Skip Navigation


BJSW Advance Access originally published online on October 18, 2006
British Journal of Social Work 2008 38(2):362-375; doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcl336
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
38/2/362    most recent
bcl336v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Millar, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2006. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The British Association of Social Workers. All rights reserved.

‘Anti-Oppressiveness’: Critical Comments on a Discourse and its Context

Malcolm Millar

Malcolm Millar is a Lecturer in the School of Sociology and Social Policy at the University of Liverpool. His research interests include service users’ perspectives in social work, and the applications of psychological and social theory within the social work field.

Correspondence to Dr Malcolm Millar, University of Liverpool, School of Sociology and Social Policy, Eleanor Rathbone Building, Bedford Street South, Liverpool L69 7ZA, UK. E-mail: m.millar{at}liv.ac.uk


  Abstract

This paper identifies and aims to explain an apparent dissonance between the dominance in Britain of ‘anti-oppressive’ social work discourse and the socio-political context surrounding its use; a context often claimed to feature excessive regulation and control. Pursuing this, some politically radical aims associated with ‘anti-oppressiveness’ are spelt out, and the difficulty of achieving these in an unconducive climate is discussed. Then, a distinction made by Robert Merton between ‘latent’ and ‘manifest’ functions is used to suggest that the manifest radicalism of ‘anti-oppressive’ discourse can helpfully be distinguished from some latent largely unrecognised consequences of its use – not consequences with politically radical impact, but with a social meaning congruent with a climate of control. It is concluded that the ‘success’ of anti-oppressive discourse might well be viewed as requiring more of the kind of critical analysis that the discourse itself was supposed to espouse.

Keywords: anti-oppressive, discourse, social work


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Journal of Social WorkHome page
M. Carey
The Quasi-Market Revolution in the Head: Ideology, Discourse, Care Management
Journal of Social Work, October 1, 2008; 8(4): 341 - 362.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.