The Student Room Group

Anti-oppressive and anti-discriminatory

Hi everyone!

I was wondering if anyone could explain what anti-oppressive and anti-discriminatory are, and be able to give some examples?

Thank you!
Hey, just giving this thread a bump :bump: Are you sure you’ve posted in the right place? Posting in the specific university or course forum should help you get more responses. :yy:

If you haven’t already found it, then university connect is a really useful way for finding people at your course/university! You can also find a list of applicant threads and courses here. :h:
Reply 2
Hey,

Anti-oppressive practice is about showing an understanding of oppression that affects an individual within various aspects of their life, and ways in which this can be negated or minimised to benefit the individual. The most effective way of understanding oppression is via systems theory, which helps contextualise hardship alongside a variety of factors related to society, economy, culture etc based on the varying layers of interactions and relations (from the self all the way up to broad dynamics such as religion).

Anti-discriminatory practice, whilst related to oppression, tends to rely more on particular identities for understanding more generalised factors that can lead to an individual being disempowered.

Whilst oppression and discrimination do overlap in many regards, discrimination tends to be gazed at based on a particular criterion aimed at specific circumstances (i.e. the equality act banning discrimination within employment or accommodation based on gender identity or sexual orientation etc). At the most simplistic level of understanding, it means that these protected characteristics cannot be used as a factor in a manner that negatively impacts them, such as denying them accommodation because they are gay. Anti-oppression is when it gets a bit more personalised and analytical, as it's about understanding individual barriers affecting that person, rather than understanding them on a broader level as we do when challenging discrimination.

An example I experienced was when assisting a homeless man with complex physical health disabilities, and who experienced substance dependencies for illicit drugs and alcohol. Anti-discriminatory practice required an understanding of the protected characteristics within statutory law, as well as a broad understanding of social discourse typically applied to those who are considered 'addicts' or 'homeless'. They are, after all, the typical image society has when thinking about the feckless, work shy, scroungers of society. I fulfilled the principles of anti-discriminatory practice by taking all these into consideration, which was apparent within housing applications that linked the necessity of this application to the legal duties of the local authority to protect vulnerable individuals. Anti-oppressive practice requires a more micro-analytical analysis of discriminatory discourse, as it's never simply good enough to just look at an individual and conclude that his problems are just because he's homeless. In this circumstance, it's quite right on a broad level, but it doesn't provide an insight into how powerlessness plays out in his day to day life. I knew from anti-discriminatory practice he was disabled, homeless and an addict. It was only when I used systems-theory did I begin to place his discrimination into context, and that's when you can start to identity the things that lead to somebody being oppressed. In this situation, the guy had such complex health needs that he was known to all local emergency accommodation shelters, who had subsequently banned him. As he was homeless, he lacked the documents, resources and knowledge to apply for emergency social housing, and therefore he was in a situation that meant he inevitably ended up in hospital.

Anti-discrimination prevents particular vulnerabilities from being used to disadvantage somebody. However, only by using anti-oppressive practice can we actually begin to understand the individual factors of that individual, and see the factors that lead to somebody being powerless. After all, the Government are never going to have legislation that says they wish to disadvantage those with a physical disability whom are homeless. However, when you understand that an individual meets those criterion but lacks the resources or knowledge to actually apply for the welfare that they're legally entitled to, then you're better able to understand the way in which people's individual factors (no matter how legally protected) affects them. In my case, it didn't matter that this guy ticked numerous boxes within the equality act. He was oppressed by the very fact that he lacked documents and resources to apply for welfare that requires the physical health to attend a Government centre, and the expertise to use a computer to complete an application. On top of that, a homeless person typically lacks identity documents, thus burdening him further. By using anti-oppressive practice, you're acknowledging these disempowering barriers, and using your own statutory position to achieve social justice on their behalf. This guy couldn't obtain ESA by himself, but social services are able to circumvent particular requirements due to the role they play within welfare. As a final example, I was able to ensure his welfare payments got paid into a post office card account, which didn't require any form of ID when requested by the local authority. He wouldn't have been able to do that himself, nor did he have the correct papers to obtain a bank account for such payments.

You could honestly write an entire PhD on the two forms of practice, but that's pretty much it in a mega tiny nutshell. There's a significant amount of overlap, but oppression tends to be more personalised to the individual, but still either directly or indirectly connected to the discriminatory factors that you identify.
(edited 9 years ago)

Quick Reply

Latest