Scoop has an Ethical Paywall
Work smarter with a Pro licence Learn More

Gordon Campbell | Parliament TV | Parliament Today | News Video | Crime | Employers | Housing | Immigration | Legal | Local Govt. | Maori | Welfare | Unions | Youth | Search

 

Do Labels Create Blaming Of People Using Social Services?

The power of language came to my attention when I attended an excellent presentation by Debbie Hager from the University of Auckland, who unpacked common terminology used in the social sector – ‘the hard to reach’ and ‘vulnerable’ people.

The way we talk about people who use social services can influence how professionals such as social workers work with these people.

Vulnerability is defined as those exposed to the possibility of being attacked or harmed or a person in need of special care, support or protection because of age, disability, or risk of neglect and abuse.

Using the example of people or whānau experiencing family violence, Debbie Hager urged people to flip the paradigm. Instead of referring to these people as ‘vulnerable’, instead we talk about people endangered by inadequate systems and social attitudes towards violence.

This flip then turns the focus onto the system and attitudes that enable violence, instead of on the ‘vulnerable’ individual experiencing family violence. That’s not to say people experiencing family violence don’t need assistance, of course they do. But it suggests attention also needs to focus on systems and attitudes.

Pettily, this made me also think about how we use terms like ‘vulnerable’ as shorthand or we create acronyms. I’m not sure if the acronym for ‘people endangered by inadequate systems and social attitudes’ or PEBISASA will catch on but I really like placing the focus on systems and attitudes.

Advertisement - scroll to continue reading

Are you getting our free newsletter?

Subscribe to Scoop’s 'The Catch Up' our free weekly newsletter sent to your inbox every Monday with stories from across our network.

Another example of a common term is ‘hard to reach’ populations (people who are difficult for social services to access) which often brings connotations of people being difficult, non-compliant or intractable.

Again, using the example of people and whānau experiencing family violence, they are often frightened which inhibits their ability to think clearly, may have sustained head injuries with all the cognitive difficulties this brings, and for many, they also have mental health problems.

So if we flip the paradigm that people who are ‘hard to reach’ are functioning as well as they can, rather than being difficult, it changes to an empathetic mind set that recognises the factors impacting on a person’s ability to function and how to then adapt the way in which professionals then work with the person.

Conversely, if a client is viewed as ‘difficult’ or hard to reach, the blame is often laid at the doorstep of the individual or client for missing appointments, not home when you arranged to visit etc.

The presentation was a timely reminder of the power of language and how it can influence how we view, speak about and work with people who use social services. The next time I say or tap out on my laptop the terms ‘vulnerable’ or ‘hard to reach’ or similar terms, I will think twice and try to flip the paradigm.

Liz Davies, General Manager SociaLink

© Scoop Media

Advertisement - scroll to continue reading
 
 
 
Parliament Headlines | Politics Headlines | Regional Headlines

 
 
 
 
 
 

LATEST HEADLINES

  • PARLIAMENT
  • POLITICS
  • REGIONAL
 
 

InfoPages News Channels


 
 
 
 

Join Our Free Newsletter

Subscribe to Scoop’s 'The Catch Up' our free weekly newsletter sent to your inbox every Monday with stories from across our network.