Hoefer-7-8-25-2

Social Work Ethics, Values, and Advocacy Practice } 27

A more recent and alternative approach to understanding social justice emerges from the anti- oppression framework. Young and Allen (1990) argue that distributive theorists such as Nozick and Rawls who argue for fairness in distributive justice terms depoliticize policymaking and accept, in most ways, the existing methods of decision- making. Furthermore, distributive justice theorists downplay or deny difference, place insufficient emphasis on the role of group identity, and believe in the ability of decision- makers to act impar tially. Young and Allen state that the idea of equal treatment began as a positive approach to ensure fair, equal treatment but that it in fact suppresses impor- tant differences. Sometimes, they argue, in order to reduce oppression, equal treatment must give way to “the politics of difference” (p. 11). The elements of the anti- oppressive framework and the meaning of anti oppressive practice are loosely defined. Although ideas around anti-o ppressive practice are decades old, they have not yet become standardized. Baines (2007) indicates, “Rather than a single approach, AOP [anti- oppressive prac tice] is an umbrella term for a number of social justice oriented approaches to social work, including feminist, Marxist, post-modernist, Indigenous, post structuralist, critical constructionist, anti-colonial and anti- racist” (p. 4). Thus, in this discussion of oppression and anti-oppression, a considerable amount of subtlety will be missing, just as it was in the previous sections regarding Rawls’s and Nozick’s ideas of distributive justice. Suggested additional readings would certainly increase. It is a very individualistic approach to how society should operate, although it is consistent with many of the basic tenets of American values. Rawls’s viewpoint requires many calculations to be made that may be be yond most persons’ abilities, but the general thrust of his approach is con gruent with social work values. The approach focuses on the least advantaged members of society and seeks to improve their condition. Despite the prac tical difficulties of determining the exact level of justness that is involved in any one situation, it is clear that the NASW Code of Ethics is written with an eye on the needs of the least advantaged members of society. This viewpoint, too, has a place among American values but is clearly not the dominant value. Nonetheless, the Rawlsian view is currently probably the dominant value framework among social workers, as Iatridis (1993) notes: [The view] supports the normative aspects of social policy practice and the ethical commitments of social work. It emphasizes humanness and the enhancement of being human. It also promotes welfare- state programs that redistribute goods and services in favor of the poor, the disadvantaged, and populations at risk. (p. 69) ANTI- OPPRESSION FRAMEWORK