Striving for transformative praxis is good but settling for affirmative politics can only create better realities for those marginalized by capitalism

In recent decades, social–political literature has reflected a shift in emphasis in the construction of social justice from aspects of redistribution, such as class, equality, and economic deprivation, to aspects of recognition, such as identity, culture, and ethnicity (Garrett, Citation2010; Thompson, Citation2006). Nonetheless, while critical political theory highlights the importance of integrating recognition with redistribution (Fraser, Citation1995, Citation2003), the contemporary practice of direct social work is usually focused more heavily on recognition (Boone et al., Citation2020; McLaughlin, Citation2014). Emphasizing recognition as the main locus of social justice makes social work practice primarily relational, i.e. focused on providing respect and visibility for marginalized people and allowing their voices to be heard (Gupta, Citation2017; Rossiter, Citation2014). Nonetheless, giving precedence to relational practices of recognition over material assistance may result in social workers’ dismissal of the material aspects of service users’ unjust situations (Krumer-Nevo, Citation2020). The examination of these practical aspects of integrating recognition with redistribution is underdeveloped and requires further attention (Garrett, Citation2010). This gap between theory and practice is particularly important in the context of managerialist reforms and their consequences for the deprofessionalization of social work (Schram, Citation2015). These reforms are based on neoliberal rationality, with its commitment to reducing public spending and government intervention in the market and in citizens’ lives, and therefore promote major retrenchments in public services and assume that service users are solely responsible for their lives (Klenk, Citation2018). This basic stance is usually manifested in the undermining of distributive structural practices that challenge fundamental social orders while making personal recognition practices that focus on the individual more acceptable (McKendrick & Webb, Citation2014). The weakening position of redistribution in social work theory of practice may increase the gap between service users’ needs and the way in which social services address them. In an attempt to contribute to critical social work theory of practice, this conceptual article offers a novel model of social work practice that integrates the aspects of recognition and redistribution. In addition, this model offers a conceptual approach to the promotion of critical practice that can enhance resistance to deprofessionalization processes (Strier & Breshtling, Citation2016). I begin by elaborating on the theoretical basis of recognition and redistribution. Redistribution and recognition in social work Critical political theory constructs recognition and redistribution as basic human needs, claiming that a just society is ethically committed to providing both (Fraser & Honneth, Citation2003). Social work’s critical theory of practice adopts this construction in its practical guidelines (Fook, Citation2016). Thus, in order to portray the current positioning of recognition and redistribution in social work theory of practice, this discussion begins by asking how recognition and redistribution translate into direct social work practice. Nancy Fraser (Citation2003) and Axel Honneth (Citation1995) debate the critical commitment of both recognition and redistribution, but I will highlight here their emphasis on equality in aspects of recognition. In the framework of their claim, inequality and social suffering are based on social status and interpreted as a lack of respect, visibility, and acceptance (Fraser, Citation2003; Thompson, Citation2006). Recognition is thus presented as an essential human need that provides people with a vital experience of belonging and self-value (Houston, Citation2016). A well-known debate between Fraser and Honneth (Citation2003) portrays two interpretations of recognition, as Honneth (Citation1995) highlights recognition at the micro psychosocial level, while Fraser (Citation2003) emphasizes the fundamental role of social institutions in allowing or denying recognition. Either way, recognition may inform social work theory of practice as the commitment to providing voice, visibility, and respect to service users and promoting critical awareness of exclusionary mechanisms (Houston, Citation2016). At the other end of this scale, the Marxist critique of capitalism classically advocates equality in the distribution of material resources, emphasizing its potential to oppress workers under the power of capital owners (Horkheimer, Citation1972). In this framework, the suffering of marginalized groups is understood first as the lack of basic material needs such as nutrition and housing, and second as informing inequality, exclusion, and abandonment by society (Ferguson, Citation2008; Lister, Citation2004). In social work theory of practice, the redistribution standpoint moves between the promotion of welfare-state-oriented policies such as transfer payments and material support (Ferguson, Citation2008) to a more structural practice that addresses material inequalities at the policy level (Weiss-Gal, Citation2016). Fraser distinguishes affirmative from transformative strategies employed to counter misrecognition and misdistribution: ‘Affirmative remedies for injustice … [are] aimed at correcting inequitable outcomes of social arrangements without disturbing the underlying framework that generates them. Transformative remedies, in contrast … [are] aimed at correcting inequitable outcomes precisely by restructuring the underlying generative framework’ (Fraser, Citation1995, p. 82). This distinction relates to the concept of resistance in critical theory, which studies ways of challenging hegemonic rationalities (Strier & Breshtling, Citation2016). Thus, critical social work practice seeks feasible ways in which to promote recognition and redistribution, striving for transformative solutions, but at times managing with affirmative ones. To sum up this section, recognition and redistribution represent two aspects of human suffering and inequality and thus inform two streams of social work practice. Recognition mainly informs direct therapeutic practice that provides emotional support, while redistribution mainly informs structural practices such as the provision of material support (Garrett, Citation2010). However, this picture is too dichotomous and reveals a fundamental lacuna. First, service users’ reality is bound by interrelated needs concerning recognition and redistribution, so the formulation of social work theory of practice on only one side of this scale may hinder social workers’ ability to fully address service users’ diverse needs. Second, this picture is imbalanced, and social work theory of practice is, in fact, constructed for the most part according to the recognition stance, with most welfare agencies providing assistance at the personal or family levels. Thus, the focus on recognition highlights the provision of therapeutic emotional support, undermining the professional rationality of critical redistributive practices (Garrett, Citation2010; McLaughlin, Citation2014). Beyond being superficial and one-sided, this formulation of social work theory of practice may invalidate the material aspects of service users’ needs and hinder social workers’ conceptual ability to genuinely understand and assist service users. It is important to note the role of the managerialist context in strengthening the unintegrated formulation of recognition and redistribution (Schram & Silverman, Citation2012). First, some scholars claim that managerialist rationality does, in fact, promote recognition and redistribution, though in an affirmative manner that focuses on the micro provision of emotional and material support and thus overlooks or even strengthens exclusionary social structures (Schram, Citation2015). Yet, in the street-level formulation of social work theory of practice, the commitment to budgetary retrenchment and the stance that holds service users solely responsible for their lives translates easily into the undermining of the redistribution of material support and the favouring of relational recognition practices (Lavee & Strier, Citation2018). To address such biased interpretations of critical practice, this article offers a theoretical model that integrates recognition with redistribution.