The Roots of Social Justice in Group Work Anneliese A. Singh the University of Georgia

The Roots of Social Justice in Group Work Anneliese A. Singh The University of Georgia Carmen F. Salazar Texas A&M University-Commerce This article revisits the history of group work, highlighting elements of empowerment and advocacy in the work of some key figures, and noting events and movements that nourished group work’s social justice roots. Keywords: empowerment; group work history; oppression; privilege; social change; social justice Group leaders are aware of the potential for interactions to facilitate empowerment, growth, and change. Social justice is similarly collaborative in nature, emphasizing empowerment, self-determination, advocacy, and change. Although the term social justice may be relatively new, the underlying values—attention to inequities, advocacy, and empowerment strategies for members of marginalized and oppressed populations—are not new in group work. What is new, however, are the opportunities for group leaders to more clearly articulate how social justice concerns have been woven throughout group work’s history and to continue to build upon group work’s roots in social change. SOCIAL JUSTICE AND GROUP WORK: INDIVIDUAL AND GROUP CHANGE Group work has not always acknowledged the extent to which group practice is rooted in social justice values of equity, access, Manuscript submitted February 1, 2010; final revision accepted February 1, 2010. Anneliese A. Singh, Ph.D., is an assistant professor in the Department of Counseling and Human Development Services, The University of Georgia. Carmen F. Salazar, Ph.D., is an associate professor in the Department of Counseling, Texas A&M UniversityCommerce. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Anneliese A. Singh, Department of Counseling and Human Development Services, The University of Georgia, 402 Aderhold, 110 Carlton St., Athens, GA 30602-7142. E-mail: asingh@ uga.edu THE JOURNAL FOR SPECIALISTS IN GROUP WORK, Vol. 35 No. 2, June 2010, 97–104 DOI: 10.1080/01933921003706048 # 2010 ASGW 97 and participation (Roysircar, 2006); this may be due to dichotomous thinking. When considering the convergence of social justice and group work some may think in ‘‘either=or’’ terms; that is, either group leaders facilitate members’ personal healing and individual change efforts or they engage in social action and advocacy efforts (and the latter must embrace a particular political ideology). Getzel (2003) reminded group leaders that ‘‘a justice-centered group work approach gives direction and hope to the people we serve’’ and that ‘‘a justice-centered practice is not for special groups made of special people interested in social change, but is an intrinsic possibility for all groups served by conscientious practitioners’’ (p. 63). Another dichotomy is the ‘‘all or nothing’’ belief that group leaders must engage in political action or they fail to embrace social justice consciousness. It may be more facilitative to view social justice consciousness and competency as a continuum. At one end is knowledge about oppression and social inequities, and ongoing critical reflection on issues of race, ethnicity, power and privilege in one’s own life. At the other end of the spectrum are system intervention and advocacy skills promoting social change (Constantine, Hage, Kindaichi, & Bryant, 2007). Social justice-minded group leaders understand a phrase that emerged from consciousness-raising efforts in the 1960s, ‘‘the personal is political’’; that is, problems previously experienced individually are recognized as part of a larger systemic problem experienced by many. Therein lies potential for empowerment and liberation. Group leaders can enact social justice consciousness at any point along the continuum, depending upon the needs of the group members and the context in which the group takes place. In order to develop social justice consciousness related to group process and action it is important to recall the social justice group workers who forged new ground in social advocacy. A BRIEF HISTORY Counseling students learn about the formative contributions of Jane Addams, Joseph Pratt, and Jesse Davis (e.g., Gazda, Ginter, & Horne, 2001; Gladding, 2008) in their first group counseling course, but may have only learned these names in a brief historical overview of people and events paving the way for group work as it is now practiced. Upon closer examination, it becomes evident these early group workers laid the foundation for how we might define the integration of group work and social justice today. Each committed to a career involving advocacy with historically marginalized individuals and communities. Each also viewed a form of group work as a powerful intervention for promoting empowerment and healing of individuals who were often at society’s forgotten edges. 98 THE JOURNAL FOR SPECIALISTS IN GROUP WORK / June 2010 Jane Addams (1860–1935) founded Hull House in Chicago in 1889 to address issues of assimilation. Addams used group modalities to help residents learn life and self-advocacy skills. Her work with immigrants at Hull House is considered to be the beginnings of ‘‘social group work.’’ Leddick (in press) reported Addams was a founding member of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the American Civil Liberties Union; she was the first American woman to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. As an early feminist and community organizer, Addams outlined principles demonstrating her philosophy and commitment to social justice: Live in the community as an equal participant in the local issues of the day. Believe in the fundamental dignity of all individuals and accord every person with equal respect. Believe that poverty and the lack of opportunity breed the problems of the ghetto. (Jane Addams Hull House Association, 2009) Similar to Addams’ use of group work to address issues of social justice, Joseph Pratt (1872–1956) worked with tuberculosis patients at a time when the most distinctive treatment for TB was quarantine in sanitariums for 6 to 12 months. He discovered that when they interacted in groups, isolated and depressed patients developed increased morale and a sense of camaraderie—‘‘a common bond in a common disease’’ (Pratt, 1949, in A. M. Cohen & Smith, 1976, p. 29). In retrospect, leaders could see the potential for empowerment as these group members broke through their isolation and experienced their illness collectively as well as individually. While Pratt’s use of group work addressed issues of ableism by addressing social stigma related to mental and physical health issues, Jesse Davis (1871–1955) viewed group work as a means to strengthen community-building and education. As principal of Grand Rapids High School in Michigan, Davis was the first to implement a systematic guidance program in the schools. He initiated weekly vocational guidance for all students, using groups to teach values, career exploration, and social skills (Pope, 2009). The values and beliefs undergirding Davis’ work included the importance of giving back to one’s community, free public schools, and equal access to education for women; he was biased toward the effects of environment over heredity, and against racial prejudice (Pope, 2009). Jacob Moreno (1889–1974) characterized the development of group therapy as the third revolution in psychiatry. This third revolution situated patients in context, as it ‘‘took into account the harmful influences of social forces on mental health and utilized their helpful influences in the therapeutic milieu’’ (A. M. Cohen & Smith, 1976, Singh and Salazar/THE ROOTS OF SOCIAL JUSTICE 99 p. 32). Moreno’s use of psychodrama in groups used theatrical methods to explore the ‘‘truth’’ from group members’ differing perspectives. In this manner, psychodrama sought to support members in transforming their approach to everyday experiences. In social justice terms, the catharsis experienced in the process was viewed as key to the liberation of not just the person performing (for instance a family conflict), but as a core method to provide a space for liberation of all group members. The Human Potential Movement of the 1960s attempted to increase public awareness and foster social change. Social activism of the time included demonstrations against U.S. involvement in Viet Nam, protest against racial inequality, advocacy for women’s rights, and gay rights (Leddick, in press). Group modalities were used to address issues of militarism, racism, sexism, and heterosexism. The goals of the consciousness-raising groups of the 1960s and 1970s were to provide a liberatory space for group members. Women’s consciousness-raising groups in the United States were a vessel for enacting a fundamental feminist principle: when individual experiences of oppression and marginalization are reframed as systemic problems social and political change become possible (Horne, 1999). Community organizing flourished during this period, epitomized by the work of Saul Alinsky (1909–1972) who addressed social justice issues of classism and poverty. For nearly four decades, Alinsky organized poor communities for radical social action. In his book Rules for Radicals (S. Alinsky, 1971) he outlined strategies ‘‘for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be.’’ He envisioned this world as ‘‘a place where all men and women walk erect, in the spirit of that credo of the Spanish Civil War ‘Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees’ ’’ (p. 3). Alinsky’s community organizing strategies have influenced generations, and have been the focus of study for politicians such as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (Leddick, in press). Responding to a New York Times editorial (N. Cohen, 2009) regarding the use of Alinsky tactics by political conservatives (e.g., Rush Limbaugh, the ‘‘2009 Tea Party’’ organizers), Alinsky’s daughter-in-law Joanne Linowes Alinksy (2009) contrasted ‘‘a flash-inthe-pan disruptive gathering of people for whatever cause,’’ with the Alinsky approach to organizing—a process with ‘‘focused, intensive, specific, before-during-and-after steps that move an issue from complaints to action.’’ Action moves the group’s cause forward, ‘‘but also makes measurable and enduring change while, in the end, gaining the respect of the decision-makers and the community.’’ The multicultural movement, (‘‘fourth force’’) in counseling came to the fore in the last two decades of the twentieth century. Attention to social justice issues emerged as one century drew to a close and the 100 THE JOURNAL FOR SPECIALISTS IN GROUP WORK / June 2010 next one began. Multicultural counseling and social justice are closely interwoven constructs and activities. Group leaders can engage in diversity-competent practice without embracing social justice principles; but their work can be enriched by developing awareness of systems of power, privilege and oppression that impact group members. On the other hand, leaders attempting to engage in social justice group work without concomitant diversity competence are in danger of doing harm due to lack of awareness of culturally based perceptions, needs, and experiences of group members and their communities. The multicultural movement is largely responsible for stimulating scholarship on how group members’ worldviews, values, and behaviors are culturally informed. DeLucia-Waack (1996) asserted that ‘‘all group work is multicultural,’’ recognizing each group member’s unique multicultural identity, and that ‘‘group work embraces this uniqueness as an essential therapeutic factor in how groups work’’ (p. 218). Group leaders began exploring how to use members’ cultural differences to facilitate self-actualization, change, and growth (e.g., Cheng, Chae, & Gunn, 1998; Haley-Banez & Walden, 1999). Cheng et al. (1998) identified ways group can be used as a modality to address racial and cultural prejudice, viewing group as ‘‘a microcosm of reversing prejudice and racism in the larger society, and thus as a microcosm of community building’’ (p. 384). In 1999 the Association for Specialists in Group Work (ASGW) released the Principles for Diversity-Competent Group Workers, a pivotal training document. Culture-specific groups were increasingly used in practice and research—e.g., Franklin and Pack-Brown’s (2001) TEAM Brothers, an Africentric group for African American male adolescents or Yau’s (2004) guidelines for international college student groups. Multicultural counseling literature situated clients in cultural context and recognized the effects of racism and other forms of oppression. Increasingly, however, some multicultural scholars began stressing the need to move beyond recognizing inequities in social systems to a more active stance of opposing discrimination and oppression and promoting access and equity. Throughout the explosion of attention to multiculturalism and group work, there remained an absence of specific attention in the counseling literature to social action and social justice issues of privilege and oppression in group work training and practice. However, there was some attention to such issues in the social group work literature. Group work became established as a special interest area in social work in the late 1970s with the founding of the Association for the Advancement of Social Work with Groups and the journal Social Work with Groups: A Journal of Community and Clinical Practice. Singh and Salazar/THE ROOTS OF SOCIAL JUSTICE 101 In 1990, Breton called upon social group workers to learn from Jane Addams and the settlement movement of the early twentieth century and embrace, enlarge, and update these traditions to include social action. She noted these pioneers saw people in context, as individuals but also as members of ‘‘social groups and cultures affected by the social, economic and political conditions in which they lived,’’ and adopted the ‘‘strategic position that the people affected by unjust conditions should themselves be involved in efforts to change these conditions, and they facilitated this involvement’’ (Breton, 1990, p. 22). Increasing attention to social justice among social group workers is evidenced by publication in 2003 of Sullivan, Mesbur, Lang, Goodman, and Mitchell’s book Social Work with Groups: Social Justice through Personal, Community, and Societal Change. In the counseling literature, Anderson (2007) was one of the first to use words such as ‘‘cultural oppression,’’ ‘‘oppressor,’’ and ‘‘liberation’’ in his article ‘‘Multicultural Group Work: A Force for Developing and Healing.’’ Anderson provided a visual representation to help group leaders conceptualize both the oppression and perception of oppression related to group characteristics and group members. Shortly thereafter, more articles appearing in The Journal for Specialists in Group Work began to explore specific consequences of social justice issues— ranging from abuse to an explicit examination of privilege and oppression in group work. Singh and Hays (2008) outlined how group workers could use feminist principles of empowerment and advocacy with South Asian survivors of intimate partner violence. Smith and Shin (2008) detailed how White, male, and heterosexual privilege influence group dynamics and processes, discussed how covert oppression may manifest in groups, and created implications to further address the construct of social privilege in group work. Salazar’s (2009) multicultural group activities book, published by ASGW, addressed a range of social justice and multicultural issues in school and community group counseling. A CALL FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE-ORIENTED GROUP WORK In this brief review of group work’s history of alignment with social justice, we have described only a few influential group workers and recorded events in the United States. A continuing challenge is to further define how concepts such as liberation, empowerment, process, and action are used in groups and to expand our inquiry beyond the confines of Western practice. Social justice-oriented group leaders, educators, supervisors and researchers have the privilege and opportunity to investigate further 102 THE JOURNAL FOR SPECIALISTS IN GROUP WORK / June 2010 the roles of group leaders and members. Building upon group work’s social justice roots, Breton (1990) posed challenging questions: Do we agree that...the powerful need to learn not only about but from the powerless ...that [group leaders] need to learn ... not only about but from group members? We have to ask these questions, for it is only when we are willing to learn from the poor, the powerless, the inarticulate, as well as from the non-professionals and lay people and from minority groups, that there is in our work a real sharing of control, a real sharing of power, and a real sharing of agendas. (p. 23) We invite group leaders interested and engaged in social justice work to integrate Breton’s questions into group facilitation. How as group leaders might we transform ourselves if we more collaboratively co-constructed our group work? REFERENCES Alinksy, J. L. (2009, August 26). Letter: The organizer’s organizer. The New York Times. Available from Alinsky, S. (1971). Rules for radicals: A pragmatic primer for realistic radicals. New York, NY: Random House. Anderson, D. (2007). Multicultural group work: A force for developing and healing. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 32, 224–244. doi: 10.1080=01933920701431537 Association for Specialists in Group Work (ASGW). (1999). Association for Specialists in Group Work principles for diversity-competent group workers. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 24, 7–14. doi: 10.1080=01933929908411415 Breton, M. (1990). Learning from social group work tradition. Social Work with Groups, 13(3), 21–34. Cheng, D. W., Chae, M. H., & Gunn, R. W. (1998). Splitting and projective identification in multicultural group work. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 23, 372–387. doi: 10.1080=01933929808411408 Cohen, A. M., & Smith, R. D. (1976). The critical incident in growth groups: Theory and technique. San Diego, CA: University Associates. Cohen, N. (2009, August 22). Know thine enemy. The New York Times. Available from Constantine, M. G., Hage, S. M., Kindaichi, M. M., & Bryant, R. M. (2007). Social justice and multicultural issues: Implications for the practice and training of counselors and counseling psychologists. Journal of Counseling and Development, 85, 24–29. DeLucia-Waack, J. L. (1996). Multiculturalism is inherent in all group work. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 21, 218–223. doi: 10.1080=01933929608412253 Franklin, R. B., & Pack-Brown, S. (2001). TEAM BROTHERS: An Africentric approach to group work with African American male adolescents. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 26, 237–245. doi: 10.1080=01933920108414215 Gazda, G. M., Ginter, E. J., & Horne, A. M. (2001). Group counseling and group psychotherapy: Theory and application. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Getzel, G. S. (2003). Group work and social justice: Rhetoric or action? In N. E. Sullivan, E. S. Mesbur, N. C. Lang, D. Goodman, & L. Mitchell (Eds.), Social work with Singh and Salazar/THE ROOTS OF SOCIAL JUSTICE 103 groups: Social justice through personal, community, and societal change (pp. 53–64). New York, NY: Haworth. Gladding, S. T. (2008). Group work: A counseling specialty (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Haley-Banez, L., & Walden, S. L. (1999). Diversity in group work: Using optimal theory to understanding group process and dynamics. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 24, 405–422. doi: 10.1080=01933929908411446 Horne, S. (1999). From coping to creating change: The evolution of women’s groups. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 24, 231–245. doi: 10.1080=01933929908411433 Jane Addams Hull House Association. (2009). History. Retrieved from: hullhouse.org/aboutus/history.html Leddick, G. R. (in press). The history of group counseling. In R. Conyne (Ed.). Oxford handbook of group counseling. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Pope, M. (2009). Jessie Buttrick Davis (1871–1955): Pioneer of vocational guidance in the schools. The Career Development Quarterly, 57, 248–258. Roysircar, G. (2006). A theoretical and practice framework for universal school-based prevention. In R. L. Toporek, L. H. Gerstein, N. A. Fouad, G. Roysircar, & T. Israel, (Eds.), Handbook for social justice in counseling psychology: Leadership, vision, and action (pp. 130–146). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Salazar, C. F. (Ed.). (2009). Group work experts share their favorite multicultural activities: A guide to diversity-competent choosing, planning, conducting, and processing. Alexandria, VA: Association for Specialists in Group Work. Singh, A. A., & Hays, D. G. (2008). Feminist group counseling with South Asian women who have survived intimate partner violence. The Journal of Specialists in Group Work, 33, 84–102. doi: 10.1080=01933920701798588 Smith, L. C., & Shin, R. Q. (2008). Social privilege, social justice, and group counseling: A inquiry. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 33, 351–366. doi: 10.1080= 01933920802424415 Sullivan, N. E., Mesbur, E. S., Lang, N. C., Goodman, D., & Mitchell, L. (Eds.). (2003). Social work with groups: Social justice through personal, community, and societal change. New York, NY: Haworth. Yau, T. Y. (2004). Guidelines for facilitating groups with international college students. In J. L. DeLucia-Waack, D. A. Gerrity, C. R. Kalodner, & M. T. Riva (Eds.), Handbook of group counseling and psychotherapy (pp. 253–264). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 104 THE JOURNAL FOR SPECIALISTS IN GROUP WORK / June 2010 Copyright of Journal for Specialists in Group Work is the property of Routl