constructivism. Symbolic interactionists believe that we are continually co-creating our world through and based on our interactions with each other. Likewise, philosophical underpinnings of constructivism suggest that new ideas and experiences are considered in the context of current knowledge and experience, and it is through this process that an understanding of reality arises. This construction of reality evolves as we as co­ creators integrate new knowledge and hence develop different values. This perspective infers a link to structural social work, which assumes that dominance and oppression is constructed and can be changed as old institutions are dismantled and new ones arise.' ' Thank you to Professor Lela Zimmer for her help in understanding constructivist links to Grounded Theory and the implications for Structural Social Work Walking the Maze 28 Because the basis of constructivist theory is relevant to structural social work, grounded theory is an appropriate methodology for this study. In 1967, socialists Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss collaborated to develop the grounded theory approach (Creswell, 1998). Researchers typically use in-depth interviewing to gather data and "saturate" the categories. Saturation occurs when there is a clear picture as to what is occurring, and an explanation can be generated (Mason, 2000). At the end of the study, theory is presented in the form of a narrative statement (Strauss and Corbin as cited by Creswell, 1998), a visual picture (Morrow & Smith as cited by Creswell, 1998) or a series of hypotheses or propositions (Creswell & Brown as cited by Creswell, 1998). Glaser (1992) notes that grounded theory is used by social work researchers (and others) and is recommended when there is little known about a substantive area under study. There appears to be little known about how self-identified privileged social work educators consider their privilege in the context of structural social work. My research question asks participants to reflect on the meaning of structural social work, to consider how that meaning has influenced practice, to explore the meaning of practice, and to reflect on how their location as privileged, influences all of these constructs. The complexity of these issues provided another rationale for the use of grounded theory. Grounded theory is the most abstract conceptual and integrated form of qualitative analysis (Glaser, 1992). With grounded theory, analysis begins during the process of data collection and directs further interviews or other data collecting methods. The process is systematic, and as it unfolds a standardized format of coding is used (Creswell, 1998; Glaser, 1978; Glaser, 1992). The theory is built as themes emerge in data analysis and explain an existing process, action, or interaction (Creswell, 1998). Grounded theory is therefore, inductive in that the theory is Walking the Maze 29 induced from the data (Glaser, 1978). At the onset of this project, I hoped that a theory would emerge that could explain the process of how privilege is understood, how the meaning of structural social work is understood, and how that influences the action of practice. As is consistent with grounded theory, I did not set out to prove an existing theory. The theory that was to emerge had to be “grounded” in the data (Glaser, 1978) generated through interviews with the participants. Recruitment Process and Participants As indicated by grounded theory, theoretical sampling determined the participants for this research. Participants were recruited based on their ability to contribute to an evolving theory. A homogenous group of individuals were selected because of their knowledge about the area of study (Creswell, 1998; Straus and Corbin, 1990). At the outset of this research, my intention was to interview four social workers that had adopted a structural perspective. These four individuals were to be recruited and selected by myself, the researcher. Two participants were to have current or recent experience as professors in a structural school of social work in Canada and have a minimum of a Master’s Degree in Social Work. The other two were to have been schooled in a Canadian structural social work program, currently working as an activist social worker in a non-govemmental association in Canada, and have a minimum of a Bachelor’s Degree in Social Work. Letters were sent to three of the nine schools of social work in Canada that Radian (1999) identified as having a structural focus. Another school was identified as having a stmctural focus via a discussion with my thesis supervisor, and a letter was sent to that school as well. These schools were chosen based on geographical location, as field visits would be required. The letters were sent to program chairs and field education directors who in turn Walking the Maze 30 disseminated the letters to faculty. The letter asked professors to consider participating in the research, and to also forward the letter to current or past students who met the criteria and might be interested in participation. The research question, criteria for participation, and information on how interested possible participants could contact me was also in the letter (see Appendix A). Because structural social work is focused on examining structures of oppression, and power and privilege are inherent in understanding the nature of oppression, I indicated in the letter that I was particularly interested in how those who recognize their place of privilege, practiced from a stmctural perspective. As such my participants were to self identify as white, heterosexual, middle or upper class, able-bodied, and benefiting from privilege. 1 received some replies via email from educators who believed that they did not meet my criteria, but were interested in the research. Another professor did appear to meet the criteria and expressed interest in participating in the research. Subsequently telephone contact was made. The study was discussed and a tentative arrangement was made for a follow up telephone call with the intention of setting up an interview. Concurrently plans were made to attend the Canadian Association of Schools of Social Work Conference in May 2002 in Toronto, Ontario. Possible participants were pre-identified prior to my arrival and based on papers presented at the conference, other potential participants were identified. I approached several of these individuals to determine if 1) they were interested in participating in the research 2) met the criteria. Three professors of social work at Canadian schools of social work expressed interest in participating in my research. All three self-identified as privileged, and as having a stmctural focus. All three also had a minimum of a Master’s Degree in Social Work and were currently teaching in a Canadian w alking the Maze 31 social work program that had a structural focus to the curriculum. All three individuals also agreed to meet with me during the week that 1 was in Toronto for the purposes of being interviewed. At that point I made a decision to only focus on interviewing social work educators rather than also recruit social work practitioners. This decision was made because the response to recruitment from social work professors was higher than anticipated, and I felt that I had subjects who were highly consistent with my criteria. Self-identified privileged structural social workers who were teaching others about these issues appeared to be ideal participants for this study. Because o f my personal interest in this study, I wanted to interview individuals who were highly informed about issues of oppression and structural social work. I wanted to listen to the experiences of others who had been considering these issues for quite some time. Strauss and Corbin (1990) discuss considerations for sampling in a grounded theory approach. Participants must be chosen from the population to which one wishes to generalize. What is most important, however, is that the sample represents concepts that are integral to the research question. The results of this sampling process were that I had two male and two female professors of social work who self-identified as privileged and as having adopted a structural perspective^. The participants all had a minimum of a Master’s Degree in Social Work and were currently teaching in a school that had a structural focus to the program. One participant also worked part time as a clinician. ^During the interviews, two o f the participants indicated they were not comfortable with the label structural social work. However, both participants did indicate the term captured the essence of their current ideological framework. Walking the Maze 32 Ethical Considerations Each participant was asked to sign a consent form (see Appendix B) prior to the beginning of the first interviews. They were informed that participation was voluntary and that they could withdraw at any time. Participants were also informed that the tapes used in the interviews would be transcribed verbatim, and both the tapes and transcriptions would be stored in a locked cabinet in my home. Issues of confidentiality were discussed and participants were informed that no names would be attached to any of the verbatim quotes, transcriptions, or tapes. Other identifying information would also not be used when quoting participants. Because participants were professors of structural social work, and may be considered as semi-public figures, a concern about possible identification was discussed. All participants signed consent forms and agreed to participate in this study. Because of the nature of my study, participants were selected partially because of self­ identified privilege. During interviews they would be asked, among other things, to describe how structural social work (which examines the nature of oppression) has shaped their practice. I was aware that these questions were sensitive in nature, and that participants may feel that they were being asked to be the “expert” on how oppression is addressed. As such, I determined that I would have to pay particular attention to how my questions were framed and stated. Data The first round o f interviews and informed consent. I was fortunate enough to be able to secure an interview room at the University of Toronto. Interviews with three ofthe participants occurred in this room. The room Walking the Maze 33 contained a window, desk, small table, and two chairs. Participants were given an information sheet and consent form at the beginning of the meeting (Appendix B). Participant’s questions were answered and both the participant and the researcher, myself, signed the consent &rm. As stated earlie, the consent form gave permission for the interviews to be tape-recorded, and indicated that participation was voluntary and participants could withdraw at any time. A Sony micro cassette recorder was used to record the interview. Interview length varied from 1 hour and 15 minutes to 2 hours. I had determined that I would use open-ended questions “to maximize discovery and description” (Raymond as cited in Reinharz, 1992, p. 18). Reinharz (1992) also argues that this format enables the researcher to gather ideas, thoughts, and memories of participants in his/her “own words”. As such, seven open-ended questions (Appendix C) were prepared in advance to provide some structure to the interview, which allowed time to follow up on responses and ideas referred to by participants during the interview (Creswell, 1998). My interviewing style was conversational and relatively informal even though 1 did have prepared questions. This style allowed the interview to unfold much like a discussion (Mason, 2000). 1 knew that I was asking participants to discuss the ways in which they saw themselves as privileged, and how that influenced practice. These questions could potentially be experienced as pointed and probing questions about identity and lived values. 1 wanted participants to feel that the questions could be carefully considered and honestly answered. 1 therefore wanted to ensure that my approach was flexible and responsive to the social interaction implicit in the interview. Walking the Maze 34 As suggested by Maxwell, (1996) this semi-structured format was piloted with a colleague in Prince George prior to my trip to Toronto. The questions and process that were part o f the interview was modified as a result. At the conclusion of the interview, participants were given the In&rmation Sheet to take with them, which had details of the study and my contact information. Participants were asked where and how they wished to be contacted to review the transcripts. After each of the three interviews I made notes about my thoughts and impressions as to how the interviews had gone, areas I may have missed, future areas of exploration with the participants, and any other relevant information. After traveling to another city, the fourth participant was interviewed at her place of work. This interview was somewhat different in that the setting was her workplace and therefore not neutral. The interview occurred over the lunch hour and was 45 minutes in length. The same set of questions was asked but there was not quite enough time for the participant to answer the questions at length. Generally, however, all of the themes I had hoped would be addressed were discussed. This participant was also given the Information Sheet and a decision was made as to how and where I would contact her so that she could review the transcript. Afterwards, I again made notes about my thoughts and interpretation as to how the interview had gone. Transcription and initial analysis. A pro&ssional transcriber who signed a confidentiality agreement (Appendix D) transcribed all four interviews verbatim. I reviewed the transcriptions with the tapes and made corrections as necessary before mailing copies of the transcribed interview to the participant. Each participant reviewed his/her interview, made corrections, and then mailed Walking the Maze 35 the transcript back to me. One participant made substantial changes (without changing the meaning) while the others made minor changes. Reinharz (1992) notes that participants should review transcripts from previous interviews to be able to clarify meaning as well as comment on analysis. After reviewing the transcripts, emerging broad themes were noted and follow up questions for each of the participants were devised. These questions were based on the transcripts and were determined based on emerging themes and a need to clarify statements made during the first interview. The second round o f interviews. Prior to the beginning of the study, 1 had decided that there would be a minimum of two in-depth interviews with each of the participants. Multiple interviewing is preferred as it enhances the development of trust and rapport, which can lead to a fuller and more complete description of how the interviewee’s practice is shaped by structural social work. Reinharz (1992) states that interviews are more likely to be accurate if interviewees are interviewed more than once, and have an opportunity to clarify previously answered questions and elaborate on ideas. Multiple interviewing will allow for data saturation, in that themes can be expanded and clarified through multiple interviews. Participants were contacted via email to set up the second round of interviews. This time the questions were emailed to each of the participants ahead of time. This occurred at the request of the first participant and then became standard practice for the remaining interviews. One participant, who did not receive the questions in time, was unable to review them prior to the interview. Questions were specific and unique to each participant and based on the previous interview. w alking the Maze 36 This second round of interviews occurred over the telephone. Each interview was conducted in my office at home. A Panasonic cordless phone was used that had a speaker phone option. This allowed the interview to be recorded. Participants were assured that 1 was alone in the office and that no one else could hear our conversation. Two of the participants were at home during the interview and two were at their office in their place of work. Interviews varied between 50 minutes and 1Vz hours. At the conclusion of each interview it was decided that I could contact participants again should any farther questions arise, and participants would contact me should they have anything farther they wished to add. My own personal thoughts and responses to the interviews were again recorded immediately after the interview was over. Transcription o f second interview. The same transcriber who had done the first set of interviews transcribed the second set of interviews. Once again I listened to the interview tape with the transcription and made corrections as necessary. One of the interviews did not record well and there were subsequently short phrases that I was unable to transcribe. These transcripts were again mailed to the participants for perusal and correction/clarification. I asked the participant whose transcript was of poorer quality to guess as to the gaps in the interview. As a result some of the phrases were retrieved or restated. The participant and I agreed that the overall intent of the interview was intact, and that the gaps that remained were insignificant. With regards to the other three interviews, again one participant made a lot of corrections while the other two made minimal changes. Data v4»a(ysü w alking the Maze 37 Grounded Theory analyzes data by coding the gathered material. Coding refers to the process by which data is “pulled apart”, conceptualized and reassembled (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Coding allows themes to emerge so that theory can be “built”. In grounded theory, coding is standardized so that the method is rigorous and meets research criteria. Coding begins immediately after the first interview is completed (Glaser, 1978; Maxwell, 1996). This allows the researcher to generate and modify theory throughout the research project, a process referred to by Glaser (1978) as theoretical sensitivity. Glaser notes that there are key questions that must be asked at the onset of coding; What is this data a study of? What category does this incident indicate? What is actually happening in the data? CWmg. Data analysis begins with open coding, or “conceptual nothing - no codes” (Glaser, 1992, p. 39). Through a “process of breaking down, examining, comparing, conceptualizing, and categorizing data (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, p. 61) opening coding was used to generate broad themes in the transcripts of two of the participants. This process began by reviewing the transcripts to get an overall sense of the data. I then considered Glaser’s key questions (What is this a study of? What category does this indicate? What is actually happening in the data?). During the second reading I began making notes in the margins and commented on emerging themes (Glaser, 1978; Maxwell, 1996). A highlighter method was used to code themes and suh-themes and then the highlighted phrases were cut and pasted onto another document under headings consistent with the emerging themes. Identifying codes were given to each of the phrases so that they could easily be traced back to the original transcript. The remaining transcripts from the other two participants were then selectively coded based on the categories that had emerged fi-om the data thus far. The generated themes responded to w alking the Maze 38 the research questions: How do you identify as privileged? What is the meaning of structural social work? What is your practice? How has the meaning of structural social work influenced your practice? Memoing. Throughout this process memos were generated in the form of journal entries. These entries dated back to when this research project was first conceived. As noted by Orono (1997) in Strauss and Corbin’s, “Grounded Theory in Practice”, memos allow the researcher to free associate and to write down whatever thoughts emerge during the study. This allows new ideas to arise and serves as a method of unblocking, so that questions, thoughts, and decisions surface which allows the study to move forward. Glaser (1978) states that memos can be a sentence, paragraph, or several pages, and that memos are key to generating, developing, and integrating theory. Notes made after interviews and during analysis were part of my log of memos or journal entries. Many of these memos also took the form o f tracking my own process as I considered my privileged location, my practice, and my ideas of structural social work. Because this study was relevant to my own journey, it was important that I pay attention to my impressions, ideas, and feelings throughout the research study. This was important so that I did not impose any “pet theories” on the data. Analysis Development. Once this initial sorting was completed I noted that the category: How do you identify as privileged? was much larger than the other categories. The data in this category were again reviewed, and this time I concentrated more fully on “hearing” what the data said (Creswell, 1998). It became apparent that the process of how participants identifred as privileged was complex and multi-layered. I decided to re-sort the data based on this emerging theme of Walking the Maze 39 understanding privilege. This time the data were physically cut up into phrases and sentences and then resorted into piles. The expanded categories and sub-categories were then cut and pasted onto a new document so that it could be reviewed. After reading this second document I noticed some o f the phrases did not ftt neatly within the categories they had been placed, so I went back to re-sort the cut up sentences and phrases. Once again new categories were generated while others were collapsed. A third document was generated through cut and paste so that the data could be reviewed as a whole. It is the strength of the grounded theory approach that throughout analysis new categories and themes emerge and are refined, which are often unanticipated (Orono in Strauss and Corbin, 1997). I found that I was very drawn to this “new” theme of how privilege is experienced, considered, and understood by social workers who are interested and committed to issues of social justice. Creswell (1998) describes the data analysis process as a spiral. Data collection begins the first loop of the spiral, which then moves into data management (the use of index cards, computer files, etc.). The process then spins into reading and memoing, comparisons and categorization, interpretation, and finally the presentation of the data in the form of text, tables, and/or figures. This process is fluid, and although the method is systematic, the steps are not necessarily sequential. I found myself moving back and forth between reading, memoing, comparing, contrasting, and interpretation, as theory emerged based on the recounted experiences of the participants. Walking the Maze 40 Chapter Four As indicated at the beginning of this study, I initially sought to understand how practice is understood and shaped by social workers who have adopted a structural framework and selfidentify as privileged. As findings emerged, however, analysis shifted to an examination of privilege, and the process experienced by participants, as privilege is understood and practice shaped. Figure 1 on the following page, indicates that four categories and several subcategories emerged from the interviews with participants in this study. An examination of these categories provides insight into the process experienced by the self-identified privileged social work educators in this study, as they consider their privilege in the context of social work practice. The reader may surmise, as suggested by Figure 1, that the experience of participants is somewhat linear in that first privilege is acknowledged, and then an internal struggle ensues, followed by a reconciliation of sorts, and finally a decision about how this understanding is manifested in the world via practice. This is not what occurs, however, as the process of understanding one’s location of privileged, and how that influences the meaning of structural social work and practice is more indicative of praxis. That is, awareness, reflection, and action follow quickly on the heels of one another and repeat ad infinitum, and sometimes simultaneously. Figure 1 is offered only as an attempt to provide a visual summary of the categories and sub-categories that emerged. Therefore the following results should not be understood as step wise, but rather as part of an unfolding process that could occur in any number of ways and will be specific to the individual engaged with the process. This will be discussed at the conclusion of this chapter. Walking the Maze 41 Figure 1. Theoretical Framework^ Acknowledging Privilege Self - Identification Family Environment Recognizing Difference ~ Conscious Reflection The Tensions I Have Not Done Enough Giving in to Privilege - or The Inevitability of Privilege The Unbidden Truth Reconciling Privilege This is who I am Unlearning the “isms” There is this Paradox Settling in with Privilege Using Privilege to Advocate - How Practice is Shaped The Meaning of Structural Social Work Teaching Clinician Relationships With Others Social Action Researcher and Writer Activities and Choices of Daily Living ^The stmcture of this framework is borrowed from Jacqueline Harper, “’Tiny specks in microscopes: The impact o f human service workers on the lives ofparents with intellectual disabilities, ” Master’s thesis, University o f Northern British Columbia, 1997, p.38. Walking the Maze 42 Acknowledging Privilege Self-identification. In order to discuss privilege, participants were first asked to identify the ways in which they saw themselves as privileged. These indicators of privilege were consistent amongst all four participants and reflected the criteria fi)r participation in the study: white, middle class, able-bodied, and heterosexual. States Rosa I ’m white, upper-middle class, I would say or I used to be, upper-middle when I grew up, would now say I ’m at least middle. And I ’m able-bodied and I ’m heterosexual and that’s the privileged part. Later in the conversation Rosa included intelligence. Although intelligence and having a post-secondary education are not equivalent, intelligence is necessary in order to attain an education. All participants had to have a minimum of a master’s degree in social work in order to participate in this study, and it is note-worthy that education/intelligence were indicated as markers of privilege by all participants. Rosa refers to intelligence as able­ mindedness. .. .able-minded as well...we have to feel privileged to have at least an average IQ. Because being intelligent is so valued in our society. Gender (male) is usually considered in the context of privilege, however, because the majority of social workers are women and women are consistently represented amongst faculty in social work departments, and because as a woman I was interested in the experiences of women and privilege, women were not excluded from this study. In the following quote, David’s descriptors of privilege include white, male, and education level: ‘ Pseudonyms are used to protect the identity o f participants. Walking the Maze 43 ...[IJfyou ’re white, male and well-educated you ’re probably still going to be relatively on fop in CoModo. 7 weoM 7 Zoot of own toc^rooW onzZfAe ocZvonfog&y fAof zf given me. I don’t think it’s by pure hard work or goodfortune that I happen to be now teaching foczoZ WOfA. David’s statement also makes reference to the “myth of meritocracy” as coined by McIntosh (1989). She describes how privilege is conferred without regard to virtue or merit. And finally, participants also commented on how their status as privileged has allowed financial security. Diane notes: I ’ve never had to worry about getting a job, because o f my background, whether it’s because I ’m white, whether it’s because I ’m educated, articulate or whatever. As illustrated by these examples, participants self-identified as privileged because they are white, middle class, able-bodied, heterosexual, intelligent, well educated, male (for the male participants in the study), and able to maintain financial security. Family environment. In the process of naming privilege, participants reflected on how it was that they had come to understand and develop an awareness of these identified markers as indicators of privilege. One of the themes that arose was the relationship between family environment and an emerging awareness of privilege. The family that one is bom into affords certain privileges and influences developing values. David describes descent and issues of class and the connection to privilege; My grandmother ...she came from an extremely privilegedfamily background... a very z(ppgr mzdW/e-cZzM:;T^mzZy. 7%ey AmZ Zofs fervanfg, fAe wAoZe zzpffazrf zZbwitÿfozr; AzW fAzizg. Walking the Maze 44 David goes on to describe how his family environment created certain expectations of how he would live his life. ...[PJrivilege also means the way in which you think, your own values and expectations o f w e firwctwed aW ityuft never occwred to me tAat reaZ/y you wowWn t go to, 7 wouldn’t go to university. Rosa commented that her family environment instilled certain values in her. Helping people was something I grew up with, my mother, even though it was a wealthy family, my mother, there was a great emphasis on it’s important fo r us to help others. The family environment, the overt or covert expectations that resulted from family background, and the values that were emphasized all helped participants to recognize their location of privilege. Recognizing difference. As well as family environment other experiences in adolescence and adulthood influenced participant’s development and evolving identity. Diane describes an experience during her adolescence and notes it’s significance in her life. In my teens I had some very formative experiences that pulled me out o f the world, my small world that helped me to see privilege...and one was going to a First Nations community in mid-Northem Ontario, seeing poverty like I just couldn’t believe ever existed in Canada and I was just totally shocked...In another experience, working in a Jewish camp where I experienced profound anti-Semitism and was taken as Jewish and experienced that myself where I was thought to be Jewish and wasn % but feeling that kind q/^rocüm ond ferror, ocfwo/Zyj^eqpZe were hying io terrorize tAis comp... tAofe were experience:; tAotyMstprqpe/W me io wont to onder;ton(Z fir;t ZVotion; 7 come Walking the Maze 45 hoctaW reaf/ evgyyfAzng / cawW...Mme (Amg/wanW to wnderstaW tAe (feveZopment q/^ tAe TfbZocawft. David discusses his experience at private school. 7 migAt ve AacZsome sort q/^re/tmzna/y sense q/^class.. .ricA Azdk versus poorer or tAe tAzngs tAat were taZAez/ ahowt, aAowt wAo got wAat^r CArzstmas or wAo zZzz^wAat zZwrzng tAe summer. And Rosa describes an incident that occurred as an adult: I was very impressed with this lady and it was interesting because she said to me, “You know, I ’m not really living the way they ’re living. I ’m not living worrying about where my next meal is coming from because the church will always make sure I have food and will always make sure I have shelter and that I don’t need to live with anything more than that”. That had a big impact on me. All of these examples speak to an awareness of difference. Participants had specific experiences that resulted in a recognition that their location differed from that of “the other”. The lives of certain individuals that they had met or were exposed to were remarkably different fiom their own. These experiences highlighted participant’s location as privileged. Toni Morrison (1992) argues that in order to render visible one’s location, the observer must shift the critical gaze fi'om the object to the subject. Experiences described by participants in this section acted as a catalyst to shift attention towards a recognition of privilege. Conscious reflection. What is perhaps obvious is that as attention is focused on awareness of privilege, a certain consciousness of privilege is awakened. Participants noticed that they were frequently Walking the Maze 46 intentionally reflecting on the nature of their experience with privilege. Jim describes his process as awareness, or the development of critical consciousness; I t ’s a matter for me o f having a critical awareness or critical consciousness o f recognition that because o f my white skin privilege, a lot o f privileges come to me by virtue o f that. Diane reflects on one of her experiences with privilege when she worked in an inner city community: Being middle class meant I could call an agency and speak middle class to try to get the kinds o f services that normally if these folks tried on their own, they’d have the door slammed, they’d wait for hours... one day one o f the Native men got beat up on the street. So I took him to hospital. And uh, they hated going to the hospital and I understood why, in a sense, because this time I went with him. It was late at night, and um I saw just how all, you know the middle class, um the receptionist in the hospital, in the Emergency ward, you know, the nurses, all the nice clean uniforms, and all this kind o f stuff. When Rosa describes her consciousness of privilege she notes disparities in material wealth: I ’m very conscious that I have enough money and that I live in a nice house. I ’m very conscious o f it, especially when I visited Nepal...I’m conscious o f my wealth. I ’m conscious o f my class, my image... Freire (2000) notes that the development of critical consciousness is crucial to understanding the nature of oppression. These participants are engaging in critical consciousness when they intentionally consider their surroundings, how others respond to them, and the rewards that are bestowed to them because of their privilege. These &)ur sub-themes: self-identiflcation, recognizing diGerence, shaping experiences, and conscious reflection, suggest an awareness of privilege that is identified, considered, and Walking the Maze 47 deepened because of various experiences, environments, and considerations that can be understood as part of a larger theme -Acknowledging Privilege. Struggling with the Location o f Privilege As participants pay attention to their location of privilege and deepen their experience of consciousness about the nature of privilege, it appears that what inevitably follows are feelings and thoughts that suggest an internal struggle with the location of privilege and the unearned benefits that are a result of that location. This struggle is captured by four sub­ categories: The Tensions, I Have Not Done Enough, Giving in to Privilege - or The Inevitability of Privilege, and the Unbidden Truth. Most, if not all of these quotes could have also been placed in the sub-category Conscious Reflection but what is emphasized in the statements is a quality of reflection that focuses on the struggle. The tensions. This awareness of privilege, while concurrently aware of the realities for marginalized and oppressed peoples, resulted in feelings of tension and ambivalence for participants. In the following quote, Diane is referring to a time when she worked in the inner city while living in a middle class neighbourhood. I often thought about just moving in there, to he with the people... and so my desire, it always pulled, it always sort o f wanted to pull me closer... but I never did end up getting a place in there. I ended up staying there, but I always lived for those three years in that tension, Ifelt that tension. Jim describes the tension that he feels as ambivalence: It creates tension, it creates ambivalence: it creates resistance to a whole set o f .sfrwcfw&y fW Anve me m yow / mea» / was hom Wo q/^ Walking the Maze 48 these categories, and I understand now, not completely, but enough, how those systems work and so the knowledge o f that tells me it’s wrong, there’s no reason for me to have this white skin privilege, I think it’s foolish that just because I ’m male that I can earn more fAan women or 6e more fo/e. And David indicates that shopping at stores that are part of economic forces of oppression result in feelings of incongruence. Every time I walk into a mall, shop in a mall. I ’m compromising myself in some way. Because God knows, like every time I spend money at a shopping mall, I ’m actually supporting an enormous, um profitable venture. In the second interview David further comments on his feelings of discomfort. There is a certain discomfort...And when I think through these things intellectually, we ’re all full o f contradictions, when I think it through intellectually, i t ’s madness. These feelings of tension, ambivalence, and discomfort are typical of what occurs as critical consciousness emerges. Popular educators like Sherover-Marcuse (1981) expect that these feelings will arise when individuals focus attention on the inherent contradictions of experiencing privilege, while considering the realities of those who are marginalized. The next sub-category, “1 have not done enough”, speaks to related issues that may emerge during this process. I have not done enough. Many participants indicated that because they are aware of how privilege and oppression operate in our world, they should be doing more. For Rosa this arose as occasional feelings of guilt, and the idea that she must make sacrifices in order to alleviate these feelings of guilt. She states: Walking the Maze 49 Like having my privilege andfeeling guilty about it basically and doing what I can, not to flaunt it and to have, to give, you know, in terms o f money, at least and give in terms o f my gne/gy tAznt ii/Mg aWgive, W oAvoy; m givzMg oW to tAü / fgrWcg cofTip/gtg/y, };oMAnow. Giving wp aiZ iAg Zmwigg aW iAg comfort andjust being o f service. Diane also comments on guilt but from the position of the absence of guilt. This may suggest that guilt is being considered never-the less. She talks about her house. So that’s how I feel about owning things. I don’t feel guilty about owning things, it’s quite marvelous to be able to have it and that wouldn’t be satisfying to me, I mean it meets my needs and it meets more than my needs butfor me there’s another dimension attached to it.../ rgaZZy gyÿpy tAg tAingy / can Aavg now ancZ to Aavg ft_/ff$t /o r nygg/y k n V very ofganfMg^Z. /t'ffigattoA gaA fgtogA argA ... The last statement is bolded to emphasize how Diane considers home ownership and as a result has found a way to feel comfortable with owning a home by sharing it with others. These comments suggest that several of the participants feel some conflict about the degree of disparity between their reality and the reality of the marginalized. Feeling guilty and/or being aware of not feeling guilty may be “two sides of the same coin”. With both, guilt is considered. Giving in to privilege or the inevitability o f privilege. This last statement of Diane’s could probably have also been placed in this sub-category. Owning a home may feel more comfortable when sharing the home with others. Later on, Diane mentions that she sees the house as having significance in the history of the community and therefore sees herself as protector and caretaker of the home. This role also Walking the Maze 50 appeared to increase her level of comfort with home ownership. This particular sub-category was the most difficult one for me to label. What I am trying to capture are those occasional thoughts and feelings of accepting and “giving in” to privilege. States Jim; f'm mvare fAe cfyna/nfcy a /protective device an wAof Aog cnwaeff tAat 6«t at tAe fa/?ie time, /?erAap; tAü ü /part, 7 Anaw tAat 7 didA t create tAü ia^inieg.y. 7A atAer wardk, 7 don’t blame myself for it. I recognize that it’s unfair; I recognize that there are institutional structures and attitudes that support it and laws that support the practice o f it (and that are responsible for it) and while I oppose it, and don’t like it and I commit myself to changing that unfairness, it’s not me who’s created that, so I have no guilt in terms o f taking the rap for it. David also alludes to the inevitability of privilege and perhaps the fhiitlessness of activism when he states: Marx had it right. I mean to some extent in the sense that he said that material well-being is important, it’s in how that material well-being is distributed. And so I don’t feel like I should be walking around in abject poverty and making Molotov cocktails all the time. Later Jim infers, that if privilege is to exist at least he can use the benefits in positive ways. He remarks on the benefits he enjoys at work such as vacation and says: So in a paradoxical way, the using o f those benefits can strengthen me to struggle against illegitimate privilege. And Rosa notices how it is because of her location as privileged, that she is able to be of service. 7 can Ac q/"va/wc i /'7 'm in a gaad a/pace, ^nd 7 'm in a gaad a/pacc wAcn 7 'm Aaving needs met. Walking the Maze 51 These last two statements suggest that because privilege exists, and because Jim and Rosa have it, they can justify receiving privilege if they use their privilege as restorative so that their work can continue. These comments could also have been placed in the sub-category "Using Privilege to Advocate", which is part of the 3"^ ni^or theme - Reconciling Privilege. I decided to place them here, however, because at this point in the conversation the discussion was related to an inner struggle, and more specifically perhaps a rationale or justification for having privilege. The unbidden truth. Living a life of privilege results in experiences of security, comfort and pleasure. While some participants felt guilty about that and others struggled with the tension by committing to advocating for others, there also were at times other truths spoken about the reluctance to work towards social justice or to consciously consider one’s privilege. David first discusses fighting for social justice, and then in the next sentence states what would perhaps be his more likely response: I certainly would say that i f I were practicing today, I would not he able to accept what’s coming down the tube right now. I would do everything I could to resist it, and fight it. I proAoWy (gMore a maJke if foot ay (AaagA / MW /WrfygOfMfafdwt TcoxfA/ ft And Rosa talks about the ambivalent feelings she has about power in the context of privilege: ...and I realize I have this power and I like it. To know, it’s nice to know that I talk and they 11 listen. I t ’s nice to know that they look up to me. 1 get squeamish though at times wAgMpecpJe/b/Jow evg/yfAmg / yay... y as i / " AcgTpgTis (Agf!Trea/fze mypowgr, / joM VZiAe demga/img fAemse/v&s yo wAew fAaf / Aavg to of/mzf / J:&g fAafpowgr.../'m Walking the Maze 52 rarely in a position where I ’m wielding power and getting o ff on it at the expense o f others. I think, or well, who knows, maybe I am. A privileged life is a comfortable life. Benefits like recognition and enhanced identity as noted by Rosa, and David’s occasional decision to just ignore ’’what’s coming down the tube” are easy to understand. Deciding to pay attention to oppression and privilege is intentional work that is fraught with many struggles that are rarely recognized or valued in a society that values wealth and provides recognition to those who conform to the status quo. As demonstrated by this category, “Struggling with the Location of Privilege”, these struggles arise as tension, feelings of not doing enough, giving in to and at times justifying the inevitability of privilege and finally, as truths that are difficult to disclose; none of which are easy places to dwell. Reconciling Privilege As awareness about their location as privileged arose for participants (Acknowledging Privilege), what also emerged was an internal struggle about what it might mean to be privileged (Struggling with the location of Privilege). Continuing reflection and attention to discomfort about those reflections appears to shift at some point to a place of reconciliation with the inherent contradiction of benefiting from privilege, while continuing to work with the marginalized (Reconciling Privilege). This is who I am. The struggle of considering and coming to terms with one’s privilege, while also caring about issues of oppression in our world, seemed to culminate in strong feelings of identity and chosen ethics that made the integration of these tensions essential for some of the Walking the Maze 53 participants. I use the word “essential” deliberately here because of its root, essence. This is who I am, is equivalent to stating this is the essence o f me. Diane says: Ta/wapw commitment m irgmgwioMy fewmn witA tAat, becoMyeybr me, rAe wAo/e focio/yusrice is, it s not a yob. A is a co/nmiPnent on nryyxzrt, f mean, it's a way q/"ii/^, ami it s bow 7 want to five my ii/e, am congraent witb wbo 7 am. &/m tbat s the litmus test, you know, is when I feel those inconsistencies, and then they raise questions, and o f course, I just want to do it totally, you know...I can’t I don’t make these distinctions. I t ’s both who I am and who I have to continue to struggle to he because I live in this world, you know. Jim indicates a similar position when he says: So that’s a feeling, you know, it’s a commitment, i t ’s not just a head thing that I have to think out problem solving, you know it becomes part o f life, in who I say I am. Or who I yêei 7 am. These comments are also reflective of Struggling with Privilege; however, there is a shift or a decision about what to do with that inner state of conflict, that is, “I will continue to struggle because it is who 1 am”. This need to be clearly defined and the recognition of who one is, (and therefore who one is going to be in the world) seemed to be important to the process of coming to terms with one’s privilege. Unlearning the “isms ’’. Participants also suggested that for them, reconciling privilege resulted in consciously deciding to pay attention to and actively work towards what Shor (1992) describes as desocialization. Desocialization “involves critically examining learned behavior, received values, familiar language, habitual perceptions, existing knowledge and power relations” Walking the Maze 54 (Shor, 1992, p. 114). As discussed earlier, this process is also referred to as decolonization of the mind. Jim describes this process at length: y k w e , fowe wAicA 7'm not even mvore q^ wAen 7 Aecome mvore q/^tAem, wAew, tAen tAere on in^igAt, tAere 'f o "oA Ao.^" owJ 7've got to move away from that, I ’ve got to disengage from that. I ’ve got to unlearn...so it’s like putting a flashlight on and looking at my privilege in ways that maybe I hadn’t spotted certain things. And that happens during my own reflection.. .So part o f my practice is to do resistance in such a way that I am continuously unlearning the racism and homophobia and you go through all o f the “isms ’’....I’ve had to do reading and attend seminars and sessions and listen to colleagues o f things that I didn’t know. So by actively engaging in that learning. As indicated, Jim refers to this unlearning as part of his practice, which is the fourth category (How Practice is Shaped) in this study. He also indicates that this practice is what emerges from his reflections. Thus this comment could also have been placed in the sub-category “Conscious Reflection”, however, it is the attention to unlearning prejudice that I found most remarkable here. Some participants spoke about what actually goes on internally when engaged in this process. Diane is aware of what she needs to do when tensions arise. 7 will let them sit there, and stew around and sort o f reflect on it, critique it, different mome/iü, «m a/wJ wAat emerges os a, os some wqy/orworel. Again this could also speak to “Conscious Reflection”, but I was more interested in her awareness of how she processes paying attention to the barriers that emerge when she considers privilege. Walking the Maze 55 Intentionally paying attention to prejudices, assumptions, and learned behavior in such a way that one is actually aware about what needs to occur to unlearn oppressive behaviours, appears to be critical to the development of critical consciousness. This process will be discussed in more detail in the next chapter, is tAis jxzrodbx. The ability to reconcile having privilege while also working towards justice may to some extent be dependent on the ability to reffame the dichotomy of privilege and oppression. Diane describes her current thinking on this issue: / don’t have to tear down one in order to build and support the other, which traditionally was a way o f handling contradiction. Even in theoretical conceptual terms, you know, Marxist thinking was thesis, antithesis, synthesis, and that was often taken up as you destroy the original thesis to come to the antithesis. And there’s something very out o f AoAmcg wztA tAat m fAat Ai/w/ o/"a^a/Mewor/; yaw A/iaw, wAerg 7 was maAzng judgments and I had to judge one in order to support the other, and it was like an either/or scenario...so I think some o f my understanding has deepened around struggling with contradiction, that it’s not either/or it’s both. And you know, therefore the other is good, that’s not automatic either, that both the thesis and antithesis that exist as a whole, both do exist; both do exist. They exist in relationships; currently the relationship is one q/"deep amiaga/zism and dastrucdoM and Wa/ence. 7b sastam pnW/ege /b r same means obliterating the lives o f many others, based on capitalist trickle down, you know, clearly tAat daesn t warA. .Bat an a/temattve way a/"tAinAtng abaat tAis, and in reiatzan ta persana/ cantradietians tAat a re ^ /t^ a m sacia/ andpa/itica/ realties, is tAat AatA caexist. ^nd tAat tAere is, tAat we Aave ta aritiea//y ZaaAat AatA sides and Aegin ta create Walking the Maze 56 some kind o f new synthesis out o f the critique o f both together. David notes that it is not necessarily that the standards privileged people enjoy must be reduced, but rather that they be distributed to everyone. n/Z woMt a (Zeceat society wAerg jTgppZe core to Zoot eacA atAer, wAere noZWy wants or has to live in want, and everyone can have a reasonable sense to lookforward to a reasonable standard o f living. What’s so wrong with that? A lot ofpeople do seem to find that that’s wrong or they don’t seem to think that the state or society should be structured in such a way that makes that possible. I mean, I live obviously comfortably and I don’t see why other people shouldn ’t be able to. Reframing the issue by considering the assumptions inherent in the ideology that supports the problem (and therefore the solution) may be what allows “a way forward”, as earlier noted by Diane, to emerge. For participants to integrate the tensions of having privilege with an identity of structural social worker, a new understanding based on a new paradigm may be necessary. As awareness and reflection occur, a different understanding of how to consider the issues emerges which then allows and suggests a different response. Settling in with privilege. To reconcile oneself with the reality of having privilege meant for some participants a conscious decision to surrender to the reality of their privilege. This idea of deciding was earlier referred to in the sub-category “This is who I am”, in the context of identity and recognizing, or perhaps deciding, who one is in this world. In this case, what I am referring to is the way in which surrendering to who one is, may unfold. When Diane talks about reconciling privilege there is this sense that she has found a way to be at ease with the inherent contradictions of her location: Walking the Maze 57 I t ’s been a shift that 1 expect now to always, that I can expect to always be bumping against my own contradictions and tensions and in the process learn something, and that I can do something about that you know. ..I know it will always be there, I can trust that I wf// M/ieayy tAat fAere WZ fg/wZoa to zAroagA, awZ that that’s a really good place to be. It keeps me alive.... I can’t, this isn ’t utopia, I can’t you know, I can’t live without contradiction. I ’m never going to come to a place where those kinds o f contradictions aren’t going to be present. With Jim, it seems that he has “settled in” with privilege when he makes the following comments about the intrinsic value of acknowledging privilege: I f one answers the question of: what does it mean to be human, by saying that being human means we are social beings, we are interaction with others - then as soon as I put my hand up to pretend that I don’t see what somebody’s pain is. I'm not being human. /'a: aaZ oaZy fZeAiaaamzZag ZAeai, f'ai (ZgAiaaaaZzZag / a y f ..geaaraZ/y apgaAZag, two things, the choice o f being involved or not involved, to me is not a choice if one chooses to be human...For me Ifeel much more grounded in wanting to be human and being challenged by that and not being afraid to see where that may lead to in terms o f concrete actions and risk taking and alliance-forming and all o f that...I hope that when I am challenged to act, I hope I can draw enough courage to act and when I can, well I yêeZ faaz W ag Aiaaaa. This description is reminiscent of Freire’s (2000) discussion of what it means to be human. Freire states that commitment to the straggle against oppression is a commitment to humanity and part of what it means to be human. These statements could also be considered Walking the Maze as part of practice; however, they seemed to be more rooted in a place o f reflection and as part of a process of surrendering to or “settling in” with privilege. Using privilege to advocate. For some participants coming to terms with their privilege also involved deciding that they would use their privilege to help others. This appeared to be one of the ways that location as privileged is reconciled with the desire to work with the marginalized. Diane notes: I ’ve always had some sense of, clearly some sense o f my own privilege, and i t ’s been a struggle, in a sense to, at times a fairly conscious struggle, um to see that as a barrier, and both seeing sort o f the barriers o f that and seeing that as opportunities, things that I could help people with or help be a kind o f transition, a bridge, because o f those very privileges which I could use to get people access to things or whatever support systems, or to introduce them, or shortcuts into the system and that kind o f thing, because I had certain kinds o f working knowledge. All participants noted that advocating for the oppressed was in many ways something privilege allowed them. Jim states this sentiment very well in the following comment: The enjoyment o f these benefits helps to make me stronger so that when the vacation is over, I go back and I continue to oppose and do everything I can in different ways to resist...not just through talking, but through demonstrations and through actions, that these things must be changed and can be changed and should be changed. The reality of being privileged and working with the oppressed is reconciled by deciding to use that privilege to advocate 6)r the oppressed. Those who are privileged are those who have a voice, a network, and the resources to work towards social justice. Deciding to use 58 Walking the Maze 59 one’s position of privilege for the benefit of others is one of the ways in which privilege is reconciled. As demonstrated in this section, stating, “This is Who I Am”, intentionally “Unlearning The Tsms’”, reframing the dilemma as an acknowledgement that “There is This Paradox”, “Settling in With Privilege” and “Using Privilege to Advocate” for the marginalized are all part o f the process of “Reconciling “Privilege”. How Practice is Shaped As suggested at the beginning of this chapter, practice is not the last step in a process of awareness and reflection of considering privilege. Participants have obviously been engaged in practice throughout their lifetime, and it is at times during or within practice that reflection occurs and a new awareness emerges. It is hopefully by now clear to the reader that many of these quotes could have been placed in more than one sub-category. This is because, as has already been stated, the process of considering privilege in the context of practice is not linear. As stated earlier, how I understand this process will be discussed at the end of this section. In order to understand how this process has influenced practice I asked participants two questions. How do you understand the meaning of structural social work? How do you define your practice? The first question was answered almost “textbook” as described by Mullaly (1997) and Moreau (1989). The meaning o f structural social work. Jim provides a good example of what I see as highly consistent with Mullaly, Moreau, and other theorist’s description of structural social work. In fact at the beginning of this quote he comments that he has been highly influenced by the work of Mullaly and Moreau. Walking Ae Maze 60 rocüm fo /xzfnorcAy aW fTÿZwewcec/ 6y crifica/ fAeone; a/"eacA fAage areag, co/owalw», eic. &?/&gg :i a.; ve/y jfimzAzr (a aafi-appre&yzaa, ^aaf Weafica^ ;» fAaf an amAre/Az farm, iAaf McZW&y cniiaa/ fAea/y, fAaf a