This presentation is in three parts:

Oppression, Dehumanization and Exploitation: Connecting Theory to Experience

This presentation is in three parts:
1. A lecture about recent theories which distinguish between oppression, dehumanization and exploitation.

This presentation is in three parts:
2. A brief rendition of work I’ve just completed on the relationship of human needs to oppression, dehumanization, exploitation, and injustice.

This presentation is in two parts:
3. An exercise in which we identify words and affective phrases associated with our own experiences of oppression, dehumanization and exploitation.

In the exercise….(later)
Participants identify the words and affective phrases describing the feelings we have experienced due to acts of oppression, dehumanization and exploitation. These are shared on 3x5 cards that are shuffled, redistributed, and discussed.

For Example beaten down being left behind being used beleaguered
belittled blamed boot in the face

A similar list of words….
In the textbook written, Direct Social Work Practice: Theory and Skills, a similar list was developed. But in my teaching of a course on oppression at Fordham University in 1989, I found that these lists didn’t seem to match the words and affective phrases my students were coming up with to describe their experience of oppression.

But the use of lists of words and effective phrases is therefore an established part of social work education. Why not expand the list, my students and I decided. And, over the years, we concluded that it was not just feelings of oppression we were identifying, it was also feelings of dehumanization and exploitation.

And, we realized that some of our words and phrases described how we felt at the very moment of the experience of oppression, and others were how we felt seconds or minutes latter. Finally, some were things we felt that evolved over time from our experiences of oppression, dehumanization or exploitation, including both adaptive and maladaptive feelings.

So, while I’m talking about theories of oppression, dehumanization and exploitation, feel free to start thinking back to experiences you have had. You won’t be asked to describe them or discuss them. But try to remember how you felt at that very moment, and begin to jot down the words and phrases which describe how you felt.

Introduction Bertha Capen Reynolds said in Uncharted Journey, "Oppression produces the resistance which will in the end overthrow it ... We shall learn how to struggle when we care most what happens to all of us, and we know that all of us can never be defeated.”

First….. We begin by defining and discussing theories of oppression, dehumanization and exploitation. Then I discuss theories of human need and how oppression, dehumanization and exploitation product injustice via the denial of the ability of people and communities to fully meet their human needs.

First….. We begin by defining and discussing theories of oppression, dehumanization and exploitation (O, D, & E). Then I discuss theories of human need and how O, D & E produce injustice by denying of the ability of people and communities to fully meet their human needs. Then we move beyond theory, beyond the “isms”, and share the feelings produced by these experiences.

Oppression In their article in the Encyclopedia of Social Work, Wambach and Van Soest cite an excellent metaphor for oppression, one which explains why it is so hard to theorize and to observe a structure of oppression. That metaphor is the cage. They point out how hard it is "to understand that one is looking at a cage and there are people there who are caged, whose motion and mobility are restricted, whose lives are shaped and reduced." A well designed cage has a strong structure, but the actual wires that keep the birds in are as thin as possible to enable people to see in.

Mechanisms of Oppression
The authors argue there six mechanisms of oppression: (1) violence and the threat of violence, (2) rendering the oppressed group or their existence as an oppressed group as invisible, so that their status is taken for granted and not questioned, (3) ensuring that the group is ghettoized so as to be out of sight, out of mind,

(4) Engaging in cultural oppression by treating the group as inferior, (5) When oppressed groups are easily visible, they argue that the oppression can be rationalized or excused or (6) keeping oppressed groups divided within themselves or from other oppressed groups.

On second thought…. Just because this is in the encyclopedia of social work doesn’t mean we should agree with this, however. We should always think critically about social theories, by which I mean think analytically. We might end up agreeing or not agreeing, being critical or not critical, but we should analyze the theory, i.e. think critically about it. And of course I would encourage you to think critically about the things I say as well.

Thinking Critically (Analytically)
Van Soest and Garcia (2003) themselves, in the first edition of their CSWE book Diversity Education for Social Justice: Mastering Teaching Skills point out that it is important to critically challenge the assumptions of the prevailing academic approaches to diversity education.

I would argue that although Van Soest and her colleague refer to these six processes as the social mechanisms of oppression, they are really ways in which oppression is maintained after it has already be put in place. The oppressed group is made invisible, ghettoized, treated as inferior, and kept divided only after it has already become an oppressed group!

In other words, racist beliefs and other ideologies of oppression serve to justify oppression after it has been established. For instance, I’ve just finished a great new book, Darwin’s Sacred Cause.

Charles Darwin was motivated all his life by the abolitionist views of his family of origin, which had their origin in a religious belief that all people were creatures of God. Even though Darwin no longer believed in the Biblical account of the origins of life, he firmly believed that all human beings share a common origin.

Darwin used objective scientific methods in service of his deeper beliefs. He would have been heartbroken if he had found otherwise, but he was able to establish theories of natural and sexual selection that argued that human beings were indeed descended from a common origin.

Darwin’s sacred cause in over 30 years of research was to refute the growing scientific racism which claimed that people of African origin were a different and inferior species and that this justified slavery. But that scientific racism came after slavery, to justify slavery. Theodore Allen in his acclaimed book The Invention of the White Race has also shown that racism as an ideology came after slavery to justify it, not before.

So what are the originating mechanisms of oppression? And how do they differ from the mechanisms of exploitation and dehumanization? First, I would like to discuss one important mechanism, called closure.

Parkin’s Concept of Closure
Closure is a mechanism through which one group dominates another group. Frank Parkin theorized that a mechanism called social closure is a "process by which social collectivities seek to maximize rewards by restricting access to resources and opportunities to a limited circle of eligible." (p. 44)

3 Kinds of Closure He defines THREE kinds of closure: One is what he calls exclusionary closure, which is the process by which one group excludes another group. Different kinds of exclusionary closure are in place in different kinds of societies. This is the most important kind of closure to understand for our purposes.

Parkin (Weberian Perspective)
The concept of closure was first introduced in Parkin’s 1979 book, Marxism and Class theory. This is perhaps the most salient Weberian critique of neo-Marxism. Marxist class analysis, he argues, tends to deny the importance of "racial ideology", of "ethnic cleavages" or "communal divisions.”

Weberian Theory Parkin argued that it is important to understand the oppression of groups by groups. Many of the current theories of oppression we are using today - including feminist theory - are derived from Weberian group theory. Weberian group theory provides a powerful ability to sustain social critiques.

Classical Origins of Theories of Oppression, Dehumanization and Exploitation
Oppression – Weberian group theory Dehumanization - Durkheimian institutional theory Exploitation - Marxist class theory

Theories of Oppression, Dehumanization and Exploitation
Last Fall, I published a chapter, “Oppression, Dehumanization and Exploitation: Connecting Theory to Experience,” as Chapter 16 in the Second Edition of Van Soest and Betty Garcia’s book, Diversity Education for Social Justice (Second Edition). Alexandria VA: Council on Social Work Education. In that chapter I presented an original typology of theories of oppression, dehumanization and exploitation.

Basis of Typology of ODE Content For Social Work Education
Oppression: Ann Cudd’s Analyzing Oppression (2006). First unified and philosophically constructed theory of oppression. Dehumanization: Nick Haslam’s social psychological theories of animalistic and mechanistic dehumanization. Exploitation: Robin Hahnel and Chuck Tilly’s post-Marxist theories of exploitation.

Exploitation Let’s skip any real discussion of classical Marxist class theory of exploitation, but there is one great article which explains it well: Longres, John. Marxian theory and social work practice. Catalyst. 1986; (20)13-34.

Exploitation But in order to establish a typology of ODE content, it is necessary to show the manner in which oppression, dehumanization and exploitation can be distinguished from each other. That’s easier said than done, because theories of oppression have become broader and broader in their conceptualization in recent years, so that O, D, and E become indistinguishable.

Exploitation For instance, Tilly (1998) has developed a theory of inequality that posited mechanisms of group domination as well as economic extraction. David Gil (1994) has sought to incorporate exploitation and dehumanization into a theory of oppression.

Exploitation But efforts to theorize oppression, dehumanization and exploitation in ways which incorporate each other risk overstressing the extent of the overlap between each other’s arguably distinct mechanisms.

Exploitation A major problem with classical and most recent theories of exploitation has been that they see the exploitation of economic class by economic class as the root of all evil, as the source of all oppression, and as the engine of all dehumanization. Modern feminist, postmodernist and other emerging theories were a reaction to this overemphasis on the role of class.

Exploitation For the source of a theory of exploitation which both avoids this kind of ideological imperialism and recognizes the manner in which oppression can be distinguished from exploitation, I chose Robin Hahnel’s work.

Exploitation Hahnel recognized that exploitation can be analyzed in terms other than Marxian theories of surplus value. Even mutually beneficial, voluntary economic exchanges can worsen the degree of inequality.

Exploitation Those who begin with a capital advantage will have a competitive advantage in economic exchanges, because they will be able to operate with greater efficiency. This in turn leads to further efficiency gains with each exchange. The result is still greater inequality of income and assets, via accumulation. Exploitation is simply based upon unfair advantage.

Exploitation What is one of the most important concepts which can help understand the outcome of such unfair exchanges? Cumulative disadvantage. Cumulative disadvantage refers to the manner in which over the life course of individuals and of entire groups and communities of people, such unfair exchanges can become institutionalized into a system of economic exploitation.

Exploitation Unjust outcomes follow from transactions between unequal parties within an institutionalized environment. The outcome is a result of exploitation. But Hahnel said unjust outcomes can happen outside the context of exploitation as well. Hahnel’s model of exploitation leaves room for consideration of the relationship of exploitation to oppression and dehumanization.

Oppression Just as Hahnel theorized exploitation in a way which left room to theorize oppression, so Ann Cudd theorizes oppression in a way which leaves room to consider exploitation separately. In fact, Cudd devoted a major portion of his book to showing that exploitation isn’t necessarily coercive. Therefore, E may (or may not) be unjust, but it isn’t necessarily oppressive.

Oppression Wait, am I saying that the feminist philosopher Ann Cudd argued that exploitation isn’t necessarily oppressive? Yes, the reason is that Cudd’s theory of oppression requires that all oppression be conceptualized much like Parkin did: as a function of the oppression of one social group by another social group.

Oppression Cudd argued that the origins of different historical examples of oppression may differ and while the effect of oppression on various groups may diverge, oppression has a common set of features.

Oppression Cudd identified four necessary and sufficient conditions for oppression: (1) Harm, (2) Inflicted on a group, (3) by a more privileged group, (4) using unjust forms of coercion. Let’s look at each of these four and then I’ll provide you with a definition of oppression based on Cudd.

Oppression A harm condition related to an identifiable institutional practice; Avoidance of serious harm is a universal human goal according to Doyal and Gough’s Theory of Human Need. Harm is a much theorized concept in moral philosophy. But the harm must be performed in an organized, institutionalized manner, says Cudd.

Oppression (2) A social group condition that requires that the harm be perpetrated by a social institution or established practice on a social group. And that social group must have a pre-existing identity other than that stemming from the presence of the harm condition itself.

Oppression (3) A privilege condition associated with the existence of a social group that benefits from the identified institutional practice;

Oppression (4) A coercion condition consisting of the ability to demonstrate the use of unjust forms of coercion as part of the bringing about of the identified harm.

Oppression Thus, according to Cudd’s theory, oppression involves the infliction of harm in a fully institutionalized way by a more privileged group on another identifiable group via the use of unjust forms of coercion.

Oppression She excluded economic classes per se, because classes may be specific to an economic system. Cudd concluded from a rigorous philosophical analysis that coercion can’t be established as an inherent element of workplace participation under either capitalism or socialism. Therefore, Cudd carefully distinguished oppression from class exploitation.

Oppression Still, Cudd identified both direct and indirect forms of material and psychological oppression. Material oppression takes place when one social group uses violence or economic domination (domination, not exploitation) to reduce the access of persons of another social group to material resources such as income, wealth, health care, the use of space, etc. (Note: much like closure). ‘

Oppression Psychological oppression is both direct and indirect. Direct psychological forces produce inequality through the purposeful actions of members of the dominant group on people in a subordinate group (including the use of terror, degradation and humiliation, and objectification). Direct psychological forces also involve the imposition on the oppressed social group of cultural influence.

Oppression However, indirect psychological forces contribute to inequality by influencing decisions made by oppressed people within the oppressive context in which they live.

Oppression In either direct or indirect forms of oppression, Cudd argued, there are subjective and objective dimensions. Cudd viewed subjective oppression as the conscious awareness that one is in fact oppressed. In other words, a person realizes they are being unjustly and systematically harmed by virtue of their membership in a social group.

Oppression And it is that realization by Cudd which helps introduce today’s exercise, because what it involves is becoming more aware of the ways in which we are oppressed and/or dehumanized and/or exploited, so that we can be more aware of how our clients and communities are oppressed, dehumanization and exploited. But first we need to discuss dehumanization briefly.

Dehumanization I see dehumanization as being best explained by theories developed from the tradition of Durkheim and of institutional analysis. Would anyone like to take another shot at defining dehumanization?

An Example Let’s look at an shot from an early films of Charlie Chaplin, his 1936 film, Modern Times. He portrayed how human beings are increasingly dwarfed by and subjected to the machine.

Dehumanization Recent theoretical and empirical work on the question of dehumanization has distinguished between two forms of dehumanization: animalistic dehumanization and mechanistic dehumanization (Haslam, 2006). This is an important distinction, because it makes it possible to better recognize the relationship between oppression and dehumanization.

Dehumanization Animalistic dehumanization involves one social group denying that another social group has the same set of uniquely human (UH) attributes. This form of dehumanization is called animalistic dehumanization because it is often characterized by the explicit application to the other social group of animalistic characteristics.

Dehumanization Animalistic dehumanization takes place primarily in an intergroup context, in interethnic relations and towards groups of persons with disabilities. It is accompanied by emotions such as disgust and contempt for the members of the other social group. Animalistic dehumanization is fully consistent with the mechanisms spelled out in Cudd’s theory of group-based oppression

Dehumanization Therefore, I exclude Haslam’s theory of animalistic dehumanization from my typology’s source of theories of dehumanization. I only utilize Haslam’s theory of mechanistic dehumanization.

Dehumanization Mechanistic dehumanization involves the treatment of others as not possessing the core features of human nature (HN). Dehumanized individuals or groups are seen as automata (not animals). It is called mechanistic because it is involves “standardization, instrumental efficiency, impersonal technique, causal determinism, and enforced passivity” (Haslam, 2006, p. 260).

Dehumanization It is mechanistic dehumanization which is the form of dehumanization which can be distinguished both from Cudd’s theory of oppression and Hahnel’s theory of exploitation. And it is because that distinction can be made theoretically that it is also important to explore whether there are, at the level of human emotions, words and affective phrases which can characterize the experience of moments of oppression, dehumanization and exploitation.

Towards a Partial Theory of Injustice: Oppression, Dehumanization and Exploitation and Denial of Human Needs Oppression Dehumanization Exploitation Ann Cudd (2007) Oppressions as Group-Based Not addressed Not Considered inherently coercive Nick Haslam (2006) Animalistic dehumanization (group based) Mechanistic Dehumanization (people as automata) Robin Hahnel (2006) Post-Marxist theory of exploitation in any society

Serendipity and Theory
The previous slide show the conclusions of my work on a typology of theories of oppression, dehumanization and exploitation that arose inductively from my work with my students on the list of words and affective phrases I am going to further develop with you today. Simultaneously with my work on this, however, I have also been consistently involved in thinking and writing about the place of human needs theory in social work.

This began with my writing a review of the book A Theory of Human Need, by Len Doyal and Ian Gough. Their book was published in 1991 and my review appeared in However, in following up that review, I discovered that there was very little literature in social work on human needs. Although I produced several unpublished papers on the topic, it wasn’t until 2007 that I found an opportunity to publish on the subject.

Barbara Hunter Randall Joseph and I were nominated by UMSSW Dean Paula Allen-Meares to write the entry on Human Needs: Overview in the 20th Edition of the Encyclopedia of Social Work. That article has now been published, and was the first entry on that topic.

Human Needs and Social Work
The Preamble of the Code of Ethics of the National Association of Social Workers states: “The primary mission of the social work profession is to enhance human well-being and help meet the basic human needs of all people, with particular attention to the needs and empowerment of people who are vulnerable, oppressed, and living in poverty.”

Human Needs and Social Work
Nevertheless, social work has long had an ambivalent outlook on how central human needs concepts should be for our profession’s mission and goals. For instance, the Encyclopedia of Social Work didn’t contain an entry on human needs until the 20th edition (Dover and Joseph, 2008). Also, not until the current version did the Code of Ethics utilize the concept of human needs (National Association of Social Workers, 1999).

History of Needs Concepts in SWK
As Bremner (1956) pointed out, the concept of human need tends to be periodically re-discovered, as the ambivalent history of social work’s usage suggests. Richmond’s approach to casework clearly distinguished between economic needs and expressed needs of clients (Richmond, 1922).

Bertha Reynolds supported this growing focus on client self-determination, but worried that it could result in caseworker or societal neglect of basic human needs (Reynolds, 1935). The first human behavior in the social environment textbook was appropriately titled Common Human Needs (Towle, 1965[1945]).

Bremner, Robert Hamlett (1956). From the Depths: The Discovery of Poverty in the United States. New York: New York University Press. Reynolds, Bertha Capen (1934). Between Client and Community: A Study of Responsibility in Social Case Work. New York: Oriole. Towle, Charlotte (1965[1945]). Common Human Needs (Rev. ed.). Silver Spring, MD: National Association of Social Workers.

Early Psychological Theories of Human Need
By the mid-1940’s, psychology had produced two conceptualizations of human motivations and needs (Murray, 1938; Maslow, 1943). Maslow warned that field theory was no replacement for needs theory (Maslow, 1943; Lewin, 1947).

Hearn used field theory to develop general systems theory, later the foundation of the ecosystems perspective (Hearn, 1958). Maslow’s theory was based upon an intuitive hierarchy of need rooted neither in philosophical method nor empirical research (Maslow, 1970).

Hearn, Gordon (1958). Theory Building in Social Work. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Maslow, Abraham H. (1943). A Theory of Human Motivation. Review, 50(4), Maslow, Abraham H. (1970). Motivation and Personality (2d ed.). New York: Harper & Row.

Postwar Social Work Discussion of Human Need
In the U.S., human need content for social work education was seen as central by the early 1950s (Boehm, 1956, 1958; Stroup, 1953). Bisno recognized early on what has been a persistent human needs theory dilemma, namely how much stress to place on common human needs and human similarities rather than on human individual and cultural differences (Bisno, 1952

Functionalist theories of social welfare envisioned a social welfare system based upon an integrative view of human needs (Wilensky and Lebeaux, 1958). Despite recognizing that this integrative view was important for social work, Kahn concluded that given the relatively undeveloped state of needs theory, there was little choice but to define human needs within specific societal contexts (Kahn, 1957).

Boehm, Werner (1956). The Plan for the Social Work Curriculum Study. New York: Council on Social Work Education. Kahn, Alfred J. (1957). Sociology and Social Work: Challenge and Invitation. Social problems, 4(2), Wilensky, Harold L., & Lebeaux, Charles Nathan (1958). Industrial Society and Social Welfare. New York,: Russell Sage Foundation.

Recent Social Work Discussion of Human needs theory
Human needs were often seen as normative and subjective, rather than being universal and objective (Ife, 2002). Rights-based discourse was often counterpoised to a needs-based approach (Ife, 2001), despite Gil’s clarification of the compatibility of human rights and human needs (Gil, 1992). Gil also clarified the centrality of human needs for understanding and achieving social justice (Gil, 2004).

Gil, David (1992). Foreword. In Joseph Wronka (Ed.), Human Rights and Social Policy in the 21st Century. NY: University Press of America. Gil, David G. (2004). Perspectives on Social Justice. Reflections: Narratives of Professional Helping, 10(Fall),

Ife, Jim (2002). Community Development: Community-Based Alternatives in an Age of Globalisation (2nd ed.). Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Education Australia. Ife, Jim (2001). Human Rights and Human Needs. In Jim Ife (Ed.), Human Rights and Social Work : Towards Rights-Based Practice (pp ). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Marxian, Neo-Marxian and Feminist Approaches to Human Need
Social work theory and practice evolved during an era of intense ideological and intellectual debates about the degree to which human needs were universal or relative, were consistent with Marxism or likely to reinforce social oppression, or were philosophically rigorous or value laden. One socialist feminist work prioritized the discursive nature of need identification (Fraser, 1989).

Recent work has reinterpreted Marx’s theory of need (Hughes, 2000) and concluded that Marx identified the primacy of needs (Lebowitz, 2004). Noonan criticized rights-based theories of liberal democracy for giving primacy to property rights over demands for human need satisfaction (Noonan, 2004).

Fraser, Nancy (1989). Unruly Practices: Power, Discourse, and Gender in Contemporary Social Theory. Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis. Fromm, Erich, & Marx, Karl (1966). Marx's Concept of Man. New York: F. Ungar. Hughes, Jonathan (2000). Ecology and Historical Materialism. Cambridge: New York: Cambridge University Press.

Noonan, Jeff (2004). Rights, Needs, and the Moral Grounds of Democratic Society. Rethinking Marxism, 16(3),

Human Needs and Political Economic Theory
Major figures in philosophy (Nussbaum, 2000) and economics (Sen, 1985) have integrated the concept of human capabilities into their work on international social development. Nevertheless, some continued to argue that needs are ultimately socially constructed (Hamilton, 2003).

Human Needs and Political Economic Theory
Hamilton, Lawrence (2003). The Political Philosophy of Needs. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Nussbaum, Martha Craven (2000). Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach. New York: Cambridge University Press. Sen, Amartya Kumar (1985). Commodities and Capabilities. New York: Elsevier.

Doyal and Gough's Theory of Human Need
Drawing upon the philosophical expertise of one author (Len Doyal) and the economic training of the other (Ian Gough), a fully-construed theory of universal human need was constructed that was designed to permit empirical testing of its constructs (Doyal and Gough, 1984, 1991).

Doyal, Len, & Gough, Ian (1991). A Theory of Human Needs. New York: Guilford. Doyal and Gough theorized two primary basic needs (health and autonomy) which must be met to avoid serious harm and engage in social participation.

Civil, political, and women’s rights are prerequisites for culturally specific ways of satisfying intermediate needs, including food, water, housing, a nonhazardous environment, health and reproductive health care, security in childhood, significant primary relationships, economic security, and basic education.

Theory Overview (handout) Theory Chart #2: Backup link:

Recent Psychological Theories of Human Need
Maslow’s theory was extended, giving further attention to the need for belonging and the importance of the interaction and caring seen as fulfilling the need to belong (Baumeister and Leary, 1995). Self-determination theory identified autonomy, competence and relatedness as universal psychological needs (Deci and Ryan, 2000; Ryan and Deci, 2000, 2001).

Baumeister, Roy F., & Leary, Mark R. (1995). The Need to Belong: Desire for Interpersonal Attachments as a Fundamental Human Motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), Deci, Edward L., & Ryan, Richard M. (2000). The "What" And "Why" Of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and the Self-Determination of Behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4),

Ryan, Richard M., & Deci, Edward L. (2000). The Darker and Brighter Sides of Human Existence: Basic Psychological Needs as a Unifying Concept. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), Ryan, Richard M., & Deci, Edward L. (2001). On Happiness and Human Potentials. Annual Review of Psychology, 52,

This micro-level approach to human needs was seen as compatible with the overarching Doyal/Gough theory (Gough, 2004; Camfield and Skevington, 2008).

Camfield, Laura, & Skevington, Suzanne M. (2008). On Subjective Well-Being and Quality of Life. Journal Of Health Psychology, 13(6), Gough, Ian (2004). Human Well-Being and Social Structures: Relating the Universal and the Local. Global Social Policy, 4(3),

Philosophical Discussions of Human Need
There is growing mainstream philosophical consensus that the concept of need is essential to moral and political philosophy. Braybrooke (1987) demonstrated that lists of needs were philosophically groundless and that theoretical progress required the application of solid philosophical methods to longstanding questions of moral philosophy concerning social policy.

Brock and contributors to his edited collection utilized philosophical methods to debate developments in human needs theory (Brock, 1994; Doyal, 1998). Wiggins came down on the side of the centrality of universal rather than relativist conceptions of human need and stressed their importance for the understanding of social justice (Wiggins, 1987; Wiggins, 2005).

Braybrooke, David (1987). Meeting Needs. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Brock, Gillian (1994). Braybrooke on Needs. Ethics: An International Journal of Social, Political, and Legal Philosophy, 104(4), Doyal, Len (1998). A Theory of Human Need. In Necessary Goods (pp ). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Wiggins, David (1987). Needs, Values, Truth: Essays in the Philosophy of Value. Oxford, England: Blackwell. Wiggins, David (2005). An Idea We Cannot Do Without: What Difference Will It Make …. to Recognize and Put to Use a Substantial Conception of Need? In Soran Reader (Ed.), The Philosophy of Need (pp ). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Nursing Theories of Human Need
Building upon the work of Montagu (1955) and others, Fortin traced the evolution of nursing’s use of human needs theory (Fortin, 2006). At least two textbooks integrated human needs concepts throughout (Ebersole, Hess, Tough, Jett and Lugen, 2008; Ellis and Elizabeth, 1994). (References upon request)

Nursing Theories of Human Need
Powers said that needs might be construed as deficiencies and needs-based approaches might result in oppressive approaches to nursing practice (Powers, 2006). Others used critical theory for humanist discourse about need (Holmes and Warelow, 1997) or adopted a transcultural approach to reconciling objective human needs with culturally informed nursing practice (Kikuchi, 2005).

Religion, Spirituality and Human Needs
Approaches to human needs also arose from theology and religious studies. Spirituality and/or religious practice are now seen as an important aspect in many conceptions of human need (Canda, 2008). The origins of religion were traced to the human need for an organized response to human deprivation (Nelson, 2006).

For instance, the biblical concept of justice was traced to concern for the needs of widows, orphans, migrants, and the poor (Marshall, 2006). Also, the need for religion was linked to the need to belong (Seul, 1999).

The evolution of human culture was found to be tied to the practice of religious rituals in nearly every cultural context (Rappaport, 1999). The major Abrahamic religions have all developed conceptions of human need, including Judaism (Heschel, 1965), Islam (Ismail and Sarif, 2004), and Christianity (Hugen, 2004).

Social Work Practice and Human Needs
No extant practice model in social work has human needs as a central concept. Joseph (1986) contended that human needs concepts should be central to community organizing. Reynolds (1991[1938]) distinguished between the needs of people and the needs of society, thus introducing a reciprocal and dialectical approach to the evolving person-in-the-environment approach.

Reid (1978) and Saleeby (2006) both raised concerns that a focus on needs might be disempowering to clients. Yet both the strengths perspective and the eco-systems perspective are both potentially compatible with human needs concepts (Dover and Joseph, 2008).

Both the goodness of fit approach of the ecosystems-based life model of practice and the needs resource approach to assessment incorporate needs concepts (German and Gitterman, 1980; Vigilante and Mailick, 1988).

Social Policy and Human Needs
The post-Cold War recognition that capitalism would be a longstanding social formation produced criticism of defeatist approaches towards the meeting of human needs in the meantime (Dover, 1992). (Dover, Michael A. (1992). Notes from the Winter of Our Dreams. Crossroads: Contemporary Political Analysis & Left Dialogue, 27(December), )

Gil’s approach to policy analysis provided a tool for need-based social policy advocacy (Gil, 1992). (Gil, David G. (1992). Unravelling Social Policy: Theory, Analysis, and Political Action Towards Social Equality (5th ., rev. and enl ed.). Rochester, VT Schenkman Books)

Yet despite earlier work which distinguished between service needs and human needs and introduced the concept of human capabilities (McKnight, 1989), McKnight’s later work criticized needs assessment approaches which stressed deficiencies (McKnight, 1995).

Nevertheless, Robertson stressed the manner in which human needs concepts were a countervailing discourse to the dominance of market principles (Robertson, 1998), and Gough explained that most nations had mixed economies in which the needs of people and the needs of capital could be reconciled due to advances in social production and social policy (Gough, 2000).

Needs Assessment Research
The Doyal/Gough theory spawned two book-length approaches to community-based needs assessment (Percy-Smith and Sanderson, 1992; Percy-Smith, 1996). When conceptions of need of clients and providers are compared, clients were more focused on basic human needs and providers on the service needs they perceived clients to have (Darling, Hager, Stockdale and Heckert, 2002)

Human Rights and Human Needs
Yet Reichert and has pointed out that declarations of human need were originally at the root of promulgations of international human rights (Reichert, 2003). Wronka added that human rights provide the legal framework for insisting that human needs be met Wronka (Wronka, 1992, 2008).

O’Neill has discussed the relationship of needs to rights and concluded that the human obligation (responsibility) to meet needs should be prioritized (O’Neill, 1998). Noonan’s work has suggested the path towards a fuller social democracy, in which needs take primacy over some property rights (Noonan, 2005).

Within social work, Witkin has concluded that our concern for human rights is linked ultimately to our commitment to the right to human need satisfaction (Witkin, 1998).

Human Needs and Social Justice
There is growing philosophical consensus that social justice can’t be conceptualized or achieved without incorporating the concept of human needs (Brock, 2005). One eloquent appeal sought to link the needs of strangers to any society’s sense of social solidarity or aspiration for liberty and justice (Ignatieff, 1986).

Human Needs and Social Justice
Gil later clarified that no conception of social justice can exist without first defining human needs and how their satisfaction is related to the achievement of justice (Gil, 2004). Wakefield drew upon human needs theory in his discussion of the use of the concept of distributive justice within the helping professions (Wakefield, 1988).

Human Needs and Cultural Diversity
Shortly after Maslow’s formulation of this theory of human need, Lee contended that hierarchical theories of human need were rooted in Western individualism and were culturally specific, not universal (Lee, 1948). Etzioni, however, contended that human needs can be universal and yet met in culturally specific ways (Etzioni, 1968).

Within social work, this has been recognized at the theoretical level (Guadalupe and Freeman, 1999), at the pedagogical level (Blake, 1994), and at the level of the mission of the field as a whole (Mullaly, 2001).

In addition, two recent contributions to the practice literature have concluded that growing understanding of universal human needs and cultural common denominators can create conditions for effective cross-cultural social work (Dover, 2009; Vontress, 2008).

Dover, Michael A. (2009). Rapport, Empathy and Oppression: Cross-Cultural Vignettes. Reflections: Narratives of Professional Helping, 15(Forthcoming). Vontress, Clemmont E. (2001). Cross-Cultural Counseling in the 21st Century. International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling, 23(2),

Human Needs and Oppression, Dehumanization and Exploitation
Gil defined oppression as incorporating economic exploitation, and viewed social injustice as characterized by dehumanization (Gil, 1998). Van Wormer (2004) also adopted a definition of oppression that incorporated exploitation, as did Appleby, Colon and Hamilton (2007). Marsiglia and Kulis (2009), however, conceptualized oppression as being group-based, as was done by Ann Cudd

Cudd clearly differentiated between oppression and economic exploitation. She restricted oppression to group-based domination that is systematically coercive and unjust, although it has material as well as psychological components. She denied that all forms of economic exploitation are inherently coercive.

This opened up theoretical room for identifying the nature of systematic economic exploitation within any system of production (Hahnel, 2006). Cudd’s definition of oppression, while consistent with a theory of animalistic dehumanization, was inconsistent with a theory of mechanistic dehumanization (Haslam, 2006).

These theoretical developments enabled the development of a typology of theories of oppression, dehumanization and exploitation (Dover, 2008). Each of these three sources of injustice can inhibit the ability of people and communities to meet their human needs in a way that is consistent with their human rights and with their culturally valued way of life.

These emerging conceptualizations of human need, human rights, social justice, social injustice, and oppression, dehumanization and exploitation reinforce the central role for human needs theory in social work theory and practice.

We’ve All Experienced…
Either oppression or exploitation or dehumanization at some point in our lives. Many of use have experienced all three. Human emotions in response to these processes may be quite similar. Current thinking is that there is little purpose served by constructing hierarchies of oppression in terms of how much more or less oppressed or exploited people or groups are.

The Exercise We write down on 3x5 cards the words and affective phrases which describe the moment of being oppressed, dehumanized or exploited; our initial reactions to the experience of that moment, and any evolved responses over time (as well as whether we feel they were adaptive or maladaptive). The cards are shuffled and we take turns reading from the 3x5 cards.

For Example beaten down being left behind being used beleaguered
belittled blamed boot in the face

Discussion Next we discuss what these words and affective phrases say about the feelings produced by oppression, dehumanization and exploitation.

Discussion A previously developed compendium of words and affective phrases is displayed (see PDF file). Discussion centers on the use of the exercise and compendium in classroom learning and teaching and in the field by social workers seeking to be more sensitive to the feelings of clients.

Use of the Compendium Some words and affective phrases are associated with the moment of an act of oppression, dehumanization or exploitation. Other words and phrases describe emotions experienced after the moment of the act but in reaction to that act or similar acts. Other words and affective phrases describe emotions which evolve over time due to the experience of such acts: adaptive and maladaptive.

Conclusion This exercise roots a social worker's empathy within a sociocultural context. It provides a platform for developing a more effective individualization of the client within this context. It makes empathy a less mysterious and abstract, and more achievable phenomena. If a social worker is in touch with her or his own oppression, dehumanization and exploitation, this helps overcome barriers or differences between the worker and client by reducing any sense of distance from the client the worker may feel. This is one step towards cultural competence.

This presentation is in three parts:

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "This presentation is in three parts:"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

This presentation is in three parts:

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "This presentation is in three parts:"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback