Constructed Realities: Black Men and the Influence of Discourse in Social Work

Background and Purpose:
Black men in the United States continue to face systemic disparities, adverse well-being outcomes, and persistent negative stereotypes that construct them as irresponsible, violent, or criminal. These dominant narratives not only influence public perception but also impact how social workers engage with Black male clients, despite the profession’s explicit commitment to racial and social justice. This study examines how social workers construct Black men and how broader societal discourses shape these constructions and, in turn, affect social work practice. The primary research questions guiding this study are: How do social workers construct Black men? and How do societal discourses influence these constructions and subsequent practice?

Methods:
This qualitative study utilized Foucauldian Discourse Analysis (FDA), following Willig’s six-stage approach, to explore how discourse produces professional knowledge and informs practice. The sample consisted of 15 licensed social workers recruited through purposive sampling. Semi-structured interviews were conducted, and the analysis focused on identifying the discursive language participants drew upon in describing their perceptions, interactions, and practice with Black males.

Results:
Findings suggest that while participants expressed a strong commitment to social justice and social work values, their narratives often reflected dominant societal discourses that negatively construct or pathologize Black men. Three primary constructions emerged across interviews: The Threatening Other (depicting Black men as dangerous or aggressive), Exceptions to the Rule (viewing positive traits in Black men as rare or atypical), and The Invisible HuMan (failing to fully recognize Black men’s complexity, vulnerability, or individuality). Various sources influenced these constructions, including media portrayals, familial and cultural norms, professional training, and systemic expectations. Societal discourses influenced how participants constructed, engaged, and practiced with Black males; often in ways that were unintentional but nonetheless exclusionary or harmful.

Conclusions and Implications:
This study demonstrates that even within social work, a profession that focuses on racial and social justice, societal discourse about Black males continues to permeate practice in a way that does not help to promote their health and well-being positively. How individual social workers construct Black males can unconsciously impact their practice negatively, despite their personal and professional commitment to advocacy and anti-oppressive practices. The findings underscore the need for the profession to critically examine how discourse influences social work practice, policy, and education. Promoting the well-being of Black men requires moving beyond merely identifying disparities to actively addressing the structural and discursive conditions that sustain them. This includes rethinking social work pedagogy, developing culturally affirming and strengths-based practice models, and creating institutional spaces for critical reflexivity and accountability. By challenging and transforming harmful constructions and discourse, social work can better align with its ethical imperative to affirm all people's humanity, dignity, and worth, especially those most marginalized by societal discourse and construction.