This chapter examines the intersections between Indigeneity, Indigenization and CRT as paths to uncover structural racism and inequities, to resist and neutralize decolonizing ways. Indigeneity and Indigenization are grounded in radical remembering and reconceptualizing social work’s ethical and moral fortitude. They represent Indigenous identities, lifeways and values calling on us to examine all aspects of racism, power distribution, and wellbeing with the intent of strengthening communities. The dualism of CRT, white vs. black and other people of color, neglects Indigenous world views and perpetuates colonial dynamics by excluding ways of being and thinking beyond race. In this way, CRT detracts energy from restoration, securing of ancestral lands, revitalizing Indigenous languages and cultural practices, and impedes intergenerational healing. Indigenously defined social work practice holds the promise of universal wellbeing and opportunities to diversify a socially just agenda.

This chapter advocates a transformation of the profession. Transformation requires turning everything on its head and rearranging to create something better – in this case a more racially just and equitable social work practice. The first section of the book begins with the macro, uncovering the why and how of racism in the US and globally, discussing how these precepts trickle down to micro social work practice. Without posturing macro and micro as an “either/or” the authors discuss these as “yes ands …”, advocating, instead, for a critical approach to practice spanning the continuum of social work systems of practice.

Up to at least the 1960s, English was seen as a world language integrated around two equipollent standards, British and American. Since then, in the wake of decolonisation, this bi-polar constellation has given way to models arguing for various pluricentric constellations. What tends to be overlooked, however, is the fact that the agents of standardisation and the sociocultural environment in which standardisation is taking place are markedly different today from what they were in the mid twentieth century. The power of educated elites to define linguistic standards has weakened considerably, while language technologies and software algorithms enforce homogenisation of usage in the written domain, promoting new norms that are not always in line with traditional notions of ‘good English’. In addition, the global spread of English has not only involved standard varieties, but also some non-standard ones. Removed from their vernacular home-bases, these non-standard forms have gained prestige and become available for new functions. This has produced the ‘standardisation paradox’ that Global English is facing in the early twenty-first century and that the present chapter will illustrate and analyse.

This chapter focusses on Curll’s relations with the civic affairs of London. It gives a brief survey of his admission to a guild and position as a liveryman of the Cordwainer’s Company, outside the powerful body of Stationers. Further, it outlines his behaviour over a number of years in City and national elections, from 1710 to 1734, noting his tendency to veer between votes for opposition parties and those for pro-ministerial candidates, depending on the political climate and his personal situation. His relations with Robert Walpole are sketched out. Comparisons are drawn between his actions and those of representative figures in the trade, especially those with whom Curll worked regularly. Where appropriate, the distinct voting patterns of Stationers and Cordwainers are noted. A conclusion summarises the changing political stance across the first four decades of the century, both of Curll himself and of members of the Stationers’ bloc.

Do legislatures possess the capacity – and the will – to temper the agenda‑setting power of outsiders? This chapter probes that question by comparing bills drafted by external actors with those written inside the chamber. If outsider bills look systematically different and survive the process with fewer changes, they may reflect strategic behavior that limits deliberation and shifts representational duty away from elected lawmakers. After outlining benchmarks for “legislative quality,” I employ large‑scale textual analysis to track complexity, readability, and changes. Outsider‑authored bills are markedly more complex and emerge from the process largely intact. Business‑sponsored bills are especially opaque, while departmental proposals adapt to context: They are simpler in low‑professionalism states but denser where legislatures have greater capacity. These patterns imply that sophisticated actors tailor texts to the audience, and that lawmakers often accept the drafts with minimal scrutiny. The findings may raise normative red flags: reliance on outsider language may preserve valuable expertise, yet it can also entrench narrow interests and erode democratic deliberation when representatives do not rewrite or fully vet the legislation they introduce.

A 61-year-old woman presents to the emergency department, brought in by family, with concern that she has been getting progressively more confused over the past 3 months. She now rarely speaks and has developed “random jerking movements” in her arms and legs. They state that over the past week she has been looking at and talking to things that are not in the room, and rarely makes sense when she speaks. She has no known history of psychiatric illness, recent psychological stressors, drug or alcohol use, or seizures. She had an outpatient appointment with neurology; however, they brought her to the emergency department due to the rapid progression of symptoms, decreased appetite, new inability to get out of bed, and development of “twitches.

This concluding chapter acknowledges the difficult topic the authors have sought to address: race. Done right, it is a tough conversation and not something normally reserved for polite dinner conversation. Providing an overview of critical race theory, the six key tenets that were detailed in the book and their application to social work, the authors review the key tenets and sections of the book. America is the country it is today because it profited from chattel slavery, physical and cultural genocide as reflected in the contemporary Make America Great Again movement. Despite over four centuries of three steps forward and two backward, the authors reflect on the overall purpose of this text: the praxis of hope. Hope is discussed conceptually with a call for readers to serve as examples of a world that can move us beyond our current condition.

Craver’s chapter engages with the mechanism concept in psychiatry and the field’s goals of explaining, understanding, and ultimately improving psychiatric diseases and disorders. The mechanism concept has received significant attention in philosophical work, especially over the past two decades and in discussions of biology, neuroscience, medicine, and other life sciences. Craver’s work has contributed significantly to contemporary “new mechanist” views, which maintain that explanatory practice in the life sciences involves uncovering the mechanisms responsible for various outcomes of interest. (While philosophers have proposed numerous frameworks for capturing scientific explanation – frameworks that appeal to laws of nature, causes and causal systems, unifying patterns, and mathematical necessities – the new mechanist approach suggests that many explanations involve appealing to mechanisms.) On this framework, a natural phenomenon is explained when one identifies and cites the mechanism that produces the phenomenon in question.

Psychological researchers have investigated ethnic–racial identity (ERI) among ethnically and racially minoritized youth, focusing on key developmental periods of adolescence and young adulthood. Relevant to the development of ERI are both experiences of ethnic and racial discrimination (ERD) and overall racialization. However, rather than leaning into the nuances of ethnicity and race to understand the development of ERI, most researchers have foregone serious consideration of these conceptual and theoretical distinctions altogether. This paper argues that racialization is a key construct in understanding the coformation of experiences of ERI and ERD, yet it is often left out of psychological study. In this chapter, the authors overview existing models of ERI and ERD development, then propose a new model: the Reciprocal Racialization, Ethnic–Racial Identity, and Discrimination Model (R-RERID). Future directions for theoretical understanding and research are discussed.