Decolonizing Social Work

John Coates, Tiani Hetherington, Mel Gray, John Coates, Michael Yellow Bird, Tiani Hetherington, Mel Gray

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• eBook ISBN: 9781317153726
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Social Work
• Index: Social Sciences

Riding on the success of Indigenous Social Work Around the World, this book provides case studies to further scholarship on decolonization, a major analytical and activist paradigm among many of the world's Indigenous Peoples, including educators, tribal leaders, activists, scholars, politicians, and citizens at the grassroots level. Decolonization seeks to weaken the effects of colonialism and create opportunities to promote traditional practices in contemporary settings. Establishing language and cultural programs; honouring land claims, teaching Indigenous history, science, and ways of knowing; self-esteem programs, celebrating ceremonies, restoring traditional parenting approaches, tribal rites of passage, traditional foods, and helping and healing using tribal approaches are central to decolonization. These insights are brought to the arena of international social work still dominated by western-based approaches. Decolonization draws attention to the effects of globalization and the universalization of education, methods of practice, and international 'development' that fail to embrace and recognize local knowledges and methods. In this volume, Indigenous and non-Indigenous social work scholars examine local cultures, beliefs, values, and practices as central to decolonization. Supported by a growing interest in spirituality and ecological awareness in international social work, they interrogate trends, issues, and debates in Indigenous social work theory, practice methods, and education models including a section on Indigenous research approaches. The diversity of perspectives, decolonizing methodologies, and the shared struggle to provide effective professional social work interventions is reflected in the international nature of the subject matter and in the mix of contributors who write from their contexts in different countries and cultures, including Australia, Canada, Cuba, Japan, Jordan, Mexico, New Zealand, South Africa, and the USA.

PART I
Theory: Thinking about Indigenous Social Work

Introduction
Scoping the Terrain of Decolonization

Mel Gray, John Coates, Michael Yellow Bird and Tiani Hetherington

In this opening chapter, we introduce the notion of decolonizing social work and outline the structure of the book and the chapters that follow. As we saw in the Preface, recognition of the rights of Indigenous Peoples worldwide reached a new level following the UN General Assembly’s adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples on 13 September 2007 (United Nations General Assembly, 2008). The Declaration is a major step toward recognizing the need to improve the situation of impoverished and marginalized Indigenous Peoples throughout the world and represents a strong political statement that acknowledges their rights to self-determination, to own and control their territories and resources, and to preserve their cultures. Most importantly, it affirms that ‘all doctrines, policies and practices based on or advocating superiority of Peoples or individuals on the basis of national origin or racial, religious, ethnic or cultural differences are racist, scientifically false, legally invalid, morally condemnable, and social unjust’ (United Nations General Assembly, 2008: 2).

Similarly, the emergence of Indigenous social work must be seen in light of the profession’s struggle to deal with many of these trends, circumstances and issues. Decolonization can be seen as a continuation of social work’s advocacy on social justice and of progressive elements within the profession that challenge hegemonic forms of practice. In Indigenous Social Work around the World, Gray, Coates and Yellow Bird (2008) raised awareness of Indigenous social work and explored various practice and educational approaches in working with Indigenous Peoples. Given that there are a number of important themes and ideas in social work that affect Indigenous Peoples: colonialism, oppression, sovereignty, self-determination, cultural rights and the relevance of Western social work approaches, to name a few, Indigenous social work, especially at the international level, represents an important and necessary shift that is bringing new and fresh perspectives into the ambit of social work theory, research, education and practice. Increasing interest in international social work has also had a flow-on effect of enhancing the desire of the profession to develop culturally relevant practice approaches. Moreover, the number of social work education programmes that include international content in their curriculum continues to grow. These various developments can be brought together as diverse attempts to decolonize social work. Hence, following on the success of Indigenous Social Work around the World, this edited collection seeks to showcase further case studies of diverse attempts to decolonize social work and further the work of those seeking to make social work relevant to a wider audience.

Various terms and concepts have been used to elucidate the terrain of Indigenous social work and related processes of indigenization and internationalization, all of which are pertinent to the project of decolonizing social work. This chapter begins by noting the tensions and difficulties in clarifying terminology relating to Indigenous Peoples given the vast diversity in the way in which different terms are used in various locations. This is an area vociferously resistant to Western social work’s penchant for certainty and logic. Prior writing in social work has viewed indigenization narrowly as a process of importation – and adaptation – of Western, mainly US, models of social work into developing non-Western contexts but, beyond this limited view, lies the broader realm of a truly culturally relevant practice and scholarship (see Chapter 1).

Clarifying Terminology

We begin by clarifying that we see Decolonizing Social Work as essentially, though not exclusively, concerned with the rights of Indigenous Peoples and, at the outset, we wish to make some tentative points on terminology and capitalization of the interrelated terms Indigenous, Indigenous Peoples, indigenization and decolonization. These are complex and somewhat controversial topics and in no way is there an even consensus on appropriate definitions and terms. For example, according to Lotte Hughes’ (2003) No Nonsense Guide to Indigenous Peoples, there is no unambiguous definition of Indigenous Peoples: ‘The topic of Indigenous identity opens a Pandora’s box of possibilities, and to try and to address them all would mean doing justice to none’ (Weaver, 2001: 240). Despite this, we argue that there is always variation around definitions regarding ‘identity’ throughout even the ‘Western European’ world. It is primarily Western theorizing that would like to assume that Indigenous Peoples should be described (that is, ascribed with) uniformity. However, there is and always will be variation in the world regarding the question of ‘identity’. This is the ‘essentializing’ that many post-colonial scholars (including the editorial team in this book) wish to avoid. Thus we want to acknowledge here that there is a ‘double standard’ in the sense that the diversity of labels for ‘Anglos’, whites, Europeans, Westerners, settlers and so on also needs to be acknowledged and unpacked.

Indigenous Peoples themselves claim the right to define who they are and reject the notion that outsiders do that for them (Smith, 1999; Weaver, 2001; Yellow Bird, 1999a, 1999b). Indigenous people have the individual and group rights to self-identify as Indigenous. Indigenous Peoples are usually referred to in the plural to reflect the global tapestry and diversity of Indigenous people. Anthropologists use the term ‘indigenous’ to refer to non-dominant or minority groups in particular territories. For example, Indigenous Peoples in Australia are referred to as ‘aboriginal’ – a word now capitalized as ‘Aboriginal’ to reflect the national identity of Australia’s Indigenous Peoples in the same way that Europeans, for example, lay claim to a common heritage. In its broadest sense, Aboriginal means original inhabitants of the land; by way of contrast, ‘indigenous’ means born or produced naturally in a land or region or native to that region. However, the people who were there first may also call themselves First Peoples or First Nations – a term used in relation to the Indigenous Peoples of North America just as Aboriginal is used to refer to the Indigenous Peoples of Australia – Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples, sometimes abbreviated as ATSI (Bennett, Green, Gilbert and Bessarab, 2013). Indigenous Peoples may also prefer to refer to themselves from their specific tribe or region of origin (see for example Chapters 4 and 14). It is not always easy to determine who the first peoples were given the world history of migration. Hence it may be safer to say that Indigenous Peoples arrived in a territory before nation states were formed, that is, prior to colonization, and some have chosen to resist being part of a nation state (Scott, 2009). In any way, some Indigenous Peoples, such as Native Americans, were organized into nations long before European colonists arrived, hence the term ‘First Nations’ who claim to be descendants from the original inhabitants of a territory or, in Australia, original owners of the land.

Hughes (2003) estimated that there were more than 7,000 Indigenous societies around the globe with an estimated world population of 300–500 million Indigenous people who self-identified as Indigenous – as descendants of the original inhabitants – and had distinct social, political and cultural identities embodied in languages, traditions, political and legal institutions distinct from those of the national society. The International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs (IWGIA) (2009) estimated the global Indigenous population to be at least 350 million, including approximately 5,000 different cultural groups. Notwithstanding these numerical differences, to distinguish this distinct identity of Indigenous Peoples, this term is hence forward capitalized in the same way that English, Asian, Indian, African and so on are capitalized whether or not English, Asian, Indian and African people live in England, Asia, India and Africa respectively.

In countries, such as Africa, where all Africans are indigenous, indigenous might be used as a lower-case word. However, when referring to a minority indigenous people in Africa, such as the San, Indigenous would be capitalized. In the same way, Indians are indigenous to India, Chinese indigenous to China and Europeans indigenous to Europe.

When the term ‘indigenization’ is used, it refers mainly to attempts of Africans in Africa and Asians in southeast Asia, and now more recently Chinese in China, to preserve their cultural heritage and identity in the face of outside influences (see below). The term was first used in the social work discourse in relation to Africa to denote the effects of colonization in reducing the importance of local and indigenous cultures, while promoting Western cultures and ways of life – seen as part of the modernization process (see Osei-Hwedie, 1993). In China, however, indigenization refers to attempts to develop a uniquely Chinese form of social work to ward off the effects of globalization. It is mainly from Africa and China that the contemporary indigenization discourse in social work stems. While first used in relation to Africa, the development of social work in China since the early 1990s has reignited the indigenization discourse in social work (see Cheung and Liu, 2004; Tsang, Yan and Shera, 2000; Tsang and Yan, 2001; Yan and Cheung, 2006; Yan and Tsang, 2008; Yang, 2005; Yuen-Tsang and Wang, 2002). Here it has taken an interesting turn due to its links with modernization (see Yan and Tsui, 2008; Yunong and Xiong, 2008). Chinese social work scholars, therefore, express some ambiguity about whether or not to embrace Western models of social work because they do not wish to be seen as ‘backward’ in any way. They want to modernize but not necessarily to indigenize, according to Yunong and Xiong (2008).

Indigenous people express unease with the term ‘indigenization’ because of its tendency to promote a blanket or generic approach to working with Indigenous people, as ‘Other’, and miss the fact that there are many Indigenous Peoples and cultures, all of whom are custodians of the lands in which they live. For this reason, Gray et al. (2008) described indigenization as ‘an outmoded concept’ though, as shown below, there are many contexts where the notion still has currency. As noted by Yellow Bird (2008: 286), for Indigenous people, indigenization is the personal and collective process of decolonizing Indigenous life and restoring true self-determination based on traditional Indigenous values (see also Porter, 2005). Hence, here, indigenization ‘portrays centre-periphery relationships in more cultural-political terms’ (Giulianotti and Robertson, 2009: 41). According to Friedman (1999: 391), for developed societies in particular, it registers ‘an increasing fragmentation of identities, the break-up of larger identity units, the emergence of cultural politics among indigenous, regional, immigrant, and even national populations’. Indigenous people may want to reclaim their status as a distinct political and cultural grouping and, at the same time, may want the diversity of their cultures and languages acknowledged and maintained. Indigenization counters a collective identity because it emphasizes the ‘local’ and hence identifies cultures in terms of their unique characteristics. This is the sense in which the term is used in social work where indigenization often refers to the adaptation of Western social work theory and methods to local contexts (see for example, Barise, 2005; Gray and Coates, 2008; Shawky, 1972; Yellow Bird, 2008).

Indigenous people appear equally uncomfortable with the notion of hybridity or heterogenization as this too denies their right to retain a unique, collective cultural identity (Giulianotti and Robertson, 2009). While they prefer an essentialist approach that recognizes and acknowledges the uniqueness of their cultural and Indigenous identity and right to retain it (see Chapter 1), they will quickly assert their collective rights when threatened by settler societies and governments (United Nations General Assembly, 2008, see Preface).

Our position is that debates concerning ‘authentic’ Indigenous identity only serve as distractions and, moreover, this standpointism is problematic because it typically succumbs to Western discourses, such as culturalism, that reify so-called ‘traditional’ Indigenous ‘culture’. Furthermore, the intent to carve out a separate ‘Indigenous only’ domain, in some ways, is contradictory to Indigenous ways of being and knowing that recognize the interrelationship of all things (see also Agrawal, 1995; Nakata, 2006, 2007). Furthermore, as Weaver (2001) aptly notes:

the self-appointed ‘identity police,’ those who divide communities and accuse others of not being ‘Indian’ enough because they practice the wrong religion, have the wrong politics, use the wrong label for themselves, or do not have the right skin color, should also be an issue of concern. Some indigenous people ask, ‘Are you Indian, or are you Christian?’ as if these are mutually exclusive categories. I have seen caring indigenous people driven to tears at their jobs at a Native community center when they were berated for having some white ancestry. People have been publicly humiliated because someone decided that their tribal affiliations were inappropriate. This harassment and badgering is conducted by indigenous people, against indigenous people. The roots for this type of behavior probably lie deep in the accusers’ own insecurities about identity and racism learned as part of the colonization process. (Weaver, 2001: 251)

‘Indigenous Peoples’ is a modern term used by international organizations to describe culturally and geographically dispersed groups with diverse histories but, despite often considerable cultural divergence, Indigenous Peoples share significant symmetries that have evolved from the common experiences of European colonialism. These similarities are founded in an ancestral birthright in the land, a common core of collective interests concerning the protection of human, territorial and cultural rights, and the shared experience of dispossession, discrimination, exploitation and marginalization precipitated through the colonial projects perpetrated against indigenous communities by colonial and neocolonial state administrations.

In addition to this international designation, Indigenous Peoples have been referred to in terms of several different labels: Aboriginal, Indian, native, ethnic minority, First Peoples and occasionally as the ‘Fourth World’ (Corntassel and Primeau, 1995; Manuel and Posluns, 1974). Indigenous Peoples is the designation used by the United Nations to recognize these, and other groups, collectively. The cultural survival of Indigenous Peoples concerns the protection and restoration of Indigenous Peoples’ territories, natural resources, sacred sites, languages, beliefs, values, relationships, systems of governance, sovereignty, self-determination, human rights and intellectual property. Getting settler populations to understand and accept these rights is an important issue in cultural survival and essential role for decolonizing social work.

Indigenous Peoples reside on all of the inhabited continents of Earth – in Africa, the Americas, Asia, Europe and Oceania – and in all geographical regions: deserts, arctic and subarctic areas, islands, mountains, grasslands, woodlands, rainforests, wetlands and coastal areas. Most identify themselves according to the reciprocal relationships they hold with their physical environments and territories, along with their affiliation in an extended family, clan, band, village, tribe, confederacy or nation. There is no typical Indigenous group. Each has its own unique history, worldview, culture, language, dress, food, sacred and secular ceremonies, and social and political organizations. Indigenous Peoples may or may not have a stable political, economic or social relationship with mainstream society (Scott 2009).

The issue of defining which groups of peoples can and cannot be considered Indigenous has been, and in some ways continues to be, a significant challenge for international fora. Former chairperson of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, Elsa Stamatopulou (1994) described these groups as diverse populations who reside on ancestral lands, share a lineage with the original inhabitants of these lands, have distinct cultures and languages, and regard themselves as different from those who have colonized and now control their territories. While the definitions created by a range of organizations and authors have varied, sometimes significantly over the past 50 years, recently a broad consensus has formed within the international community. Four core principles have been agreed upon in defining Indigenous Peoples:

1. Indigenous Peoples generally live within, or maintain attachments to, geographically distinct territories.

2. Indigenous Peoples tend to maintain distinct social, economic, and political institutions within their territories.

3....

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Acknowledgements
• List of Contributors
• Preface by Michael Yellow Bird
• PART I THEORY: THINKING ABOUT INDIGENOUS SOCIAL WORK
• PART II PRACTICE: FROM THE BOTTOM UP
• PART III EDUCATION: FACILITATING LOCAL RELEVANCE
• PART IV RESEARCH: DECOLONIZING METHODOLOGIES
• Conclusion: Continuing the Decolonization Agenda
• Glossary
• Index