Challenging Anthropocentricism in Social Work Through Ethics and Spirituality: Lessons from Studies in Human-Animal Bonds

Abstract

During the process of teaching theoretical foundations in a Canadian school of social work, I sought to combine my teaching of critical anti-oppressive practice (AOP) with established ideas from the field of human-animal bonds (HAB) and from the spiritual experiences arising within my relationships to companion animals. This article addresses the challenges I confronted by identifying speciesism, a specific form of discrimination based on species not recognized within social work's anti-oppressive practice paradigm. I argue that anti-oppressive social work is, in effect, oppressive because it informs a perspective that prioritizes humans over other animals, nature, and the planet. By drawing on the extensive body of literature in the field of HAB, which like AOP is informed by critical social theories, this article highlights how an AOP approach is delimited to diversity among humans. The implication of anthropocentrism as the central organizing principle of AOP social work is that it limits the profession's value framework and the potential for sustainable outcomes for well-being among all beings. Pathways to address these implications are offered by reference to work that explores issues of spirituality and ethics in both social work and HAB research.

Keywords:

• anthropocentrism
• anti-oppressive social work theory
• human animal studies
• social work and spirituality

Notes

1. The terms “human-animal bonds” and “human-animal interactions and relationships” are used interchangeably in the literature when referring to the body of work on the topic. A key difference, between the two, is that the former is used in studies about positive relationships and relationship potential between humans and animal. It frequently appears in studies in psychology and social work in reference to animal-assisted interventions (Barker & Barker, 1988; Behm, 2004; Netting, Wilson, & News, 1987). The term “human-animal interactions and relationships” is more specifically used to refer to both positive and negative manifestations of human-animal relationships and dynamics, such as in historical studies and contemporary context, lab animals, and shelters (Arluke & Saunders, 1996; Serpell, 1986).