Indigenous Social Work around the World

Towards Culturally Relevant Education and Practice

John Coates, Mel Gray

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• Print ISBN:
  9780754648383
• eBook ISBN:
  9781317117247
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Social Work
• Index: Social Sciences

How can mainstream Western social work learn from and in turn help advance indigenous practice? This volume brings together prominent international scholars involved in both Western and indigenous social work across the globe - including James Midgley, Linda Briskman, Alean Al-Krenawi and John R. Graham - to discuss some of the most significant global trends and issues relating to indigenous and cross-cultural social work. The contributors identify ways in which indigenization is shaping professional social work practice and education, and examine how social work can better address diversity in international exchanges and cross-cultural issues within and between countries. Key theoretical, methodological and service issues and challenges in the indigenization of social work are reviewed, including the way in which adaptation can lead to more effective practices within indigenous communities and emerging economies, and how adaptation can provide greater insight into cross-cultural understanding and practice.

PART 1
‘Indigenization’ as an Outmoded Concept

Chapter 1
From ‘Indigenization’ to Cultural Relevance

Mel Gray and John Coates

Our approach deliberately encourages a shift of focus away from the commonalities of the social work experience, to the differences experienced (McDonald, Harris and Wintersteen 2003: 192).

The globalization discourse in social work – with its exaggerated claims to social work’s global influence – must be seen as further evidence of the profession’s territorializing agenda. It follows hard on the heels of social work’s colonializing past and continues its penchant for spreading itself with missionary zeal. This globalizing or internationalizing thrust has more to do with social work’s professionalizing interests than its concern for people in local cultures and contexts. As Webb (2003) put it, ‘(the) burgeoning globalization agenda in social work is offering a very bourgeois model, namely the dominance of the concept (global systems) over the object (daily life). This mode of thinking provides for a liberal utopian politics, which is wholly out of sympathy with the realities of current practice’ (p. 200).

As with many modern, Western professions, social work adheres to the globalization agenda by holding to certain universal views of social life which can be applied to all situations and contexts. Despite the profession’s expressed concern for ‘starting where the client is at’ social work is following Western assumptions and beliefs and it seems unwilling to take seriously the realities of the social situation in which many people live their daily lives. The abundance of literature that critiques Anglo-American approaches, as reviewed in the Introduction, reflects the profession’s proselytizing attitude and struggle to respond effectively in non-Western contexts.

Borrowing Deleuze’s metaphor, globalizing social work is a ‘war machine’ – a force that seeks to territorialize – or to use the term most often found in the ‘Indigenization’ and Indigenous social work literature, to colonize. Like the ‘war machine’ (which has nothing to do with machines built for war) social work, like other professions, supports an industry that generates its own product. Thus, as professions establish themselves in countries and cultures around the globe and become increasingly international, they, like any business, seek to maintain control by centralizing their authority through their international bodies (Evetts, in Webb 2003).

Social work is no exception in forever being on the lookout for opportunities to reconstruct its identity and enlarge its role by, for example, its professionalizing mission, international definition and global education standards, with which the territorializing juggernaut overrides all other interests. By constructing itself as ‘global social work’ the profession claims more than it has credit for, as Webb (2003) and others eloquently argue (see, for example, Harris and Chou 2001; Harris and McDonald 2000; Pugh and Gould 2000). But more importantly for our purposes, it continues to fuel a crisis of relevance on at least two fronts – in relation to non-Western social work and to Indigenous social work; in other words, in relation to contexts that are trying to develop culturally relevant social work practices. On these fronts social work is clearly out of step with its practice reality and grossly missing its target. Instead it continues to promote professional and cultural imperialism by adhering to its particular universalizing ethical, ideological and political value biases. While less callous than the economic sanctions of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, it is nonetheless imperialistic.

Rather than focusing on the primacy of client need, social work’s line of attack is to champion its social mission – expressed in universal values, standards, definitions, methods, and theories – which claim to have relevance across diverse cultural contexts. International social work bodies promote a shared professional identity, and claim commonality in role and function, through inter alia an international definition of social work, global standards for social work education, and global ethical principles (see IASSW 2004). This ‘essence’ or ‘common core’ is said to make social work ‘adaptable to different contexts’ while at the same time enabling it to ‘transcend context’ (McDonald et al. 2003: 192). However, how can social work be culturally and context contingent while, at the same time, ‘transcending context’? A profession serious about cultural relevance would surely want to highlight difference to reinforce its view of itself as culturally adaptable.

Instead social work is promoted as a modernist professional project with a universal core that fits well within modern Western democratic societies in the ‘First World’ where social work was born and remains ‘a key instrumental expression of collective responsibility for individual citizens within a welfare regime authorized and legitimized by a liberal democratic regime of governance’ (McDonald et al. 2003: 196) founded on a culture of human rights and social justice within specific nation states. While its international organizations claim a common universal professional identity, and advocate a definition of social work that states the ‘profession promotes social change, problem solving in human relationships and the empowerment and liberation of people to enhance well-being and that, using theories of human behaviour and social systems, social work intervenes at the points where people interact with their environments informed by principles of human rights and social justice which are fundamental to social work’ (IFSW 2002), in truth the settings in which most social workers work are not the types of places where advocacy for the rights of marginalized people is commonly practiced (and may even be discouraged) (see for example, McDonald et al. 2003).

In positing a unified identity and an enhanced global role for itself, social work belies the organizationally driven, bureaucratic and culturally contingent contexts in which most social workers work. In the Western nation states, social services are highly managerialist and frequently part of restrictive welfare reform regimes where empowering and liberating people is not the regular function being performed. Social workers on the frontlines of practice in the bustling downtowns of major cities and the isolation of remote rural villages would agree that ‘the system’ does not promote social justice nor hold human rights at the forefront of their work (see Carniol 2005; Mullaly 2007). Such realities led Webb (2003) to argue that the claims to international standards were ‘pernicious to the harsh realities of their (social workers’) everyday routine work’ (p. 196).

When the realities of the local context are not the determining factor, as globalization leads social work into non-Western contexts, it has relied on a rights and justice foundation and, as a result, has great difficulty working across cultures. While ‘the human rights framework works well in stressing our supposed common humanity to address inequalities between individuals’ (Webb 2003: 198), it does not work well with differences and inequalities between groups or the uniqueness of any particular culture. More importantly for Indigenous contexts, social work’s dominant modern foundation that includes individual rights, individualism, and materialism, cannot adequately deal with the responsibilities that membership in a particular community and place, relationship patterns, and/or longstanding cultural traditions require. For Indigenous Peoples – for whom relationship to community is experienced as part of the fabric of their identity – this denial of history and place has been immensely damaging and disempowering, and challenging it lies at the heart of Indigenous social work (see Chapter 10).

Indigenization must be viewed against the historical processes of globalization and colonization. As shown in Table 2, and discussed in the next part, we see the various interpretations that reflect the tensions for those trying to develop local, culturally responsive forms of social work practice that arose in response to social work’s internationalizing agenda.

‘Indigenization’ over time

More than 30 years ago Shawky (1972), in the USA, referring to the development of social work in Africa, appropriated the term ‘Indigenization’ used by the United Nations in relation to modernization in the ‘Developing World’ to refer to the process of ‘adapting imported ideas to fit local needs’ (p. 2). Four years later Resnick (1976), also in the USA, reported on its use in the Fifth UN International Survey of Social Work Training to refer to the ‘process of relating social work function and education to the cultural, economic, political and social realities of a particular country’ (p. 22). In warning against professional imperialism, Midgley (1981) hailing from Africa and writing from the UK stated that ‘professional social work roles must be appropriate to the needs of different countries and social work education must be appropriate to the demands of social work practice’ (p. 170). Ragab (1982) in Egypt stressed the need to identify ‘genuine and authentic roots in the local system, which would be used for guiding [social work’s] … future development in a mature, relevant and original fashion’ (p. 21) and referred to ‘authentization’ as an aspect of ‘Indigenization’ by means of which social work practice becomes ‘genuine’, that is, involves ‘the creation or building of a domestic model of social work in the light of the social, cultural, economic characteristics of a particular country’ (p. 136). Prager (1985) in Israel noted that ‘If helping, in all its nuances, is to be securely rooted in the cultural patterns and systems of the people to be helped, then education for the profession should be developed from within our border’ (p. 136).

Walton and Abo El Nasr (1988), also writing from Egypt, then wrote a seminal paper in which they described ‘Indigenization’ as a three stage process involving adaptation of Anglo-American technology to the political and sociocultural patterns in the receiving country. Stage 1, transmission, involved the direct unquestioning transplanting of social work knowledge from Western to developing countries. This phase is similar to what Yip (2004) later described as a static model of uncritically importing Western social work models to non-Western countries. Stage 2, Indigenization, was the phase which usually began as a reaction to the lack of ‘goodness of fit’ between Western social work theory and practice to local culture, and the subsequent realization that Western social work concepts needed to fit with local values, needs, and problems. This phase was also similar to the concept of ‘Indigenization from without’ or what Yip (2004) later described as a passive model where receiving countries modified or extended the imported knowledge and practice to suit local culture. Stage 3, authentization, meaning ‘to become genuine’ essentially involved the creativity of local social work practitioners in developing their own strategies to address local problems and needs. This concept of ‘Indigenization from within’ emphasized that theories and practice methods should be developed using a bottom-up approach, wherein Indigenous information was a primary source of knowledge. At this point Ragab (1990) reiterated the need to ‘go back to one’s roots to seek direction’ (p. 43). Cox (1991) in Australia, referring to the Asia-Pacific context, wrote that ‘For reasons relating to relevance and context, it is incumbent on social work … to produce, in each country a model that is consistent with the local culture, political, economic and social realities, while still hopefully retaining the core principles that give social work its distinctive character’ (p. 9).

Since 1990 the ‘Indigenization’ literature is replete with authors from a variety of countries focusing on the development of culturally relevant social work using the concepts put forward by Walton and Abo El Nasr. For example, from Africa, Ghanaian born Osei-Hwedie (1993a) working in Botswana emphasized that ‘Indigenization’ ‘should start from within’ using local culture and helping practices as the primary source for knowledge, practice and development, so that social work practice is ‘culturally appropriate and relevant’ (p. 22). Later he claimed that Indigenization ‘implies finding new ways or revisiting local ideas and processes of problem solving and service delivery. This involves understanding and articulating local indigenous resources, relationships, and problem-solving networks; and the underlying ideas, rationale, philosophies or values’ (Osei-Hwedie 1996a: 216).

As Indigenization has emerged in China the importance of the local is emphasized. For example, Fei (1998) emphasized the importance of ‘knowing oneself … (and) one’s own culture in its own context’ (p. 3). Wang (1997) articulates this more specifically noting that:

Indigenisation in the contemporary Chinese context means that we must consider the traditional Chinese culture, the impact of the market economy on people’s livelihood, as well as the impact of collectivism and welfarism on the mentality of people … Social workers must therefore seriously research the impact of the interplay of all these elements on helping behaviours and on practice, so that we could eventually develop a model of social work practice which is appropriate to the needs of China (p. 10).

In relation to India, Nimmagadda and Cowger (1999) used the term Indigenization to ‘reflect the process whereby a Western social work framework/or Western practice methodology is transplanted to another environment and applied in a different context by making modifications’ (p. 263). Nimmagadda and Balgopal (2000) delineated six aspects of the Indigenization process: 1) West is best reflects the awkwardness of fit in directly applying a Western treatment model to another non-Western context; 2) awareness of context wherein good social work practice is about ‘being where the client is’ and issues relating to the ‘goodness of fit’ with service provision and the needs of clients; 3) the cultural construction of social work practice involves understanding that social work is a culturally constructed profession and the need to unpack this; 4) learning by doing and using local knowledge includes making pragmatic judgements as to ‘what works’ in applying knowledge in everyday practice. Nimmagadda and Cowger (1999) defined ‘doing what works’ as using local knowledge. They said, ‘like sailing, gardening, politics, and poetry, law and ethnography are crafts of place. They work in the light of local knowledge’ (p. 267); 5) reflexivity was defined as ‘continuing reflection in evaluating both process and outcomes’ (p. 276); and 6) the thread of creativity was woven by practitioners with intellectual inventiveness and imagination.

Tsang and Yan (2001) argued for the need ‘to find a balance’ (p. 435) between imported social work knowledge and local Indigenous conceptual frameworks and politics. They argue that the process of Indigenization involves four aspects of social work practice that needed to be noted in relation to the local environment: 1) ideology or the action oriented, value integrating and value legitimizing force that solidifies the community and defines their meaning and purpose; 2) teleology thus defined by ideology, dictated by the cultural context and concerned with the dual forces between individuals and society; 3) epistemology related to the search for relevant local knowledge as the main component in the Indigenization process, in learning of local needs, diversity and pluralism and developing practices that are culturally appropriate within local contexts; and 4) technology which need not be copied from the West as it is far more beneficial for professionals and academics to derive appropriate culturally friendly technology.

In the literature on Indigenization, although the degree of emphasis on integration, ‘adjusting’ (Barise 2005), and on ‘creative synthesis’ (Ling 2003) between the global and the local varies, the essentialness of attention to local culture, history and needs remained consistent throughout (see, for example, Al-Krenawi and Graham 2003; Bar-On 2003a; Forgey et al. 2003; Ling 2004; Mafile’o 2004; Tsang et al. 2000; Wong 2002). Osei-Hwedie (2001) expressed the sentiment found in much of this literature as he noted that ‘Indigenization’ referred to ‘the idea that the theories, values and philosophies that underlie practice must be influenced by local factors’ because ‘indigenisation emphasises a cultural dimension, a cross-cultural aspect in and approach to social work’ (p. 8). ‘To be indigenous is to be relevant in an appropriate context … all activities, ideas, processes and techniques must capture the socially constructed reality of a given society as it relates to its own social experience, shared images, stock of knowledge, and institutional framework’ (Osei-Hwedie 2002: 314).

Thus we have concerns, continuing for well over thirty years, with developing culturally relevant social work practices in diverse contexts where Anglo-American social work has sought to supplant local cultural practices. Several writers presented their own understanding or presented the stages or processes involved. In this literature, however, the importance of using local knowledge, local customs and local interventions for local benefit, is emphasized yet the colonizing trend continues as the chapters in this book show. Similar tensions exist as social work struggled to deliver effective services within Western contexts to people from diverse backgrounds.

Cultural relevance in Western contexts

Even in Western contexts social work is faced with the challenge of developing culturally relevant practices among immigrant, migrant and refugee communities. Even in countries that welcome immigrants and promote multiculturalism, these communities most frequently remain on the fringes of mainstream society or there is the expectation that they will adopt or, at least, fit into mainstream culture. Social work has struggled to adequately meet the needs of immigrant and Indigenous cultures. Part of this struggle relates to colonial attitudes, but it also relates to the profession’s difficulties in dealing with diversity. Cultural sensitivity, cultural awareness and cross-cultural practices have each been shown as lacking in effectiveness, perhaps nowhere more so than with Indigenous cultures where social work had earlier served as an agent of cultural destruction and colonization (see Haug 2001, 2005). Cross-cultural social work ventures with First Nations and Indigenous Peoples around the world achieved largely negative results (Hart 2002; Ling 2003, 2004; Nagpaul 1993; Nimmagadda and Cowger 1999; Tsang and Yan 2001; Yip 2004). Social work’s efforts to deliver services in an effective, acceptable and culturally relevant manner most often have relied on transferring dominant Anglo-American theory and practice and, as a result, have been unable to accommodate diversity (Coates 2003; Healy 2001).

This experience is mirrored somewhat in social work’s efforts with immigrant populations as cultural awareness and cultural sensitivity has proved generally inadequate for effective service (see Introduction). The crisis of relevance relating to the adaptability of Anglo-American social work to non-Western cultures in Western contexts, is found in the cross-cultural literature while its relevance to non-Western cultures in non-Western contexts is found more often in the literature on ‘Indigenization’ (see Table 1 in the Introduction). A review of the literature on ‘Indigenization’ – and cultural imperialism – reveals a connection between Indigenous social work and these various areas described above. For the most part, it seems that many authors are saying that Indigenous voices have been silenced within Western social work, however, taking a different perspective, we suggest that Indigenous cultures can and are beginning to enrich and add new discourses in social work beyond the conventional, radical and postmodern (Coates et al. 2006). We see the opening up of new ways of thinking about social work that are in tune with Indigenous ways and suggest that perhaps the extent to which these perspectives are influencing social work discourse might reflect the extent of interaction between Western and Indigenous cultures. The literature on ecology and spirituality draws on Indigenous perspectives and offers a welcoming space for Indigenous voices. These sources appear not as knowledges for particular contexts but as knowledges with wider application, and in this respect they seem to differ from the social work literature on cross-cultural and culturally sensitive practice (Coates et al. 2006).

Dilemmas in international social ...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half-Title Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• List of Figures and Tables
• Notes on Contributors
• Preface
• Acknowledgments
• Structure of the Book
• Introduction
• Part 1 ‘Indigenization’ as an Outmoded Concept
• Part 2 Indigenous Social Work: A Just Cause
• Part 3 Towards Culturally Relevant Social Work Practice
• Part 4 Culturally Relevant Social Work Education
• Postscript Terms of Endearment: A Brief Dictionary for Decolonizing Social Work with Indigenous Peoples
• References
• Index