Equality-of-oppressions and anti-discriminatory models in social work: reflections from the USA and UK

Abstract

Although the equality-of-oppressions paradigm in the USA and the anti-discriminatory framework in the UK are progressive steps in affirming the lives of many groups, they are limited in their ability to highlight the continued significance of racism in contemporary social work education. This comparative paper examines how universal frameworks of oppression in social work have helped to diminish the significance of racial oppression and begins by discussing their evolution in both countries. The next section is concerned with the rise of postmodern theory and its influence in reshaping issues of oppression. Finally, a model of differential vulnerability is offered as a way of identifying how the multiplicity of oppressions varies in frequency, intensity and pervasiveness. The authors suggest that this model can make a difference by reconfiguring models of oppression which interweave differential vulnerability to not only make the necessary connections between forms of oppression but also to reaffirm social work's commitment to racial equality.

Keywords:

• Equality-of-Oppressions
• Anti-Discriminatory Practice
• Postmodern
• Race Equality

Introduction

In the history of social work, there have been ongoing concerns about social inequalities and a focus on diminishing systems of oppression and privilege on behalf of populations at risk (Carlton-LaNey, 2001; Adams et al., 2002). In the United States these traditions can be traced to the social reformers in the late nineteenth century and in modern times to the social movements of the 1960s (Lum, 2000). Civil rights struggles of this period uncovered the depth of racism and Jim Crow through unquestioned bureaucratic procedures in social, political and economic institutions.

Following social and political movements for change, issues of racism were given prominent attention in social work generally in the 1970s and 1980s, and the Council for Social Work Education (CSWE) mandated programs to include content on racism and people of color (Dumpson, 1970). However, as other social divisions and forms of oppression entered the social work discourse in the United States, a broader conceptualization of oppression known as the equality-of-oppressions paradigm was established as the main vehicle for addressing issues of inequality. In this paradigm, issues of racism are eclipsed and rivaled by additional forms of human oppression, all assumed to be equal in their production of stigmatization and subjugation (Schiele, 2007). This paradigm was integrated into the CSWE's Educational Standards in 2001, which significantly shaped the character of social work programs.

In the British context, anti-racist approaches to social work emerged during the 1980s, in response to concerns over discrimination, injustice and inequalities in service provision and delivery as well as racism within the profession itself (Dominelli, 1997). These concerns paved the way for anti-racist perspectives to be included in social work programs under the rubric of the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work. Anti-racist perspectives underscored the importance and prominence of race and racism relative to other forms of discrimination (Payne, 2005; Graham, 2007). However, in the light of intense critiques from both within and outside social work circles about the extent of racism in British society and the exclusive focus on one form of oppression, anti-racist perspectives were subsumed into a broader anti-discriminatory framework in British social work education. These trends have contributed to the demise of anti-racist social work and diminishing interest in issues of race and racism in social work education. Indeed, the new social work degree introduced in 2002 under the auspices of the General Social Care Council makes little or no reference to ‘race’ issues or anti-racist practice in its codes of practice which guide social work education content and structures (Heron, 2008).

Although the equality-of-oppressions paradigm in the US and the anti-discriminatory framework in the UK are important emancipatory forms of practice, they are limited in their ability to highlight the continued significance of racism in contemporary social work education. This paper examines how the equality-of-oppressions paradigm and the anti-discriminatory framework have both helped to diminish the significance of racial oppression in social work education. This paper's basic assumption is that both frameworks have diluted the significance of racism by incorporating it into a universal oppression framework that endeavors to affirm the importance of all forms of oppression equally. This paper will first discuss the demise of anti-racist social work in favor of a wider framework of oppression in the United Kingdom followed by the evolution and attributes of the equality-of-oppressions paradigm in the United States.

Second, the article examines postmodern thinking which has challenged the notion of a unified self dominated by one or two socio cultural identities to recognize identities as fragmented, multifaceted, fluid and complex. These multiple aspects of identity articulate an interlocking nature of oppressions (race, class, gender, disability) which are all important in understanding the individual and social relations in society. However, postmodern thinking tends to suppress collective histories and experiences that often underlie powerful discourses of social oppressions. In this context, recognizing the variations in the intensities of oppressions requires analytical space to articulate the saliency of race issues in particular social contexts that persist in liberal democratic regimes.

Finally, a model of differential vulnerability will be offered as a way to systematically and empirically evaluate racism's pervasiveness relative to other forms of oppression. The authors are mindful of the different patterns, institutional arrangements and experiences of racism in the US and the UK. Nevertheless, there are commonalities, and sociologists continue to highlight and document the ways in which racial oppression remains entrenched in both societies (Law & Sayyid, 2007). An examination of the role of social work in recasting the significance of racism in both societies might help to identify limitations in the conceptual frameworks that social workers use to eliminate oppression and discrimination.

The demise of anti-racist perspectives

Several authors have lamented the demise of critical perspectives and progressive approaches in social work and their relegation to a ‘radical era’ in the history of social work (Williams, 1999; Keating, 2000). Anti-racist social work is one such perspective which has declined as a significant conceptualization of social oppression following intense critiques in public debates about the extent of racism in British society, political correctness, as well as shifting definitions of ‘race’ and its relevance for social work.

This critical form of practice emerged in the 1980s to challenge the strictly class based approach underpinning professional practice. Social problems such as poverty, deprivation, homelessness, poor health and education were largely explained by long standing class divisions in British society. Nevertheless, this framework seemed inadequate to account for a wider range of social divisions in society as issues of race and gender began to attract attention in sociological analysis.

At the same time, the postwar migration of black people to Britain from new commonwealth countries in Africa, the Caribbean and the Indian subcontinent from the 1950s instigated a series of reports, which documented widespread discrimination across areas of employment, housing, health and social welfare services impacting black communities in various ways (Brown, 1992). In response to these inequalities a series of anti-discrimination laws were enacted in attempts to mediate the effects of discrimination, particularly in the areas of employment and housing (Race Relations Act 1965, 1968, 1976).

Early perspectives in social work appeared indifferent to the social conditions and experiences of black communities as traditional approaches to casework tended to personalize the problems of black clients as cultural deficits associated with their difficulties in assimilating into the British way of life (Turney, 1996). Social policies often reflected this approach, underpinned by a universal approach to welfare services which tended to ignore particular needs of families and children from diverse communities. Although black people have formed part of British society for several generations, they were often viewed as immigrants with little or no entitlement to social welfare and these widespread beliefs were sometimes used to justify differential treatment and perceptions as ‘undeserving groups’.

The shift towards a structural understanding of social problems and disadvantage moved attention to institutional forms of racism in social policies, institutional practices and norms. These developments in sociology informed anti-racist perspectives through reframing a structural interpretation of social welfare linked to the politics of resistance and black activism organized around ‘black’ political identities. As these perspectives entered social work education and training, emphasis on assimilation and multicultural theories dwindled with the major focus on dismantling institutional practices of racism informed by the practical issues that affect black communities.

Against this background, social work education demonstrated a strong commitment to anti-racism requiring students to ‘demonstrate their ability to develop anti-racist and other forms of anti-discriminatory practice and the capacity to work effectively within a multi-racial and multi-ethnic society’ (CCETSW, 1989, 4.2.5). These initiatives were intended to create a new workforce of anti-racist social workers able to recognize structural racism and facilitate anti-racist practice. Social work education programs were mandated to implement and monitor policies and practices (Penketh, 2000). However, the introduction of anti-racist social work into social work education programs was fairly short-lived as mounting critiques from public and social work circles began to question its legitimacy as a model of social work practice.

In the first instance, the meanings of ‘race’ and the significance of the term became extensively problematized. It was argued that anti-racist social work was ill-conceived, muddled, oversimplified and contradictory. Although the anti-racist social work literature recognized race as an ideological social construct implicated in social and political relations, early articulations of the discourse were couched in a dichotomy of black and white which encouraged a narrow conceptualization about the character of racism (Gilroy, 1992). This approach was apparent in Race Awareness Training (RAT) courses which subsequently were vilified as politically correct dogma fuelling the race relations industry which had no place in social work education, training and practice (Penketh, 2000).

Although sociologists have debunked historically misleading assumptions about the concept of race, to analysis as a social construct, there is lingering unease about the continued use of the term which is ‘likely to legitimize and reinforce the widespread public belief that “race” exists’ (Miles & Torres, 1996, p. 26). Moreover, there is no consensus about its basic conceptual meanings and the certainties that once underscored definitions and analyses of racism have shifted to recognize its complexities, diverse, contradictory and contingent forms. In this context, many sociologists have embraced ethnicity and replaced anti-racism with notions of difference and diversity.

Dei (1999, p. 25) argues that these trends in theorizing have paved the way for the denial of race even though ‘race meanings continue to emerge in new forms and contexts, to be given new situations and relations of power’. With these ongoing concerns it has been more difficult to clearly define racism than in the past because it can include more cultural traits as well as adopt direct and indirect forms in broader social processes. Based on the contested and differing forms of racism, anti-racist perspectives were discarded across education and social work in favor of multiculturalism as a more useful and less controversial yardstick (Diller, 2004).

Social work educators also raised questions about racism as a single issue standpoint that appeared to eclipse other forms of oppression and calls for a broader framework of understanding social divisions and discrimination emerged. In the first instance, anti-discriminatory practice entered professional knowledge as an approach, which attempts to reduce, undermine or eliminate forms of discrimination and oppression (Thompson, 1997). This increased awareness of varied forms of discrimination has enabled practitioners to acquire a working knowledge of discrimination including reflective scrutiny of their own practice. Some authors place greater emphasis on anti-oppressive social work because this approach is concerned with structural forces and issues of power, which are sometimes expressed in forms of interactions between people (Dominelli, 2002). In this way, it is necessary to see oppression as not just ‘out there’ in an abstract form but as a general experience that informs every aspect of people's lives from psychological devaluation of personhood to social, political and economic injustice (Graham, 2007).

As these broader discourses of oppression became established models of practice, issues surrounding racism have declined leading to one author, Heron (2004), asking the question ‘where has all the racism gone?’ Heron (2004) refers to the unpopularity of speaking about anti-racism unless it is linked to other forms of inequality. He suggests that this strategy distorts the very nature of racism that is often undetected by most students. This worrying trend raises issues about the position and significance of race issues within broader anti-discriminatory models of social work. The context and consequences of debates about race and racism in sociology and public circles have contributed to the demise of anti-racist perspectives. At this juncture we turn from the UK to the USA to examine the ascendancy of the equality-of-oppressions paradigm in social work education.

Equality-of-oppressions paradigm

Since the 1960s, the notion that racism is the most important moral evil in American society has been significantly challenged. The general belief is that the growth of the American conservative right wing is the major reason for this challenge. Indeed, the proliferation of conservative think tanks, the popularity of conservative media outlets such as the Fox News Channel, and the combined policies of a conservative US congress and conservative US presidential administrations have done much to undermine efforts that accentuate racism's continued presence and prominence. It is a mistake, however, to assume that the political right is the only force responsible for the declining attention given to racism. An equally formidable, though less conspicuous, group also has contributed to this decline. Persons in this group are affiliated with the political left, and they often consider themselves members of subjugated groups.

These persons, who are usually journalists or university professors, contend that while racism is still an important reality of American society, other forms of discrimination based on, for example, gender, sexual orientation/preference and social class, rival it. Discrimination and subjugation based on these attributes are either viewed as more important than racism or as equally important. This perspective promotes the idea that all forms of discrimination and oppression are equal in their frequency, pervasiveness and intensity for both the individual and society. In other words, the attention that racism once received is now being overshadowed by what can be called the equality-of-oppressions paradigm.

The equality-of-oppressions paradigm is also apparent in social work (see Schiele, 2007). Social work scholars from various groups argue that equal attention should be given to their group's oppression. These persons suggest that no single form of oppression should be considered preeminent because all forms of oppression represent ‘component parts of a whole system of domination’ (McDonald & Coleman, 1999, p. 26). Thus, the primary attention devoted to racism in American social work education during the 1960s and 1970s increasingly has been eclipsed by attention given to sexism, heterosexism, social class, ageism, disablism and other types of societal injustices.

The degree to which the equality-of-oppressions paradigm is prominent in American social work education can be discerned by the Council on Social Work Education's (also known as CSWE—the United States’ accrediting body for social work schools, departments and programs) most recent (2008) accreditation standards, that, among other things, states the following: ‘The dimensions of diversity are understood as the intersectionality of multiple factors including age, class, color, culture, disability, ethnicity, gender, gender identity and expression, immigration status, political ideology, race, religion, sex, and sexual orientation’ (pp. 4–5). The National Association of Social Workers (NASW), America's largest social work professional organization, also affirms the equality-of-oppressions paradigm. Its Code of Ethics states, in part, that

Social workers should obtain education about and seek to understand the nature of social diversity and oppression with respect to race, ethnicity, national origin, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, marital status, political belief, religion, immigration status, and mental or physical disability. (National Association of Social Workers, 2008)

In both the CSWE and NASW statements, no priority is given to a specific source of oppression or a particular category of injustice. Implied in these documents is the value that all sources of oppression should be given equal consideration by social workers.

The postmodern turn and wider discourses of oppression

The rise of postmodern social theory has had considerable influence in shaping the development of both the equality-of-oppressions and anti-discriminatory paradigms in social work. This form of social theory emerged as a critique of modernist assumptions of universalism, scientific rationality, absolute truth and the reliance on ‘grand narratives’ in understanding the social world (Schiele, 2007). Postmodernism has had a significant influence on the social sciences generally leading to a rethinking about social arrangements in everyday life and social identities. Amidst postmodern concerns about discourse and society are central themes about social identities and shifts away from their fixed social positions in society. Instead, the self is conceived as a complex, ephemeral, and fluid web of interconnected (or intersectional) identities that exert an equal effect on the individual's self concept and definition (Seidman, 1994). This postmodern idea significantly challenges the notion of single entity or domain self-definitions that assume the individual to be dominated by a one-dimensional self-identity. A uni-dimensional concept of the ‘self’ assumes that one major aspect of human identity generates consistent patterns of human experiences across place and time that provide the individual with a fairly stable worldview or interpretive framework (Harris, 1993).

A core implication of postmodernism's view of the self for oppression studies is that no one form of oppression can or should dominate the public and academic discourse. Rather, this discourse should give equal recognition and attention to diverse manifestations of oppression and their associated and particularistic dilemmas. Primary attention devoted to one form of oppression, the logic goes, both stymies our collective understanding of oppression and privileges one form of injustice over the others. Privileging one kind of oppression to the neglect of others creates a different form of domination, a domination of what Foucault (1977) called ‘subjugated knowledges’. Although the equality-of-oppressions paradigm is an important perspective that appropriately speaks to the multiple and complex experiences of humans, it has helped to facilitate, whether intentionally or not, adverse consequences for anti-racism efforts worldwide. We suggest these inimical consequences are as follows: (1) the increasing denial of racism; (2) suppression of the political solidarity needed for people of color to organize against racism; and (3) the deflection of attention away from poverty, especially the consistent finding in the US and UK that people of color disproportionately experience the pain and injustice of material deprivation.

As mentioned earlier in this article, the contested nature of racism and unease about the vocabulary by which racism can be discussed has contributed to a denial of racism in academic circles as we have purportedly entered a post-racial era where the celebration and promotion of diversity drive the dynamics of social relations in individualized ways. In the UK these changes have driven the widespread retreat in social work away from issues of racism towards a new language of equality of opportunity in policy and practice frameworks. The new equality regime in social welfare replaces negative equality rights (anti-racist and anti-discrimination agendas) in favor of positive equality rights under the umbrella of diversity to promote equality, integration and cohesion among social groups in society. These trends have redefined universal perspectives to support a single equality approach to address all forms of discrimination, including institutional discrimination by mainstreaming equality manifested in the new equality body, Commission for Equality and Human Rights and the forthcoming Single Equality Act (McLaughlin, 2007).

Alongside these developments, the dominant policy agenda of multiculturalism has been subject to critique as a threat to social and community cohesion and perceived as undermining British values. The current preoccupation in policy making is managing diversity and avoiding the use of racialized language. Lentin (2008) argues that although race has been largely expunged from the academy marking the end of anti-racism, with commitments to color blindness rather than equality, ‘race’ refuses to stay silent. The social construction of race which has produced racism is now transformed into issues of identity, ethnicity or culture. However, as Goldberg (2006) reminds us, the race concept is constantly adapting to changing political and social landscapes as a set of conditions—a signifier floating alongside the declaration that we are living in a seemingly post-racial society. This discussion identifies the points of divergence with the USA, particularly the difference in demographic populations as people of color in the UK make up approximately 8% of the population with limited political clout in the wider society. Another important site of divergence is the role of private practice in the UK, which unlike the USA has limited involvement in contemporary social work.

Referring to the USA, several authors have argued that the denial of racism represents a new form of racial injustice known as symbolic racism, where people of color are blamed for their own problems because they fail to conform to core American values such as the Protestant work ethic, meritocracy and delayed gratification (Kinder & Sears, 1981). Here moral justifications are utilized to disparage people of color for disturbing deemed universal American norms which in turn downplay the role racism plays in shaping their life circumstances (Bonilla-Silva, 2003).

Although eliminating racism does not escape the concern and objectives of many social workers and others, people of European descent benefit politically, economically and culturally from racism's continuation (Bonilla-Silva, 2003). Contemporary racism dates back to the European colonization of nations of color and European-sponsored slavery that commenced in the late-sixteenth and early-seventeenth centuries. This colonization and slavery advanced the political, economic and cultural domination of European nations (including the United States) over people and nations of color. The intergenerational transmission of patterns of inequality and injustice caused by racism generated several overt and covert advantages for majority populations, even if those populations were unaware of racism's transgressions.

For example, McIntosh (1988) contends that white privilege and racism has less to do with individual acts of belligerence and more to do with an ‘invisible knapsack’ of unearned benefits that accrue because of one's whiteness. In this sense, McIntosh reinforces Dubois’ (1935) notion of the wages of whiteness that bestow both symbolic (psychological) and material (political-economic) assets to whites relative to people of color.

In essence, the equality-of-oppressions paradigm feeds off of the gains people of color have made in post-segregation America. It also assumes a one-dimensional analysis of racism that views one's economic status as the sole or primary indicator of racism's continuation. The paradigm often fails to consider the multiple and increasingly diffused and subtle manifestations of contemporary racism that continue to heap benefits to majority populations relative to people of color (Schiele, 2008). Rather, the paradigm is seduced by contemporary racism's symbolic and color-blind character that places many at risk of concluding that racism is declining.

The equality-of-oppressions paradigm's reliance on the postmodern narrative of intersectionality and multiple identities makes it difficult for groups of color to organize around the single issue of racism. The postmodern concept of identity deconstructs and rejects a unified self dominated by a single socio-cultural character. It underscores the intersectionality of multiple selves, each having equal weight and rotating in importance depending on life contingencies. Harris notes that postmodernism's emphasis on individual uncertainty, if internalized, can generate chaos and unnecessary strife in black liberation organizations. By focusing on the ‘multiple’ and ephemeral concept of the self, postmodernism diminishes the possibility for both conscious and inter-organizational unity because disunity, not unity, is deemed to be the norm of human interaction (Harris, 2005).

These ‘liquid times’, as Bauman (2007) characterizes the postmodern age, either negate the necessity of organized struggle or they encourage an unstable and fluid view that allows the incorporation of various combinations of oppressed groups, with both complementary and conflictual political agendas. Harris (2005) suggests that the belief in the instability and indeterminacy in liberation st ruggles also implies that oppression lacks stability and certainty. This belief, then, would suggest that oppression lacks discernible patterns of injustice, since that which is a ‘pattern’ by definition implies that which engenders consistency. And, if oppression's patterns are denied or at least downplayed, then how can we know how oppression differentially affects various single identity groups? Herein is a hallmark of the equality-of-oppressions paradigm: by denying and/or downplaying oppression's differential effects, everyone or every group becomes an equal victim of the oppressive social structure. Single identity unity is pointless because oppression's consequences are inevitably indeterminate and unstable.

Because of the skepticism over single identity oppression and the emphasis on multiple identity affirmation, the equality-of-oppressions paradigm in social work also can deflect attention away from the manner in which poverty disproportionately affects people of color. By suggesting that everyone is a potentially equal victim of oppression, social work has increasingly withdrawn attention from poverty, especially the chronically poor, toward greater attention to the social and emotional problems of middle and upper class consumers.

Some authors suggest that the primary factor that has reduced social work's commitment to addressing issues of poverty has been the growing interest in private social work practice (Specht, 1991; Specht & Courtney, 1994). This interest is revealed less in official Council on Social Work Education documents and standards and more by examining professional social workers’ and social work students’ career interests. Those who bemoan the trend towards greater professional interest in private practice argue that private practice is inconsistent with social work's original mission of helping the poor and dispossessed (Karger, 1994; Specht & Courtney, 1994). These authors often maintain that private practice offers students and social workers generally an opportunity to avoid or to diffuse class and racial conflict. Conflict here means those contradictions inherent in a racist and class-based society that create both psycho-emotional and political discomfort. Since the chronic poor are disproportionately black and brown, those who are white and middle and upper class might experience psycho-emotional discomfort toward those who are black and brown, and the issues of inequality associated with racism and poverty. Evidence of this type of racial discomfort has been found among American social work students and faculty (see, for example, Garcia & Van Soest, 1997; Hyde & Ruth, 2002).

From this conflict-avoidance perspective, the growing interest in private practice in American social work represents an attempt by social workers to reduce the discomfort related to working with racially and class divergent populations. The poor, who are disproportionately black and brown, are explicit reminders of the injustices of American racism and classism. By avoiding the chronic problems of racism and classism, private practice advocates tend to focus their emphasis on other forms of injustice that also deserve attention. The problem, however, arises when these additional forms of oppression are considered equal in their frequency, pervasiveness and intensity to racism and poverty. By conceiving all forms of oppression—even those experienced by middle and upper class whites—as equal, the equality-of-oppressions paradigm provides a convenient justification for diverting attention away from the poor, and by extension, from much of the concern over and discourse about people of color.

Rethinking oppression—differential vulnerability

Having discussed some of the limitations intrinsic to current social work models of oppression, we suggest a more nuanced approach, which pays attention to the frequency, intensity and pervasiveness of oppression in contemporary society. Policymakers tend to identify equality with sameness as the best way to pursue social and political equality, which ignores group experiences and positional difference in the wider society. Young (2008) articulates a politics of positional difference, which addresses the way people suffer injustice in the form of durable inequality:

Some institutional rules and practices, the operation of hegemonic norms, the shape of economic or political incentives, the physical effects of past actions and policies, and people acting on stereotypical assumptions, all conspire to produce systematic and reinforcing inequalities between groups. (Young, 2008, p. 80)

Although not every member of less privileged groups are subject to deprivations, some social groups are more vulnerable to harm than others. These vulnerabilities place constraints on the ability of group members to achieve well-being. With this in mind, Young (1990) provides a useful model, which utilizes a framework of differential vulnerability to explain the complexities across multiple levels of social interaction and relationships. As this approach acknowledges that social groups experience oppression to varying degrees and in different ways, it is not possible to find a common description or essential cause of oppression. To avoid the potential of creating hierarchies of oppression, this framework views oppression as a set of conditions as well as a set of ideas and, therefore, all oppressed people experience similar conditions. This definition of oppression rejects a dichotomy of oppressor and oppressed and instead holds power as fluid and analyses its practices across multiple levels of social interaction.

In Justice and the Politics of Difference (1990), Young articulates five faces of oppression, which can be used to determine the degree of vulnerability groups may experience. These are: (1) marginalization; (2) powerlessness; (3) exploitation; (4) cultural imperialism; and (5) violence. According to Young (1990), marginalization is perhaps the most severe form of oppression because it pushes groups to the outer edges of society where they are made to feel invisible or experience lack of recognition. The faces of marginalization, powerlessness and exploitation are associated with social and power divisions of labor and describe the ways in which social arrangements and structures tend to block opportunities and reproduce inequalities. Cultural imperialism is a form of oppression which is often ignored and relates to the ways in which marginalized groups are often marked out by stereotypes in public representations but at the same time relegates their experiences or perspectives in life as irrelevant. Young (1990, p. 59) suggests cultural imperialism is ‘the universalization of a dominant group's experiences and culture and its establishment as the norm’. In this matrix, the final face of oppression is violence, which implies a range of abuse including physical harm, aggression, harassment, intimidation and ridicule.

Although differential vulnerability may also hold a tendency to create conflict among oppressed groups, the logic of evidence-based practice can be applied to identify specific criteria that could assist in assessing forms of oppression rather than relying on opinion, tradition or popularity. Schiele (2007) suggests that the generic approach to conceptualizing oppression in social work has become popular with authority driven by political considerations rather than systematic approaches to identifying how the multiplicity of oppressions varies in frequency, intensity and pervasiveness. It has long been recognized that levels of oppression and their intensity vary among societies. These degrees of inequality are reflected in the institutions of daily life and impact individuals and families.

One of the underlying difficulties in subsuming racism into a wider framework of social oppressions is that little attention has been paid to how to make meaningful connections between oppressions and avoid a diluted approach inherent in a universal framework which promotes ‘a little of something for everyone’ approach (Le-Doux & Montalvo, 1999, p. 49). Young's (1990, p. 64) matrix offers a more sophisticated perspective, which contends that not all of the faces are applicable to all social groups in society:

Working class people are exploited and powerless … but if employed and white do not experience marginalisation and violence. Gay men, on the other hand, are not qua gay exploited or powerless, but they experience severe cultural imperialism and violence … racism in the United States condemns many blacks and latinos to marginalization and … members of these groups often suffer all five forms of oppression.

This approach opens up discussions about useful connections that can be made between particular forms of oppression and how they appear in different groups. In this way we can begin to readdress the waning interest and commitment in social work to race equality.

Conclusion

One of the aims of this article has been to chart the development of universal frameworks of oppression in both the USA and the UK. Although these pathways have taken different priorities associated with historical patterns and institutional arrangements, it is clear that universal models of oppression have tended to squeeze out issues of racism as increasingly irrelevant or divisive. The expanded definition of diversity and sources of oppression and discrimination are progressive steps in affirming the lives of many groups but at the same time, this broader outlook has tended to undermine the ability to address distinct characteristics, impact and analysis in meaningful ways. A model of differential vulnerability can begin to untangle the complex characteristics of oppression in order to fully understand the social conditions of marginalized groups that impede their full participation in society. Understanding new developments from political and social theory can be helpful in understanding the complexities and circumstances of structural inequality in the lives of individuals and families.

Although Young's model of differential vulnerability cannot deal with every aspect of this complex subject matter, we suggest that this model can make a difference by reconfiguring models of oppression which interweave differential vulnerability to not only make the necessary connections between forms of oppression but also to reaffirm social work's commitment to racial equality.