The intersection between indigenous and international social work

To this end, the domain of international social work has been dominated by ‘globalised western traditions’ conceived as universally applicable (Askeland & Payne, 2006:735; Haug, 2005:128; Gray & Fook, 2004:630). While Sewpaul (2005:213) has questioned the universal applicability of social work values as propagated by western social work and the domain of international social work. Furthermore, Haug (2005:128) argues that the discourse on international social work is not globally inclusive as it is dependent on one’s ability to speak with the conceptual and linguistic capacity of the west who constructed the discourse. More recently, Brydon (2011:163) added to the list of concerns regarding international social work, highlighting amongst others, the fact that western social work in its current form and standard is available only to a minority of people of the world and has no capacity to achieve mutual exchange and dialogue at a global level due to the existence of unequal power relations reflected by the positioning and exclusive hegemony of the western paradigm in relation to others. The above assertion by Brydon affirms an earlier observation by Marais and Marias (2007:812)

that indigenous beliefs were never incorporated into social work’s core values and concluded that it was therefore not possible to identify a unified worldview of social work. Meaning that as things stand currently, existing paradigms are not afforded equal value and respect in shaping social work education, practice and research. Consequently, there is no opportunity for different cultural contexts to learn from each other. This status quo remains despite the fact that culture permeates all spheres of life and the acknowledgement that ‘no culture is absolute’ (Brydon, 2011:163). As articulated by Marais and Marias (2007:813) and Laungani (2004:35), there is a need for social workers to seek a deeper analysis of the implications of culture for humans and how they view the world.

Thus, Brydon’s (2011:160) framework for cultural relativity provides a vital tool towards realising the dream of achieving a contrapuntal epistemology to undergird international social work. Using the above author’s framework, we can now populate various fundamental cultural themes and precepts that could be universalised based on inputs from different worldviews as outlined in figure 1.

The framework for cultural relativity enables social workers to appreciate different worldviews and apply them accordingly when working with clients. For example, when working with clients from a Eurocentric worldview, the social worker’s approach to issues would centre on individualism, freewill, cognitivism and materialism. When dealing with clients from the African worldview, they may lean towards collectivism, determinism, emotionalism and spiritualism. The framework for cultural relativity allows the social worker to work with all these worldviews without a hierarchy and dominance of one worldview by another, leading to appreciation of cultural relativity.

According to Brydon (2011:164), there is an urgent need in social work to develop a body of theory, skills and values that afford all cultural paradigms equal status and respect. One way to construct this, she argues, could be to position our understanding of social work as involving a kind of information flow between social work and a number of different cultural paradigms. The above is achievable given that the existing cultural paradigms in their diversity have the capacity to interrelate both to each other and to social work, suggesting that the interplay of forces is more important than differences between the paradigms (Brydon, 2011:164).

The international social work discourse has become so vital in contemporary social work that it is in the best interest of social work scholars across the world to engage it. Ignoring it will be at their own peril. As globalisation brings everyone closer and international collaborations become a necessity, the need for a body of knowledge that cuts across and transcends national boundaries becomes even more urgent. However, as pointed out earlier on, little effort has been made to integrate the silenced indigenous voices and knowledges from the post-colonial contexts to the international social work discourse (Marais & Marias, 2007:812). Earlier studies show that, where efforts were made to make service delivery and social work education culturally relevant, it has been done in a context of the dominant Anglo-American theories and practices (Coates, 2003:11; Healy, 2001:6). More recently, Brydon (2011:160) acknowledged the difficulty associated with accepting and incorporating other worldviews into one framework, but warned that contemporary discourses on cultural competence and sensitivity do not provide a sustainable solution to this challenge. She challenged social work scholars to move beyond the proverbial notions of cultural sensitivity and competence and embrace cultural relativity. The researcher concurs

with Brydon (2011) and maintains that knowing (competence) and being sensitive to own and the diverse cultures of others will not lead to the redressing of the historical domination of Eurocentric paradigms in mainstream and international social work, but would instead perpetuate the hegemony of the dominant Euro-American cultures. It is disconcerting that indigenisation as a process as well as the need for the development of indigenous social work theories and methods have not occupied centre stage in the international social work discourse. Indigenisation is hardly a global concern, “…[e]xcept for some non-western scholars working in the west, American and European scholars are not concerned with indigenization as does the African and Asian scholars when applying western paradigms to their own societies” (Kjellgren, 2003:160). However, ‘indigenization’ and ‘internationalization’ are complementary rather than mutually exclusive. It would be almost impossible to realize the true objective of international social work when a significant part/element of the world social work fraternity is left out of the discourse. Therefore, international social work through its various governing bodies should take on the mantle of promoting indigenization and indigenous social work.

Due to the devastating effect of colonisation and imperialism, it is vital that post- colonial contexts first deal with the effects of colonisation. On the one hand, decolonisation refers to “a process by which people peel away the psychological and spiritual effects of colonisation through a facilitated journey of learning the truths of their history” (Bell, 2006:14). On the other hand, Murphy (2003:2) sees decolonisation as “the stripping away of the unwanted layers of other people’s culture, accumulated over generations, to expose and rediscover the vivid colours of one’s cultural heritage”. The researcher contends that without decolonisation, the indigenisation process is likely to be compromised and lead to the re-invention of the wheel. Therefore, decolonisation should ideally precede indigenisation. Thus in Africa, similar to other post-colonial contexts such as Asia, the search for relevance in social work has to start with decolonisation. This is so because, the rampant effects of colonialism are now cloaked in respectable garb and continue to wreak havoc through generations and generations of its victims (Jackson, 2004:86). Most importantly, the decolonisation project becomes urgent because of the guileful manner in which post-colonisation happens.

The researcher argues that, as in other post-colonial contexts like Asia, Africa too has to undertake a journey of decolonisation coupled with engagements with critical conscientisation and different forms of emancipatory practice to address the harsh realities of colonial destruction. As Smith (2008:373) argues, “the history of social work in South Africa [and by implication and extension Africa] cannot be separated from that of colonisation and Apartheid”. Similar sentiments were shared by Mupedziswa (2001:293) earlier on when he argued that social work in post-colonial contexts such as Africa remained entangled in a struggle for relevance because its content and outlook remained imbedded in first world principles and approaches. In view of the above situation in Africa, some scholars have challenged the profession of social work to return to its original domain of structural change and social justice (Smith, 2008:374; Sewpaul & Holscher, 2004:39).

The debate on the need to refocus on structural change and social justice is taken further by Smith (2008:374) who argues that “...a unique set of internalised and structural oppression of class, race and gender characterising post-colonial contexts calls for ‘critical conscientization’; engagement with oppression and issues of power; a commitment to radical transformation; changes in epistemologies and efforts to change material conditions”. Smith further proposes that radical and critical forms of social work practice based on a combination of a structural, modernist analysis as well as post-modernist critical theory must form the basis of social work training.

However, the researcher takes exception to Smith’s (2008:374) insinuation that a modernist and post-modernist critical theory should form the basis upon which radical and critical social work should be developed. The reason for such dissension is that modernity and post-modernity respectively, are part of the problem as they are entangled with coloniality. Therefore, we cannot use theoretical and conceptual constructs associated with coloniality to solve African problems emanating from coloniality. We need new decolonial conceptions that transcend modernity and post- modernity and hold potential and possibilities for new ways of being, thinking and knowledge creation as an alternative to coloniality-derived options. Building on the foundations cemented by African scholars (Osei-Hwedie, 2011:138; Midgley, 2008:31; Osei-Hwedie & Rankopo, 2008:138; Smith, 2008:374; Thabede, 2008:239; Sewpaul & Holscher, 2004:39; Mupedziswa, 2001:293), the researcher accordingly advances that

a truly indigenous African social work epistemology can only emerge following a decolonisation process which will include, amongst other , critical conscientisation. The researcher holds that for African scholarship to fully appreciate the value of decolonisation, it is imperative that an understanding of colonisation is first sought. As eloquently captured by several decolonial scholars, the meaning and impact of colonisation goes beyond the physical act of building colonies and dispossession/invasion; it incorporates an internalised process of valorisation of the coloniser’s culture and the denigration of the colonised culture (Hart, 2002:85; Laenui, 2007:357; Matsuaka, 2007:35). Furthermore, internalised colonisation occurs when negative racial attributes and expectations (common tactics of colonisation as discussed above), form a person’s belief about themselves and can result in negative self-image, and self-harming behavior (Laenui, 2007:357). The researcher re-asserts Laenui’s (2007:357) definition of colonization, which talks about both the physical act of colonization as well as internalized colonization which occur when negative racial attributes and expectations form part of a persons’ belief about themselves and resulting in negative self-image and self-harming behavior. Thus, coloniality in essence denotes the long standing power patterns that originate from colonization and that are now exercised in the absence of the colonial administration (Maldonado-Torres, 2007:243). Maldonado-Torres (2007:243) distinguishes between three forms of coloniality, that is coloniality of power, coloniality of knowledge and coloniality of being. Simply put, coloniality refers to the imperial/colonial organization of societies. Tlostanova and Mignolo (2009:132) further illuminate the coloniality concept, unearthing important aspects of this concept that have been hidden. They argue that at a conceptual level, coloniality is the hidden side of modernity; it is like the unconscious, the hidden weapon of both the civilizing and developmental mission of modernity (Tlostanova & Mignolo, 2009:132). Therefore, as argued by Maldonado-Torres (2007:243) it is vital to underscore the fact that the long standing power patterns originating from colonisation continue to be exercised even after colonialism has ended. This is to be found in the on-going struggles between the indigenous cultures and the so called hegemonic cultures brought forth by Eurocentrism (Brydon, 2011:157). According to Brydon (2011:157), culture denotes society’s ways of responding to social needs and problems on the one hand. On the other hand, the words knowledge and culture can be readily interchanged and taken to mean the same (Huggins, Macklin, & Glendinning, 2008:22). Thus, culture refers to both the societal

response to social needs and problems as outlined by Brydon (2011:157) and as a knowledge system as defined by Huggins et al. (2008:22). Hence, one of the key tools used by colonialists against their colonized victims was the destruction of indigenous cultures and their replacement with hegemonic Eurocentric cultures. It is against this backdrop that the researcher argues that post-colonial contexts need to undergo a process of decolonization in order to address the challenges of coloniality.

Decolonisation is a critical analysis of western informed ideological frameworks, and while it is able to link to, and find commonalities with, the left and/or right political ideologies, the primary focus remains on deconstructing and challenging the ideology of colonisation (Hart, 2007:84; Laenui, 2007:357). Decolonisation calls for “grounding

our theories, anchoring them, on the reflections non-academics make about social life as they live it, and elaborating theory with them instead of about them. The struggle for decolonizing knowledge needs to go beyond developing research projects from and with the historically marginalized to actually elaborate theory based on the reflections people make about social life...” (Reyes-Cruz, 2008:656). Decoloniality refers to the

decolonization of knowledge and being by epistemically and affectively de-linking from the imperial/colonial organization of society (Tlostanova & Mignolo, 2009:132). Thus, on the strength of the above arguments, the researcher maintains that decolonisation as a process should precede indigenisation in social work. Once the profession and academic discipline of social work in Africa has been decolonised, a truly African indigenous social work epistemology with potential for a meaningful contribution to the international social work body of knowledge will emerge. African social work scholarship would be able to create its own relevance instead of finding relevance in the current Eurocentric and hegemonic knowledge base of social work. The researcher recognises that, the significant difference between seeking and creating relevance is that the latter is one of agency and instrumentality by using the instruments around one to develop a sympathetic portfolio of circumstances to suit one’s desires. The former is merely a hope-laden and opportunistic quest that might not necessarily yield the desired ‘set’ of outcomes. Therefore, decolonization becomes a means towards creating own relevance, without which the social work profession is likely to be compelled by default to seek relevance.

Following the discussion of the concepts of colonization vis-a-vis coloniality and decolonization vis-a-vis decoloniality, the researcher now moves to discuss the

process of colonization, decolonization and indigenisation as conceptualized by various scholars. The five stages of colonisation, and decolonisation are conceptualized and explained by an Australian scholar by the name of Laenui (2007:357). The five stages of colonization and decolonization are a useful and succinct way of understanding the past and providing inspiration for a path for the future (Laenui, 2007:357), while the process of indigenization as conceptualized by Asian scholars Cheung and Liu (2004:58) and Yip (2005:596) is presented at the end.

 The process of colonization Stage 1. Denial and Withdrawal:

According to Laenui (2007:358) at this first stage, colonisers deny indigenous peoples’ culture and moral values. An example of Australia’s case is given where indigenous peoples’ humanity was denied and withdrawn in the process of colonisation. The researcher observed that a similar experience was witnessed by South Africans when colonial settlers arrived in Africa. The African people were reduced to inferior sub- humans. According to Sithole (2016a:25), given the lived experiences of black subjects under the bane of colonisers, the existential condition of black people should be engaged from the ‘ontological zero point’ which means that they should be understood from their lived experiences and their form of living that is reduced to non-existent (lack of ontological density). This in the researcher’s view speaks to the first stage of denial and withdrawal in the colonisation process.

Stage 2. Destruction/Eradication:

At this stage, the destruction of culture, social systems is witnessed by the colonized in the hands of the colonisers. The case of Australia described by Laenui (2007:358) shows how this stage ushered mass murders, massacres, eugenic breeding programs aimed at assimilation/absorption and forced removal. Similarly, in South Africa black people witnessed a prolonged period of mass genocides and dispossession of African natives of their land and livestocks. As argued by Sithole (2016b:182), black people in Africa are amongst the inhabitants of the world whose cultural and spiritual power has been destroyed (epistemicides). In his lamentation of colonialism, Biko (1978/2004:31) quotes Fanon’s reflections on colonial destruction and eradication of black history on the occasion of intimating that:

…in an effort to destroy completely the structures that had been built up in the African society and to impose their imperialism with an unnerving totality, the colonialists were not satisfied merely with holding people in their grip and emptying the Native’s brain of all form and content, they turned to the past of the oppressed people and distorted, disfigured and destroyed it. No longer was reference made to African culture, it became barbarism. Africa was the ‘dark continent’. Religious practices and customs were referred to as superstition. The history of African society was reduced to tribal battles and internecine wars.

Stage 3. Denigration/Belittlement/Insult:

Indigenous culture, languages, practices, knowledge and beliefs are denigrated and rendered invisible and valueless and, in some instances, outlawed. These are replaced by the coloniser’s model. In the African context, Sithole (2016b:182) argued that black people in Africa represented those whose life was dehumanised, inferiorised and racialized. Similarly, Asante (2006:647) observes that African people were denigrated to holding up the margins of the American and European’s world. As a result, he used Afrocentricity as a theoretical perspective and philosophy in order to convey the profound need for African people to be re-located historically, economically, socially, politically, and philosophically from holding up the margins of the American and European’s world. This re-location, according to Asante (2006:647), would ensure that Africans freed their minds and shifted from being decentered to being centered on African cultural heritage. It is interesting that Biko (1978/2004:22) describes the denigration process as the bastardisation of Africans and their cultural heritage by colonisers reducing a long history of African life into barbarism. With this in mind, Biko (1978/2004:22) laments that black Africans suffer from inferiority complex as a result of 300 years of deliberate oppression, denigration and derision which make them useless as co-architects of a normal society. It is on the basis of the above assertion that Biko alluded to the necessity as a prelude to anything else that may come of a very strong grass-roots build-up of what he termed ‘black consciousness’, so that blacks can learn to assert themselves and stake their rightful claim. All of the above assertions attest to the fact that Africans too were denigrated/belittled/insulted as part of the colonization process.

In this stage, the remains of the surviving culture are given token regard. According to Laenui (2007:359), this stage creates the ‘noble savage’ concept and others’ definition of what constitutes a ‘real’ indigenous person. Consequently, Biko (1978/2014:21) expresses his strong distaste for surface accommodation or tokenism as described by Laenui by proclaiming:

The integration they talk about is first of all artificial in that it is a response to conscious manoeuvre rather than to the dictates of the inner soul. In other words the people forming the integrated complex have been extracted from various segregated societies with their inbuilt complexes of superiority and inferiority and these continue to manifest themselves even in the ‘non-racial’ set-up of the integrated complex.