{"title":"Reflections on the Ethical Possibilities and Limitations of Abolitionist Praxis in Social Work","authors":"B. Murray, V. Copeland, Alan J. Dettlaff","doi":"10.1177/08861099221146151","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Since 2020, blatant forms of state violence within the United States have reignited attention in the field of social work, where numerous calls have been made to realign and reconsider our standing ethical values and principles. Individually, social workers are beginning to reckon with the field's role within the carceral ecosystem and reimagining practice outside the confines of the carceral state. Institutionally, however, social work's professional organizations have reacted in contradictory ways. The National Association of Social Workers (NASW) in particular has been overtly inconsistent; touting support for racial justice while also broadcasting long-standing support for and partnerships with police. Furthermore, the NASW purportedly upholds a set of professional ethics and values that center social justice while also supporting tactics that surveil and criminalize marginalized communities. This disconnect between espoused ethics and actuality of practice undermines the professional legitimacy of social work. The profession must either acknowledge the current Code of Ethics as performative or take action to bring practice into alignment with professed ethics that affirm abolitionist practices. Using institutional social work statements, this article presents a conceptual exploration of the ethical potentials and limitations of abolitionist praxis in social work, culminating with a call to action.","PeriodicalId":47277,"journal":{"name":"Affilia-Feminist Inquiry in Social Work","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Affilia-Feminist Inquiry in Social Work","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/08861099221146151","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4
Abstract
Since 2020, blatant forms of state violence within the United States have reignited attention in the field of social work, where numerous calls have been made to realign and reconsider our standing ethical values and principles. Individually, social workers are beginning to reckon with the field's role within the carceral ecosystem and reimagining practice outside the confines of the carceral state. Institutionally, however, social work's professional organizations have reacted in contradictory ways. The National Association of Social Workers (NASW) in particular has been overtly inconsistent; touting support for racial justice while also broadcasting long-standing support for and partnerships with police. Furthermore, the NASW purportedly upholds a set of professional ethics and values that center social justice while also supporting tactics that surveil and criminalize marginalized communities. This disconnect between espoused ethics and actuality of practice undermines the professional legitimacy of social work. The profession must either acknowledge the current Code of Ethics as performative or take action to bring practice into alignment with professed ethics that affirm abolitionist practices. Using institutional social work statements, this article presents a conceptual exploration of the ethical potentials and limitations of abolitionist praxis in social work, culminating with a call to action.
期刊介绍:
Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work is dedicated to the discussion and development of feminist values, theories, and knowledge as they relate to social work and social welfare research, education, and practice. The intent of Affilia is to bring insight and knowledge to the task of eliminating discrimination and oppression, especially with respect to gender, race, ethnicity, class, age, disability, and sexual and affectional preference.